Really interesting post, Jeremy - which I have to say has made me change my mind to some degree. Andreas Kiel made a very similar point recently about how third parties pretty much invisibly helped FCP Legacy become what it was.
The only thing I would say is that it is very clear to say the least that FCPX is a very different more complex beast than Legacy ever was.
To use a car analogy (for a change - we used to get loads of car analogies but now it's all baseball, baseball!), Legacy is like my old Triumph Spitfire that I pretty much took to pieces and rebuilt without being much of a mechanic because the underlying principles were so basic and accessible to a layperson. Conversely, with the modern car where everything is computer-controlled, you can't hope for a non-professional to be able to do anything other than change the windshield washer fluid. Everything else requires you to go back to the dealership where they have the specialized tools and knowledge.
Legacy was fundamentally fairly simple and legacy XML made it relatively easy for third parties to build robust solutions. By contrast, FCPX is massively different to anything we have seen before and FCPXML seemingly still needs a lot of work. There is clear evidence that third parties are struggling, especially in the area of writing translators.
Phil Hodgetts I think said that writing the 7oX translator was like translating from English to Spanish via Mandarin, or something like that. That's what's of concern to me here. The levels of complexity are many orders higher than developers have been used to in the past and I think the ride is going to be rough for some time to come, at least in terms of translators.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com
