Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do

Walter,

I understand your point, but I think you're defining it too narrowly.

You say "All FCP users must either continue work on EOL software, or migrate to another platform (be it Avid, FCPX, Premiere Pro, or something else entirely)." and that is certainly ONE way to interpret it.

Another equally valid view is to say "All FCP users must make the choice to continue using traditional editing paradigms as represented by Avid, FCP-Legacy, Premier Pro, or something else entirely, or accept that to move into a world where superior data flexibility and new capabilities NOT POSSIBLE under legacy software architecture is finally possible, they must accept that they will lose current capabilities as they adapt to the new architecture."

Your statement is true. So is mine. The perspective shift is the ENTIRE argument here, IMO.

The core is that people are miffed (some incensed!) that Apple has changed direction. The real question is whether the team behind FCP-X is right or wrong in thinking that making such a FUNDAMENTAL architectural change will be a better bet than merely building more rooms on the old mansion.

Sometimes remodeling is smart (as Avid, PP and Vegas continue to do. Sometimes people with a nice piece of property decide that the old house is getting long in the tooth and a scrape is required.

I don't think this is anything more than that - with the attendant hue and cry of those who had come to like the old design, very, VERY much - albiet after years and years of repair, remodeling and patchwork.


As to your second point, I couldn't agree with you more.

Well said.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Conner