Re: AFTER NAB thoughts regarding Final Cut

Hardware acceleration doesn't make sense? Really?
The new Nitris DX looks more promising to me for instant videos, i.e., effects on multiple layers no waiting. Throw a few effects on the old FCP timeline and it can't render 3 layers of DV quickly much less play it back in realtime. If you and your clients are used to Final Cut Pro rendering then I'd guess acceleration isn't high on your priority list. But if you and your clients are used to AVID playback and rendering, then your priorities are probably different.
If you could play your motion project back in realtime without rendering a few layers, what would that be worth to you over the course of a few years?
Isn't AJA using hardware acceleration in their new IO box?
Or how about the very high end Redbox
http://www.pixellexis.com/
Hardware acceleration must make sense for at least somebody.
This is America. We don't like to wait. We want it now. Hardware acceleration gives immediate feedback in the creative process which is invaluable. It's not all about economy, but it's about art as well.

more thoughts....

Furthermore, the other posters are probably right about Apple seeming to be unresponsive to foundational issues regarding media management and studio programs interoperability issues after upgrading Apple software. At last year's NAB the Apple rep (from Apple) denied there were any media management problems. So where do you go when there are issues and the manufacturer says there are not? When that filter doesn't work or that codec spits out anomalies? Efficacy affects my blood pressure, too.

The cumulative software costs for FCP over the last four years have approached or exceeded the costs of a new Media Composer today. The amount of time I've spent troubleshooting software issues with FCP and Apple OS over that time has been enormous. I can't underestimate the heartache. The computer costs are the same today. But Media Composer offers hardware acceleration as well. I'm buying a new computer and analyzing the cost/benefit of each editing solution. Adobe CS is a must either way. Encore offers a Blu-Ray solution which seems to be a growth opportunity. FCS's DVDSP hasn't been able to keep up with Adobe and others even though they say they have 1 million plus users. AVID seems to handle the P2 thing a bit more easily than FCP does. Time is money. The economies of 2004 for FCP don't seem comparable to those of 2008 and they deserve re-evaluating. There are more quality freelance AVID editors here than quality FCP editors. Apple's absence from NAB without any apparent software fanfare seems to bolster the rumor they're going to unload their proApps division. If so, do you invest in FCP today? Ahh, I hear the outrage over such blasphemy, but I'm not speaking to the religious.