[Craig Seeman] "
i think one of the problems, as I see it, in the language used in the forum, is whether "Pros" are "important" but I think the better question is whether "Pros" (broadcast and feature film) represent a profitable margin and what Apple might do, in anything, to make it profitable (increase margins).
"
lets posit another definition of professional and apply it to FCPX.
Say I am a professional editor (very much maybe), which is simply to say that it is the declared manner in which I earn my living, it doesn't mean I'm cutting Jim Cameron, it simply means I put food on the table by providing editing services. - I may meet multiple unknown scenarios, involving online, broadcast, corporate, or otherwise.
I may be required to operate solely, or in conjunction with others, the software may be in my hands or provided to me freelance by the production company.
The software needs to be, as professional software, applicable to these multiple scenarios right? It needs to be a shared container for their needs and mine. It needs to encompass multiple use scenarios. This engenders complexity, because it has to be open. As in a blanket which, when you throw it down, covers an acceptable portion of the total editing market - otherwise why term it an editing solution?
With regard to Apple's actions and motivations here in developing FCPX - as they looked at that whole existing universe of editing in practise, and potential client demand, is there any serious argument that they chose instead to construct an approachable enhancement to iMovie? They share methodology, concepts, events, the playdo draggable selections, the near identical basic GUI - the lot.
Apple's goal with this software - which I've already said oodles of times before - was specifically, and with direct intent - to monetise the iMovie user market. They had no broad complex ten year intentions with this software. I find that stuff really funny. they had a very simple motivation: to monetise iMovie users. They produced software directly born out of, and adhering strictly to, iMovie conventions and logic. Gone is the source window, gone is three way colour correction, hello to iMovie and iPhoto events, goodbye to all industry standard norms such as tracks and selectable edit targets.
these were not actions taken to boldly drive editing forward, these were actions taken to produce a piece of software attractive and recognisable to the casual iMovie user.
now you can argue that Apple is somehow fostering the middle future or whatever, but in simple terms, they are monetising the imovie market. they are (if at all) seeing future editors in terms of their own casual current imovie users. And, frankly, they may not really care, as long as they get three hundred dollars out of them right now. that's an ipod every time. with no parts or shipping. Let them learn Avid later.
Apple consciously used the defunct and recognisable FCP marque as a come hither to provide a monetisable software draw to the imovie customer base within their consumer ecosystem. That is why the software was created. To be sold in the appstore, to enthusiast consumers.
So then say that is how Apple view the professional editing market - if its not growing slowly out of iMovie, they could not care less about it. the market will not re-configure to this software, indeed it is being rejected en masse, and apple has no intention of re-configuring a product specifically designed for imovie graduates into the kind of software required for broad professional market use. Some of us may delve in - fine they're fine with that - we are not their bread. their bread is the monetisable consumer. They see editing as something else in their terms - and the complexity required of a professional product does not match their market.
there will be sops - sure - they'll code in bits and pieces to allow for a plausible paradigm, god knows what multi-cam will look like (an audition carousel?) but - this will never be other than what it is: a strong revenue generator in the appstore. Nice, direct download, import your imovie projects. Just as it was intended.
If they care about professionals it is only to the extent that they might foster them directly from their direct to consumer enthusiast software.
FCPX is (come on please) never going anywhere in the editing market as we understand it and apple is completely fine with that. They'll be vaguely nice about it, drop the odd sop to the pro every half year or so, but this software is an explicit monetisation of the imovie user market - that is a large succulent market. that is the market for this software.
Apple could care less about the current requirements of editing, and that is not changing anytime soon.
that half a million on the appstore is... 85% imovie graduates?
ok, sure lets argue about the 85% figure then - but do you think Apple had any other number in mind?
do you think Apple feel desperate now? as they read this forum?
do they now feel market driven to provide multi-cam (they'll throw out something), licensed OMF or designatable tracks?
what would be their impetus?
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
