Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US :: FAQ
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
APPLE FINAL CUT PRO:HomeFCP ForumFCP XFCPX TechniquesFCP TutorialsFC ServerBasics ForumPodcastFAQ

Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed

COW Forums : Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook
Christian SchumacherFinal Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:25:20 am













Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

tony westRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 3:09:51 pm

I'm glad you posted these. What's interesting in the X ad is the choice of source material.

They could have used any car (a Chevy perhaps) but they picked a $196,000 R8
Why not kids playing soccer if that's what it's for?
If you look at the Imovie ads that's exactly what they do have as source.

It's clear to me from that ad they want the pro market with this, unless they think average people are driving around an R8

The 7 ad is pretty interesting also. The part when the guy is bragging about being totally tapeless.
They were foreshadowing tapeless in their ads back then.

The 7 ad used top end folks because Legacy had been around long enough to have them.
X is brand new so they had to introduce the product in the ad.

The R8 was meant to rep the high end user in the future (spot for that type of car or auto racing coverage)


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Joseph W. BourkeRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 5:11:26 pm

Let me preface this by saying that I'm a PC user, having worked on A/B roll analog (1 inch) systems, CMX, Edit*, AVID, and now Premiere Pro CS5, which I've been working with for several years.

While it was very interesting to see the "old" promo, and why FCP Studio became the juggernaut it is, I have to say that I liked a lot of the features I saw in the FCPX promo. For short form stuff like commercials, promos, and broadcast pieces, not to mention news packages, I could see this version speeding up the process immensely.

I've followed this forum out of interest, not need, so I'm aware of the many shortcomings of FCPX, but it looks to me as if FCPX could, or should, be just another tool in the arsenal of capabilities, depending on the project. It's not a heavy-hitter, but for the price, it's an inexpensive tool.

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


TImothy AuldRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 5:23:22 pm

I think you're right. If they work the bugs out I can see it becoming very useful for short form, quick turn around work. Sadly, that's not a big portion on what I do.

Tim


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bret WilliamsRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 5:24:53 pm

As for a tool, I can see it right now. For example, I recently finished a 10 video project where it was a lot on on camera, green screened host, with lots of typography, etc going on. All the hosts were different and shot at different time/places by different people on different gear. Needless to say they were all different settings. In fact I used different plugins or software for each. Some FCP's Keyer. Some looked best with primatte Others had to use key light in AFter Effects.

So I recently downloaded the demo of X and threw the key effect on these clips. They keyed perfectly with little adjustment neccessary if any. Plus they rendered very quick and played back in real time before rendered. Very important for green screen software because it might look good as a still, but in playback can always have a strange edge or area that just doesn't key right, etc.

So with another green screen project coming up, I may just take it into the field on a laptop to check keys during the shoot. If they had an iPad version., hmmm.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Christian SchumacherRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 7:37:22 pm

FCPX as product has a perceived value for each customer, as it varies.
One may find it useful and worthy and that's indisputable, of course.
I'd be surprised if an Apple product would be useless right out of the gate.
And even though X is a rewrite, it still is the editing software named FCP.

Now, if one takes them for what they are, these ads show a clear shift in the FCP's market targeting.
In the Studio package there were robust developments built over time to cater to high end and long form.
They used to show off lots of intertwined products as they were building that powerful yet simple workflow.

In the brand new X, despite all novelty and the wonders of 64 bits, there's a simplifying effort, instead.
They are making it very clear that its past environment Apple have provided won't be there anymore.
Their goal now is both to clear FCP up and shave off their product line, thus catering to a broader audience.

Do you all agree or disagree with this? Keep your inputs coming, please.
This debating is extremely helpful to our industry.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Christian SchumacherRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 7:43:50 pm

In a nutshell:
I feel they took their simplfying trend way too far.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 7:41:12 pm

Anecdotal but I've heard from a number of Vegas, Edius and other Windows Platform Only NLE users who would never consider FCS, looking at FCPX and finding it interesting. Of course buying it would mean they'd need to buy a Mac and I wouldn't be surprised if Apple was thinking about that.

There's no way I can prove this theory but I think one (of several) factors in Apple's switch from FCS to FCPX is that they may have felt FCS might only maintain and not expand Mac sales. To state it another way, would FCS start attract more Avid or Adobe Windows users that hadn't already moved? While FCPX may not either it might bring over those using other Windows NLEs.

If you keep in mind that Apple is primarily a hardware company, those jumping to Avid or Adobe on Mac isn't much of a lose. Obviously those jumping to Windows would be but that's only a subset. Apple is looking to expand Mac CPU sales.

BTW this even feeds into what I think will replace the MacPro as well. They have to offer something attractive to Windows users that wouldn't consider all-in-one iMacs as an NLE host. It has to have a lower priced entry point than the MacPro but it has to be expandable.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 8:13:11 pm

[Craig Seeman] " To state it another way, would FCS start attract more Avid or Adobe Windows users that hadn't already moved? While FCPX may not either it might bring over those using other Windows NLEs."

Let me see if I get this right - Apple's strategy is to drive away high end users, a percentage of which can afford and will switch to PC computers, for low end PC users who, even if they wanted to switch programs, for the most part can't afford to switch platforms.

The minor PC editing world is pretty small - I doubt that the total number of Edius and Vegas users combined will equal the number of seats FCPX is driving away. Somehow I don't think the math holds up.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Bret WilliamsRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 8:30:34 pm

In either case, I'm predicting a Xeon box with little if any expansion capability. Think Cube 2.0. A MacMini Pro of sorts with all the faster busses of the Mac Pro, ECC ram, Xeon processors- but without the internal drive bays, internal burner, and PCIe. The writing is pretty much on the wall that Steve was into appliances. His baby the cube was too expensive but he was very proud of it.

I need to get something this year for a project and the writeoff. My 2.0 ghz MacPro 1,1 is beat. I'm looking at the maxed out 3.4 ghz i7 IMac and a thunderbolt raid as a stop gap measure until we find out what's up. I can always sell it if Apple comes out with a thunderbolt Xeon box cube mini pro thing soon.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 8:48:00 pm

[Bret Williams] "but without the internal drive bays, internal burner, and PCIe"

I think you're pretty close. I do think there may be PCIe slot with GPU that might be upgradable and one additional PCIe slot. Some things Thunderbolt can't yet replace.

[Bret Williams] "I need to get something this year for a project and the writeoff. My 2.0 ghz MacPro 1,1 is beat. I'm looking at the maxed out 3.4 ghz i7 IMac and a thunderbolt raid as a stop gap measure until we find out what's up. I can always sell it if Apple comes out with a thunderbolt Xeon box cube mini pro thing soon."

I thin a lot of us are in that situation. This is another Apple problem unfortunately although it's related to Intel's schedule for the new CPUs and motherboards. This may well be why some people may jump to Windows as its time to spend money for many companies and they have nothing from Apple to buy.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Robert BrownRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 11:00:35 pm

[Bret Williams] "In either case, I'm predicting a Xeon box with little if any expansion capability. Think Cube 2.0. A MacMini Pro of sorts with all the faster busses of the Mac Pro, ECC ram, Xeon processors- but without the internal drive bays, internal burner, and PCIe. "

Yeah I think that's the whole point with Thunderbolt, to go in the direction of modular systems with stuff on the outside instead of the inside. I would be more inclined to believe that Apple would want to develop smaller portable computers that you could take with you, and then bring them to the office an just plug them into monitors, keyboards and storage. This makes me wonder if they will ever visit the cube again or just move in the direction of a super ipad that has the power of a MBP when plugged into TB devices, but that acts just like a regular ipad when unplugged. That would be my guess.

Robert Brown
Editor/VFX/Colorist - FCP, Smoke, Quantel Pablo, After Effects, 3DS MAX, Premiere Pro

http://vimeo.com/user3987510/videos


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 8:43:53 pm

I make no claim that FCPX has met Apple's goal. I do think their intent is to gain PC switchers.

I do think within the next couple of FCPX updates they will gain some momentum, but that remains to be seen.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 9:29:04 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I do think their intent is to gain PC switchers. "

I could see it if you said that their strategy was to gain non-editors and first time users, along with those wishing to upgrade from semi pro apps like FCP Express and Imovie, but what in FCPX's feature set makes it desirable for Edius and Vegas users? Certainly not speed or tapeless workflow, where Edius beats the pants off anything Apple offers. Do you really think the magnetic timeline is such a huge selling point for X?

If Apple really wanted to gain PC switchers the first thing they would do would be to add access to all the GFX cards that keep Adobe users committed to thier PC's.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 11:19:56 pm

[Herb Sevush] "what in FCPX's feature set makes it desirable for Edius and Vegas users?"

I don't know, but I've seen a number of those posts in other forums (non COW). As I said anecdotal.

[Herb Sevush] "Do you really think the magnetic timeline is such a huge selling point for X?"

It's not what I think. It's what I've seen posted. In fact those responses surprised me.

[Herb Sevush] "the first thing they would do would be to add access to all the GFX cards that keep Adobe users committed to thier PC's."

I'm hearing rumors around nVidia and MBAir and MBP but we'll have to wait until next year for the next refresh.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Aindreas GallagherRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 9:53:56 pm

[Craig Seeman] " I do think their intent is to gain PC switchers."

wait - hang on - what was that?

Apple's intent with FCPX, was to gain PC users?

they built a souped up iMovie to attract PC users?

As opposed to the goal of monetising the iMovie users they have?

how exactly does that work?

One gigantic group of consumer enthusiasts is sitting there looking at the appstore - they like iMovie, they feel a little constricted, so they pop out the credit card and hey presto. Apple sold an ipod with no parts and shipping.

The other group has to ditch the PC, the software, go out and buy a Mac set it up, and then buy a piece of software explicitly based on software they don't know - iMovie.

FCPX was designed and coded for people familiar with iMovie. It is a monetisation of that casual enthusiast iMovie user market - this explanation has the virtue of being the simplest. Old Occam and all that stuff..


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 11:36:03 pm

Apple sells hardware. The R&D in FCPX just to move iMovie users doesn't match a hardware company's business model. Apple is fundamentally NOT a software company.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 12:19:01 am

[Craig Seeman] "Apple sells hardware. The R&D in FCPX just to move iMovie users doesn't match a hardware company's business model. Apple is fundamentally NOT a software company."

That may have been true at one point. But iTunes? I know it was started to push the iPod, but compare sales over the last few years and tell me which is a bigger part of Apple, the pods or the tunes? And then, on this model comes the Ap store. I don't think the above statement has been true for quite a while.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 12:58:22 am

[Chris Harlan] "That may have been true at one point. But iTunes?"

iTunes isn't that profitable. It's relatively small. iTunes sells iPods and now iPhones and iPads. It's actually key when you consider some of the top Android phones otherwise beat iOS and specs.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David Roth WeissRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 1:05:55 am

[Craig Seeman] "iTunes isn't that profitable. It's relatively small."

What? The sale of music on iTunes isn't that profitable? That was the case, once... But that has changed, at least it had as of Spring 2011 according the article at the link below.

http://www.edibleapple.com/2011/04/21/itunes-delivers-record-breaking-14-bi...

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 1:14:18 am

I heard the costs were steep relative to income given server, bandwidth, contracts for artists, payouts, etc. The article mentions they're not privy to costs.

"brink of . . . decent" They seem to be caution in their language. I heard the cost are very high.

While we’re not privy to the cost of running the iTunes Store, and hence unable to extract the profitability of iTunes for Apple, record revenue of $1.4 billion suggests that iTunes may be on the brink of becoming a decent source of revenue for Apple.

Also I'd consider this more of a service than Apple as software company. It's not like FCPX, Logic, Aperture are cash cows. They aren't from what I've heard.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Aindreas GallagherRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 10:41:29 pm

ah seriously craig -

sure let's count them:

[Craig Seeman] "I heard the costs were steep relative to income given server, bandwidth, contracts for artists, payouts, etc."

[Craig Seeman] " I heard the cost are very high."

[Craig Seeman] " It's not like FCPX, Logic, Aperture are cash cows. They aren't from what I've heard."


you alone on this forum are privately hearing all these things from Apple loud and clear - how are you hearing these things that underpin your specific argument that a simple prosumer appstore rejig of imovie for a simple pay day doesn't pay?

Craig. Come on.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 11:22:27 pm

I believe the data centers Apple keeps building to host and distribute all this are huge capital investments and there are rumors that they're looking to build another.

Just as Google gives Android OS away free as an ad revenue vehicle, Apple is building out a very expensive backbone because it's integral to their selling hardware from the glory days of iPods, to iPhones and iPads.

I do think the growth of iTunes has made their back end sustainable but I don't think it is, in itself, a primary income generator. It moves commoditized hardware. That's its intent.

If Apple were a software company than FCS with over two million sold would NOT have been killed. It did not serve Apple as a vehicle to grow hardware sales.

If video editing is the new language than iMovie is the Word Processor and FCPX is the Desktop Publishing tool and they hope that one would buy a Mac to run it on. Apple is looking for ways to sell Macs like they sell iPhones and iPads.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 11:24:47 pm

what?


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 12:44:45 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "what?"

What I said. That's what I think it is. ;->



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 12:52:43 am

You may think it craig, but bud, really?

you are still amazingly hearing all this apple hush hush *argument supporting* stuff... :)

oh craig.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 5:27:07 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "you are still amazingly hearing all this apple hush hush *argument supporting* stuff."

Analyzing business models is analysis not "hearing."
You may not like my analysis but I do base it on the dots I see and connect and certainly others may see differently.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris HarlanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 3:32:52 am

[Craig Seeman] "iTunes isn't that profitable. It's relatively small. iTunes sells iPods and now iPhones and iPads. It's actually key when you consider some of the top Android phones otherwise beat iOS and specs.
"


1.5 billion in revenue for 2011. 6% of Apple's total revenue in 2011. Only 1% less than iPod sales. Mac sales are only 20% of this year's revenue. Desktop Macs make up less than 30% of the Mac sales total, so iTunes sales revenue is in the general neighborhood of desktop sales as well.

From my POV, you have a strange notion of profitable.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/18/apple-records-q4-2011-earnings-of-6-6b-...
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/31/apple-questioning-the-future-of-its-mac...


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 3:49:05 am

That revenue is before costs and payouts as I understand it. Gross Revenue, not Net.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 4:42:54 am

[Craig Seeman] "That revenue is before costs and payouts as I understand it. Gross Revenue, not Net.
"


No. If you look at the 2011 summery I sent you, you will find the following line:

- iTunes Store generated 1.5 billion in revenue, new record. 16 billion songs, 650 million tv shows downloaded. Pleased with 180 million sales on iBookstore.


Clearly, with these numbers, it is not gross. That number would be around 17.5/18 billion, not including books, which I can't easily figure. Notice also that Apps are not part of these numbers.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 4:45:47 am

http://www.edibleapple.com/2011/04/21/itunes-delivers-record-breaking-14-bi...



While we’re not privy to the cost of running the iTunes Store, and hence unable to extract the profitability of iTunes for Apple, record revenue of $1.4 billion suggests that iTunes may be on the brink of becoming a decent source of revenue for Apple.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 4:52:24 am

[Craig Seeman] "http://www.edibleapple.com/2011/04/21/itunes-delivers-record-breaking-14-bi...


While we’re not privy to the cost of running the iTunes Store, and hence unable to extract the profitability of iTunes for Apple, record revenue of $1.4 billion suggests that iTunes may be on the brink of becoming a decent source of revenue for Apple.

"



I guess if the blogger had looked a little more closely at the report summery he might have felt a bit more "privy."


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Post removed.


Chris HarlanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 9:38:45 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Craig Seeman] "That revenue is before costs and payouts as I understand it. Gross Revenue, not Net.
"

No. If you look at the 2011 summery I sent you, you will find the following line:

- iTunes Store generated 1.5 billion in revenue, new record. 16 billion songs, 650 million tv shows downloaded. Pleased with 180 million sales on iBookstore.


Clearly, with these numbers, it is not gross. That number would be around 17.5/18 billion, not including books, which I can't easily figure. Notice also that Apps are not part of these numbers.
"


Okay, fool. You took this too far. Clearly, you were processing facts incorrectly and you owe Craig an apology. Now, man up and do it.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 9:39:06 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Okay, fool. You took this too far. Clearly, you were processing facts incorrectly and you owe Craig an apology. Now, man up and do it.
"


Okay. Craig, I probably incorrectly inturpreted facts from the MacRumors site and presented them in a haughty manner.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 9:53:19 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Apple sells hardware. The R&D in FCPX just to move iMovie users doesn't match a hardware company's business model. Apple is fundamentally NOT a software company."


Craig,


I agree fundamentally they've modeled themselves as a gadget company after Sony.

I also agree that itunes is service not software model; this seems like a growing direction for Apple.

On the other hand, I always keep in mind their boast of 2 million licenses for FCP. If we assume some paid 1500.00, others less, and some around 300.00 for Xpress, we could get an average somewhere around 1000.00 per license times 2 million.

Either I have wildly low estimates of what they spend on software design and acquisition, or FCP was wildly profitable for Apple.


Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 11:31:56 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "On the other hand, I always keep in mind their boast of 2 million licenses for FCP. If we assume some paid 1500.00, others less, and some around 300.00 for Xpress, we could get an average somewhere around 1000.00 per license times 2 million.

Either I have wildly low estimates of what they spend on software design and acquisition, or FCP was wildly profitable for Apple.
"


(quoting another post I just made)
If Apple were a software company than FCS with over two million sold would NOT have been killed. It did not serve Apple as a vehicle to grow hardware sales.

If video editing is the new language than iMovie is the Word Processor and FCPX is the Desktop Publishing tool and they hope that one would buy a Mac to run it on. Apple is looking for ways to sell Macs like they sell iPhones and iPads.

That FCPX demands more of CPU/GPU will feed into this. They want to drive people into upgrading their computers every couple of years that they do their iPhones. To do that their computers must be commodities as well.

Apple seems to want to control content, content creation, distribution to hook one into an ecosystem that drives hardware sales with frequent end user hardware replacement.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 11:39:23 pm

craig, I'm feeling bad here, but you are copying and pasting there.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 12:46:23 am

I think my comments are related to both.
The denser this forum gets the more crossover in discussion I see.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Franz BieberkopfRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 11:47:42 pm

Craig,


I suppose this line of reasoned speculation is as plausible as any other:

Apple have been making money with FCP, just not the right kind of money.

Anyway, it really doesn't paint a pretty picture as a company I want to rely on as an editor or active creative person.

The dismal greed that was apparent in Avid as company (slightly tempered of late) was what largely drove me away from them.

Are options dwindling or proliferating? Hard to tell sometimes. The next year should be interesting ...


Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 1:03:39 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Are options dwindling or proliferating? Hard to tell sometimes. The next year should be interesting ..."

I agree and I think Apple is at the root of the uncertainty. FCS was the "safe" all encompassing suite even if each component had a better competitor out there.

Now some are looking at Avid, a company that's been losing money for 5 years and which Media Composer market growth isn't going to sustain it based on their current business model (or lack of one).

Others are looking at Adobe in a space (NLE) in which they've been an also ran with preferences running to FCP or Avid for various feature sets.

Those looking at Apple have seen it go from the security blanket to wild card. Even if they end up with something viable (as I think they well) that security blanket is surely gone.

Basically the "A" are all heading into new space, each with some risks.

On the hardware side we've seen HP hem and haw on desktops (including workstations) and Apple's big MacPro question mark.

We might throw Windows 8 into the mix as well as they seem to be following some aspects of Apple's Lion OS progression.

I can't recall every seeing so much change and uncertainty in such a short period.

Interestingly the only other mass reaction and worry I personally recall was when Avid seemingly announced they were no longer going to develop on the Mac . . . when I believe the majority of their NLEs in the field were on Macs . . . and they recanted . . . and FCP grew in market share . . . and some years later Adobe's NLE returned to the Mac . . . and all was right with the post world . . . for awhile.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed Again and Again
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 1:23:20 am

[Craig Seeman] "... Avid, a company that's been losing money for 5 years ..."

Craig, I've seen you (and others) refer to this before. Do you have a reference? (Obviously, I've read about the recent layoffs.)

[Craig Seeman] "On the hardware side we've seen HP hem and haw on desktops (including workstations) ..."

That does raise an eyebrow. On the other hand I think it has to be balanced with figures like this:

http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/13/microsoft-sold-450-million-copies-of-windo...

Numbers like that point to a healthy PC market (workstations, as a subset, notwithstanding).

450 Million Potential Editors?


Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed Again and Again
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 4:37:06 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Craig, I've seen you (and others) refer to this before. Do you have a reference? (Obviously, I've read about the recent layoffs.)"

Does The "A" In Avid Stand For Avoid?
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/05/20/does-the-a-in-avid-stand-f...
with its cash pile draining down from $225 million in 2007 to $33 million today

Avid Announces Restructuring, Lays off 10% of Workforce
http://www.sonicscoop.com/2011/10/27/avid-announces-restructuring-lays-off-...
The Continually Shrinking Avid
...
This is a corporation that laid off 120 people in 2010, and 410 employees the year before that – 15% of its staff at the time. It was all a part of five rounds of Avid layoffs that took place between 2006-2009 alone, and a reflection of the company’s overall declining financial health.


http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/01/why-are-we-all-worried-apple-will-aba...
For example, Avid will be cutting jobs and closing facilities in the first half of this year. This follows layoffs of 200 in 1999, 129 people in 2007, and 410 people (15%) in 2008/09.

Loses 2008-2010
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AVID&annual
Dec 31, 2010 (36,954)
Dec 31, 2009 (68,355)
Dec 31, 2008 (198,177)


Losses quarterly through Sep 2011
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=avid
Sep 30, 2011 (8,019)
Jun 30, 2011 (11,862)
Mar 31, 2011 (5,117)
Dec 31, 2010 (571)


http://www.benzinga.com/analyst-ratings/analyst-color/11/10/2022060/update-...

Avid benefited from Apple's ill-received Final Cut Pro X on a unit basis, but still came in below our estimate in the Pro Video segment due to the reduced pricing it offered ex-Final Cut users (Video revenue was $98.4m vs. our model at $102m). The company announced a 10% cut in headcount as it continues to try to right-size its operating model in what seems like a continuous 'transition phase.' We are reiterating our Neutral rating and lowering our target from $19 to $9."

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=avid
Profit Margin (ttm): -3.72%
Operating Cash Flow (ttm): -5.67M

Many articles, many different ways to show financial problems, several years running and still not looking good.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed Again and Again
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 4:16:36 pm

Craig,

Thanks for this. Good info.

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 6:36:03 am

[Craig Seeman] "Apple is looking for ways to sell Macs like they sell iPhones and iPads."

Do you really think they will ever sell computers the way they are currently selling phones and iPads? And, I'm genuinely asking. They are so dominated currently by phones, with pads coming up, that it seems to me that their priorities will--by the sheer force of sales--shift pretty quickly (if it already hasn't), especially now that they are fully embracing Larry Ellison's thin client dream with iCloud. Mobile devices are no longer tethered to individual computer. All they need are access to Apple servers. It seems to me possible that the desktop will be pushed out.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 7:15:27 am

[Chris Harlan] "Do you really think they will ever sell computers the way they are currently selling phones and iPads? And, I'm genuinely asking."

I wish Apple published breakdowns by computer but I hear MacBookAirs are doing very well. I can start digging up links to reports but Apple computer sales are growing much better than the rest of the market.
Apple does not have to sell the same number of computers as iPhones. It's the profitability, the margins that also factor in to the value a computer is to Apple.

MacBook Air supplies almost one-third of Apple notebook sales
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/11/macbook-air-nearly-one-third-of-a...

While Apple still struggles with single digit marketshare globally among all PC vendors, sales of Macs have steadily increased over the last few years. Mac sales have outgrown the overall PC market for 32 consecutive quarters, and grown to 4.89 million units—a 26 percent year-over-year increase—in the most recent September quarter.

MacBook Air sales were hovering at about 8 percent of Apple's notebook sales in June and July, but shot up to 25 percent following the Sandy Bridge update in July

and key
That currently makes the MacBook Air responsible for about 5 percent of Apple's overall revenue—not too bad considering the Airs are also Apple's cheapest notebooks.

Remember how expensive the Air was when it came out? It also seemed more of a design novelty than a useful computer. They learned how to commoditize it (sorry if I'm sounding like a broken record . . .err . . scratched CD . . . err . . . corrupted AAC file).


While this article is over a year old it is interesting.
Apple iMacs Driving WorldWide Desktop Sales Growth
http://otakugadgets.com/desktop-computers/apple-imacs-driving-worldwide-des...
The iMacs have been selling in higher volumes ever since the 21 and the 27inch models came out late laster year in October. In November of the same year, Apple had an increase of 21% in Mac sales which was mostly due to an amazing 74% growth rate for Desktop Macs. During the closing of the last quarter, Apple reported a 57% rise in the desktop sales, which resulted in a 70% year-over-year growth. Now those are impressive figures.

And this recently
http://www.macworld.com/article/163101/2011/10/record_mac_ipad_sales_help_a...

Still, desktop Macs weren’t totally ignored during the quarter. The 1.278 million desktops Apple sold during the fourth quarter represent a company record, Oppenheimer said. Credit for that goes to the iMac, which Apple updated in May.


[Chris Harlan] "It seems to me possible that the desktop will be pushed out."

Just as the original MacBookAir was commoditized to sell, I think we'll see a radical change with the MacPro. An update isn't going to do all that much in the market (IMHO) but a radical change might (or might not). I think Apple has nothing to lose if they gamble on something different. The Cube died the the Mini is apparently viable even if it's not a "leader." I think the MacPro replacement will be just such an experiment.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:28:47 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Remember how expensive the Air was when it came out? It also seemed more of a design novelty than a useful computer. They learned how to commoditize it (sorry if I'm sounding like a broken record . . .err . . scratched CD . . . err . . . corrupted AAC file)."

I don't think Apple learned how to commoditize the Air -- I think that its component costs dropped as more manufacturers began buying them. Didn't the MacBook Air originally ship with a brand new, custom Intel chipset?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:46:02 pm

MacBook Air 2008
http://support.apple.com/kb/SP8

MacBook Air Mid 2011
http://support.apple.com/kb/SP631

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Air

Original 2008 price for 13" MBA $1799 and criticized for its feature compromises including connectivity
Current 13" MBA $1299 or $1599 with the base 11" model down to $999 all include Thunderbolt



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:20:09 pm

[Chris Harlan] "It seems to me possible that the desktop will be pushed out."

Maybe. Certainly someday as miniaturization becomes more powerful, but we aren't there quite yet.

Apple relies on a huge swath of developers to contribute to the AppStores. You can't develop/compile applications on iOS devices. Depending on how complex your application, faster computers mean faster builds.

We are certainly in a transition period, but there's still a market for bigger/fast computers, even outside the video business. Although, it's constantly shrinking.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Christian SchumacherRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:03:38 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " Maybe. Certainly someday as miniaturization becomes more powerful, but we aren't there quite yet."



Judging from Apple's website, maybe this day is not very far away.
Perhaps the Macbook Air could be their only "big computer"?

Notice also, that Apple is heavily investing in its own processor A5.
Isn't that what is gonna be inside the Macbook Air?

http://9to5mac.com/2011/05/27/rumor-apple-has-an-a5-powered-macbook-air-wit...


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 4:10:53 pm

[Christian Schumacher] "Notice also, that Apple is heavily investing in its own processor A5.
Isn't that what is gonna be inside the Macbook Air? "


Can you have Thunderbolt without an intel processor?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Christian SchumacherRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 7:25:39 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " Can you have Thunderbolt without an intel processor?"

Not now, but here's an excerpt from the link I posted before this:

"Should Apple apply some of its deal-making magic to Intel, the next iteration of the A5 processor (let’s call it A6) could marry Intel’s x86 platform to the ARM-based CPU core and Imagination-licensed graphics found in Apple’s chip. Intel could manufacture such a chip using their latest 3D-transistor technology, which is said to enable notable performance improvements without taxing battery. After all, Intel openly suggested it would welcome Apple’s custom silicon business, saying it “wouldn’t blink” if Apple approached them with an idea of doing a product that involves Intel’s architecture and Apple’s customized silicon design. Speculating further, the Apple A6 chip designed and manufactured in co-operation with Intel would take the MacBook Air to the next level of thinness and lightness."


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 4:47:58 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "there's still a market for bigger/fast computers, even outside the video business. Although, it's constantly shrinking.
"


Oh, I agree with that completely. I just sometimes wonder if the new Apple does. I don't know if you remember the thin client vs desktop arguments of the '90s with companies like Oracle championing thin Client and companies like Microsoft and Apple championing Desktop. A lot of us felt that thin client was a bit 1984-like, with Big Brother dolling you out bits of software from a centralized mainframe. Now granted, purchasing apps is not renting software by the minute, which I take as an improvement over the old Oracle model, but iCloud gives me pause.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 5:12:35 pm

[Chris Harlan] " I don't know if you remember the thin client vs desktop arguments of the '90s with companies like Oracle championing thin Client and companies like Microsoft and Apple championing Desktop."

Alas, I don't. Might have been just before my time, as my attention span was not focused on "the industry" back when I was a young buck.

[Chris Harlan] "A lot of us felt that thin client was a bit 1984-like, with Big Brother dolling you out bits of software from a centralized mainframe. Now granted, purchasing apps is not renting software by the minute, which I take as an improvement over the old Oracle model, but iCloud gives me pause."

I was having a discussion with a colleague of mine the other day. He was recently doing some video work at a large corporate conference and was surprised at how beholden we are to technology, and not just what we are already beholden to, but how much we will be in the future. He saw some sort of demo where your smart phone is the virtual key to your car. It doesn't only start it, but it virtually runs the car with directions/GPS, security hardware handshakes, etc. What happens if you lose your phone? Even if I go to buy another one to replace it (which would suck and be expensive), what is the process to load all the new info and how long does that take? How many steps does it involve? Does that mean I have to call my car manufacturer, software manufacturer, insurance company? Or all three?

What does this mean for countries who don't have the tech infrastructure to support this technology?

How convenient is this? It would be nice if I could go home and grab the extra set of keys from a drawer and be on my way. I bought the damn car after all, can't I have access to it whenever I want?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 5:21:31 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "He saw some sort of demo where your smart phone is the virtual key to your car. It doesn't only start it, but it virtually runs the car with directions/GPS, security hardware handshakes, etc. What happens if you lose your phone?"

Cars have been on that road for awhile. 8 years ago i bought a car that, unbeknownst to me, had a "security" key. I found out what that meant when I lost my key and tried to get a replacement. It turns out that the computerized replacement key needs the car as an initiator and I had to have the car towed to a dealer just to get a new key; the key alone cost a few hundred, let alone the towing and the time. I told the dealer I would rather take my chances with getting the car stolen and could he cancel this safety feature so I could use a normal key - the answer was " no dice." I now take great pains to go over the anti-theft features of any new car I get, with the idea that less is more.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 5:29:48 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I told the dealer I would rather take my chances with getting the car stolen and could he cancel this safety feature so I could use a normal key - the answer was " no dice." I now take great pains to go over the anti-theft features of any new car I get, with the idea that less is more."

Yes, now that key is attached to a network. It's not any better.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 6:02:07 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "How convenient is this? I"

True enough. We are all going to end up being run by the marketing devision of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 6:05:07 pm

[Chris Harlan] "True enough. We are all going to end up being run by the marketing devision of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation."

Yeah. It's a little weird.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 1:57:35 am

[Craig Seeman] " I do think their intent is to gain PC switchers.""

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Apple's intent with FCPX, was to gain PC users? they built a souped up iMovie to attract PC users? As opposed to the goal of monetising the iMovie users they have?"


I've come to think that neither of these are true -- that's why I asked about target markets.

If you haven't already, read Tim Wilson's recent editorial, Steve Jobs - A Personal Calendar Entry [link].

I think that FCPX follows Apple's product strategy: ignore existing users and markets, build what you think is the best app or product in a given category, and if you're right, the money will follow.

We struggle to put FCPX in a "consumer" or "professional" box because it wasn't explicitly designed for any particular market; it's what Randy Ubillos et al. think an editing app should be, and anyone who would like to buy a license for $299 at the app store is welcome to.

If, on the other hand, you want FCPX to be anything other than what it is -- well, then they don't really care, because FCPX was never about you anyway; you are welcome to use one of the competing products.

I don't think that Apple really cares at all if they're a market leader, as long as they are making what they believe are good products that sell reasonably well.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 9:46:07 pm

[Craig Seeman] "There's no way I can prove this theory but I think one (of several) factors in Apple's switch from FCS to FCPX is that they may have felt FCS might only maintain and not expand Mac sales. "

or they constructed FCPX explicitly to monetise their iMovie users, three hundred dollars at a time, there's no way I can prove that theory, but the fact that FCPX screams that it is an extension of iMovie that only opens iMovie projects might form some sort of circumstantial evidence.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 11:33:00 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "or they constructed FCPX explicitly to monetise their iMovie users, three hundred dollars at a time,"

That's not profitable. Apple is a hardware company. There would be no point to invest the R&D they have for that.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Andrew RichardsRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 4:15:34 pm

[Craig Seeman] "That's not profitable. Apple is a hardware company. There would be no point to invest the R&D they have for that."

Apple's software business is dwarfed by its hardware business, but I doubt their software products are a cost center. They apparently do turn a profit after covering development and marketing costs.

Here is an interesting interactive graph charting Apple's recent financial info. Note the "GM" category (gross margin contribution %) compared to Gross Margin (the total dollar figures). Software ranks rather low compared to the main hardware products, but beats the waning iPod in terms of gross margin. But it dominates in terms of gross margin contribution (though the numbers for the iPhone are staggering given the nature of the product). So software does very nicely for itself within Apple, but it is still dwarfed by the money the hardware brings in. Granted we don't see a breakdown of software, so we are getting Lion lumped in with FCPX.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 9:03:21 pm

[Craig Seeman] "That's not profitable. Apple is a hardware company. There would be no point to invest the R&D they have for that."

this statement is, I feel, incorrect. this has been a profitable exercise. As other people have pointed out to you, software is about at the ipod level of business for apple, they are more than capable of producing a piece of software designed to monetise a consumer video user base. Particularly when they are basically re-jigging iMovie.

Apple's motivation in FCPX was to pivot the newly discarded FCP studio name to monetise the expanded consumer enthusiast base, with a pied piper piece of software conceived directly out of iMovie.

Again I'll ask - out of the half a million rough guess FCPX consumers picking it up out of the appstore - how many are graduating out of imovie? 70%? 80? I'm going to say 80% if only because this software is designed to be a direct come hither to them - that still leaves over one hundred thousand editors trying to pay bills with this software.

FCPX has carefully expanded capabilities, direct adherence to iMovie norms, and generally, a very low confusion level. No weird track selection, no source monitor etc. Apple saying they will grow the software is a very neat blank statement. Its who the software is intended for is the point. It was not conceived as broad scale editing software product - it was intended to monetise casual enthusiast video work within their growing consumer base. that base is, versus bill paying editors, at least by a factor of three or four to one, the current customer for this product.

Also - I'd take issue with this mythical Apollo 11 cost base for producing this software - ten thousand men did not work on this product.

Let me give an example - Larry Jordan I think, god love him, re-told a mythical whispered conversation at NAB, where two Apple software engineers up front, when watching the demo on audio peaking visual indicators, whispered "they don't know how hard that was" But we all know that's simply not true right? they just lifted iMovie there - that in timeline moron's guide to peaking is standing today built and coded in iMovie - identical FCPX actions right down to the pixel are in iMovie. they just shunted it in. This software is a bodge job of consumer parts.

that is why the fake R&D argument gets my goat Craig - does this thing look at all drenched in R&D? How's the project file size mutation looking?

Great, great software this is.

that this effort to milk a consumer audience demanded great resources from Apple, such that the simple returns from selling it like hotcakes on the appstore could never provide a good return is a false argument. It has made a good return.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Andrew RichardsRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 10:08:56 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Particularly when they are basically re-jigging iMovie."

Not so. iMovie is 32-bit and built around QuickTime. FCPX is 64-bit and built around AVFoundation. They likely share very little code in common. They share very high level UI concepts in common, but in the nuts and bolts where the coding happens they share next to nothing in common. The work that went into iMovie was not there to build upon in FCPX (simply owing to how they respectively draw upon the APIs in OS X), despite outward appearances.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "It was not conceived as broad scale editing software product - it was intended to monetise casual enthusiast video work within their growing consumer base. "

I agree this is undoubtedly one reason they did it the way they did it, but I disagree it is the reason, or even the top reason. It is the reason best suited to cynical analysis though.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 10:17:30 pm

I don't think pulling 32 bit iMovie code into 64 bit FCPX code is a corporate moon shot.

Seriously - try the timeline audio-peaking. its literally identical. the idea that apple had to go to software jupiter and back to produce a paid for kludge of iMovie is hard to believe - doesn't this at all feel like an unstable, monetised expansion of iMovie? Isn't that what this is?


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Andrew RichardsRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:46:40 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I don't think pulling 32 bit iMovie code into 64 bit FCPX code is a corporate moon shot."

It isn't a moon shot, but the amount of code the two share is likely very little. So it isn't a thin veneer either.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Seriously - try the timeline audio-peaking. its literally identical. the idea that apple had to go to software jupiter and back to produce a paid for kludge of iMovie is hard to believe - doesn't this at all feel like an unstable, monetised expansion of iMovie? Isn't that what this is?"

That bit of UI is one of the few things they could reasonably share in terms of code. The UI bindings and behaviors of any app are a pretty small fraction of their sum development. The data structures and underpinnings are a much bigger job, and those are likely new and unique in FCPX given what we know about the APIs being used and the difference in structural complexity between an iMovie timeline and an FCPX timeline.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Aindreas GallagherRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 4:01:34 pm

Reeaallly?

Is that the only bit? What about the my little pony yellow selection boxes, the skimmable clip lozenges, the very actual identical buttons for going into iPhoto and iTunes, because that's where we keep royalty free music and the Getty images.. Amirite??

Then there's the crop tool, the ken burns effect.. Everything up there, the actual operation of audio handling and visualisation of audio and peaking - All these things aren't like iMovie - they are identical to iMovie

This thing is made out of iMovie spare parts with a bunch of buggy new stuff soldered on. Its essential goal is to appeal to, and monetise, the consumer video enthusiast base.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Andrew RichardsRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 4:28:38 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Is that the only bit? What about the my little pony yellow selection boxes, the skimmable clip lozenges, the very actual identical buttons for going into iPhoto and iTunes, because that's where we keep royalty free music and the Getty images.. Amirite??"

Sharing UI art is not in away indicative of shared code underneath. If you are arguing the UI brushstrokes came from the same hand, I don't disagree. If you think that means all of what's happening underneath is the same, you are simply wrong.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Then there's the crop tool, the ken burns effect.. Everything up there, the actual operation of audio handling and visualisation of audio and peaking - All these things aren't like iMovie - they are identical to iMovie "

UI look and feel, even what the buttons do, is not the same as how it is being done. The APIs that FCPX is necessarily using to be 64-bit require new code under that similar UI skin.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "This thing is made out of iMovie spare parts with a bunch of buggy new stuff soldered on."

That metaphor doesn't even work. Software development is not Scrapheap Challenge.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Its essential goal is to appeal to, and monetise, the consumer video enthusiast base."

Is it? I agree Apple has a consistent iApp/App Pro marketing tiering, but if all they wanted to do was take more money from iMovie users, they'd be better off selling them theme packs. Much higher margins there.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:03:03 pm

[Andrew Richards] "Not so. iMovie is 32-bit and built around QuickTime. FCPX is 64-bit and built around AVFoundation. They likely share very little code in common. They share very high level UI concepts in common, but in the nuts and bolts where the coding happens they share next to nothing in common. The work that went into iMovie was not there to build upon in FCPX (simply owing to how they respectively draw upon the APIs in OS X), despite outward appearances."

I think it's reasonable to assume that two NLEs from the same developer with the same very unique timeline mechanics share some code. Why rewrite the code that deals with the timeline interface or data model if you don't have to?

Of course you are correct on the 32-bit/64-bit and QT/AVF differences between iMovie and FCPX, but it would certainly be possible (and economical) to share some of the higher-level UI and timeline data mdoel code even though the lower-level media- and resource-handling code is completely separate.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Andrew RichardsRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:40:57 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Why rewrite the code that deals with the timeline interface or data model if you don't have to? "

The data model is significantly different, iMovie vs FCPX. Conceptually, FCPX has several significantly more complex structures like clips connections, compound clips, subframe editing, secondary story lines, and auditions. iMovie is just a single string of video blobs with transitions and limited graphics. Structurally, FCPX uses CoreData to write to a different project container than the binary iMovie uses. So you have totally different media handling APIs that have to interact with a totally different data handling API. That means new code.

There is clearly a familial resemblance and a certain amount of commonality in terms of the high-level concepts (Events vs Projects, trackless timeline) and UI layout, but the inner workings have so little in common they may indeed have had to rewrite everything just to be 64-bit on all the new APIs.

[Walter Soyka] "...it would certainly be possible (and economical) to share some of the higher-level UI and timeline data mdoel code even though the lower-level media- and resource-handling code is completely separate."

The iMovie UI and timeline data model are much, much less complex than FCPX's. Sure, it is possible they were a starting point (definitely a raw conceptual starting point), but there are so many complex structures unique to FCPX along with the requisite different underpinnings for 64-bit that the code probably shares very little in common, if anything.

If there is one place there might be some commonality in the code it would be at the UI level, but linking UI elements to the underlying guts of an app isn't the bulk of the development work. Far more of it is the lower-level data/media/resource-handling.

I'm just disputing the idea that FCPX was a trivial project that was just a riff on iMovie. That just doesn't wash for me. To my mind the trivial thing would be the amount of code the two might share, not the development effort necessary to produce FCPX.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 4:15:12 pm

[Andrew Richards] "The data model is significantly different, iMovie vs FCPX. Conceptually, FCPX has several significantly more complex structures like clips connections, compound clips, subframe editing, secondary story lines, and auditions."

I'd wager the FCPX data model is a superset of the iMovie data model.

FCPX's new parent/child data model is exposed in FCPXML. Since FCPX can import iMovie projects, but not traditional FCP projects or EDLs, I assume that iMovie also uses this parent/child paradigm.

Implementing the parent/child model gives you the magnetic timeline "for free" -- you don't need to write any special logic to ensure that clips keep their proper relationships because those relationships are actually the structure of the timeline itself.

That's the part that I'm arguing is probably common -- the actual underpinning of the timeline itself (both the basic data model and the code that implements the user's ability to interact with it).

Of course I'd agree that FCPX builds on what's available in iMovie, but they seem to share a common foundation, and I wouldn't assume they were designed and implemented independently.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Andrew RichardsRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 4:42:24 pm

[Walter Soyka] "FCPX's new parent/child data model is exposed in FCPXML. Since FCPX can import iMovie projects, but not traditional FCP projects or EDLs, I assume that iMovie also uses this parent/child paradigm."

I don't. I assume it can import iMovie and not legacy FCP is because iMovie uses such a flat and simple timeline. Easy to translate. Final Cut Express could import it too. The vast array of structures they'd have to translate to deal with tracks, nested sequences, etc, make importing legacy FCP projects a very different story.

[Walter Soyka] "Of course I'd agree that FCPX builds on what's available in iMovie, but they seem to share a common foundation, and I wouldn't assume they were designed and implemented independently."

Even if FCPX is iMovie evolved, calling the completely new APIs and implementing a vastly more complex data structure must be all new code. Even if you are right, that isn't much of a shortcut to FCPX. Think invertebrates to mammals, not chimps to humans.

I would be much more willing to entertain the idea that FCPX is going to donate a lot of code to some future 64-bit iMovie than the idea that current iMovie donated very much at all in the way of code to FCPX.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris HarlanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 4:50:05 pm

[Andrew Richards] "The vast array of structures they'd have to translate to deal with tracks, nested sequences, etc, make importing legacy FCP projects a very different story.
"


Isn't an EDL an even simpilar timeline?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 4:58:40 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Isn't an EDL an even simpilar timeline?"

It's very restrictive in it's simplicity. :)


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 5:54:33 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Chris Harlan] "Isn't an EDL an even simpilar timeline?"

It's very restrictive in it's simplicity. :)
"


And yet, as we've discussed elsewhere, I can use a simple del to do things that are currently impossible with FCP X.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 5:56:46 pm

[Chris Harlan] "And yet, as we've discussed elsewhere, I can use a simple del to do things that are currently impossible with FCP X."

Oh, I know. It was more of a joke than reality. There's a reason EDL has been around for so long. Simple is good.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 6:04:03 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I can use a simple del"

Or, I guess an HP. I meant edl. I have to figure out how to turn Lion's weird auto correct off, because it is currently fluxing up my life.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Andrew RichardsRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 5:02:26 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Isn't an EDL an even simpilar timeline?"

Yeah, but EDL isn't a singular format. There is variation in how they can be formatted, so supporting import is made difficult by the unpredictable formatting. If it were easy, someone would have put out an EDL to FCPXML translator by now. Either it is harder than it looks, or has too limited a market, or both.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 5:06:55 pm

[Andrew Richards] "If it were easy, someone would have put out an EDL to FCPXML translator by now. Either it is harder than it looks, or has too limited a market, or both."

It's harder than it looks, because the context of an FCPX edit is part of the structure of the timeline (expressed in parent/child relationships). An EDL's structure relates clips to absolute time, not to each other. There's no easy way to guess the relationships from their absolute positions in time, but it's very easy to translate relative times to a single absolute timeline.

That's why I'm suggesting that iMovie's data model must also be relative parent/child, not absolute temporal positioning of clips.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 5:00:54 pm

[Andrew Richards] "I don't. I assume it can import iMovie and not legacy FCP is because iMovie uses such a flat and simple timeline. Easy to translate. Final Cut Express could import it too."

True, but remember that the iMovie timeline is magnetic, pointing back to the parent/child paradigm. It's trivial to go from Apple's relative timeline to a traditional absolute timeline, but decidedly non-trivial to go the other way.


[Andrew Richards] "Even if FCPX is iMovie evolved, calling the completely new APIs and implementing a vastly more complex data structure must be all new code. Even if you are right, that isn't much of a shortcut to FCPX. Think invertebrates to mammals, not chimps to humans."

Absolutely agreed. iMovie to FCPX would be a big leap, and I'm not convinced that's what happened.

Let me clarify -- I don't think that Apple's modern NLE development started with iMovie and then rolled into FCPX.

I am suggesting that Apple put a lot of shared effort into the structure and user-facing components that underpins both applications. I think they were being developed simultaneously from a common base.

In other words, Apple has one idea for how an NLE should work. That same idea -- and many of the same tools -- is expressed very simply in iMovie, and more richly in FCPX.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Andrew RichardsRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 5:07:01 pm

[Walter Soyka] "In other words, Apple has one idea for how an NLE should work. That same idea -- and many of the same tools -- is expressed very simply in iMovie, and more richly in FCPX."

I agree. Clear philosophical lineage. I was taking issue with Aindreas' contention that FCPX is "is made out of iMovie spare parts with a bunch of buggy new stuff soldered on".

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 5:09:21 pm

[Andrew Richards] "I agree. Clear philosophical lineage. I was taking issue with Aindreas' contention that FCPX is "is made out of iMovie spare parts with a bunch of buggy new stuff soldered on"."

Fair enough!

Aindreas, what would you think of the notion that iMovie and FCPX are brothers, not father and son?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 5:17:46 pm

yeah, I mean sure, brothers no bother - they could be aunties!

just.. so long.. as.. I get.. to keep kicking... this foul... pestilent... frankenstein software, then... I'm happy


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 7:26:36 pm

"[Aindreas Gallagher]"It was not conceived as broad scale editing software product - it was intended to monetise casual enthusiast video work within their growing consumer base. "

[Andrew Richards] I agree this is undoubtedly one reason they did it the way they did it, but I disagree it is the reason, or even the top reason. It is the reason best suited to cynical analysis though."

Very cynical indeed. Monetizing the iMovie user base was obviously a very low priority in Apple's design and marketing decisions.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Franz BieberkopfRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:30:28 am

David,


From the linked promo page:

"Final Cut Pro offers unlimited cutaway shots ..."

I mean, think of the possibilities!


Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:11:10 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "From the linked promo page:

"Final Cut Pro offers unlimited cutaway shots ..."

I mean, think of the possibilities!"


I know, totally amazing isn't it? Truly revolutionary! I had no idea you could do that with an NLE!

Not to mention:
"As an iMovie user, you’re already familiar with some features in Final Cut Pro X — such as skimming and the Magnetic Timeline — so you can start working right away."
But remember, it's all just coincidence. As we know, FCPX was designed and built from the ground up especially for professional editors. Apple would never be so cynical to monetize the iMovie user base at the expense of their professional user's needs. ;)

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 4:09:18 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "they are more than capable of producing a piece of software designed to monetise a consumer video user base. "

Isn't iMovie already monetized? It looks like it costs $15 when I browse the Store:



Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Aindreas GallagherRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 5:27:15 pm

that's a very careful little side point though isn't it jeremy? doesn't imovie come installed on every piece of mac desktop hardware? isn't the consumer vastly more likely to encounter it by default in his or her dock on day one? Upgrades maybe, but imovie is actually handed to the consumer in the vast number of cases no?

getting them used to it and then hitting them with a tasty iMovie+ expansion for 299 - that'd be monetisation.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 5, 2011 at 5:42:41 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "that's a very careful little side point though isn't it jeremy? doesn't imovie come installed on every piece of mac desktop hardware?"

Any new. Mac yes. I don't think that people are going to run out and spend $1,000 on a new mac when they can spend $15 at the App Store.

And now it runs on an iPad, that's more iMovie money and doesn't "come for free" with every new install.

I don't think that FCPX was designed to monazite the whole of the iMovie crowd. There will be some spillover, yes, as I am sure there was between FCE and FCS.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "getting them used to it and then hitting them with a tasty iMovie+ expansion for 299 - that'd be monetisation."

I don't see it that way, but hey, it's a debate forum!

I know you hate the Apple software, but lets look elsewhere. Does Photoshop monetize the Photoshop Elements crowd?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

John-Michael Seng-WheelerRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 9:28:07 pm

[tony west] "I'm glad you posted these. What's interesting in the X ad is the choice of source material.

They could have used any car (a Chevy perhaps) but they picked a $196,000 R8
Why not kids playing soccer if that's what it's for?
If you look at the Imovie ads that's exactly what they do have as source.

It's clear to me from that ad they want the pro market with this, unless they think average people are driving around an R8 "


I think you have that backwards. They chose the R8 and the racetrack setting cause it looks like a pro shoot. Just the thing to market this product to consumers: "Look! we're editing a pro product with this, don't you want to edit your movies with a pro product?"

The style of the FCP7 ad is much more aimed at pro's then the FCPX ad is. As a pro, I don't want to know how easy it is to add crazy affects to my shots, I'm much more interested in workflow and pro features, which was the focus of the FCP7 ad. I don't give a D*&$ about 3/4 of the features in the FCPX ad.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Christian SchumacherRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 1:15:17 am

Incidentally, I'd like to point out that It's been six months already and that ad is still there at X's webpage.
One might argue that a sports car ad helps to convey an emotion that connects to speed and luxury. Fine...
But another could also argue that its boring voice-over and poorly executed scripting are just a little off.
I mean, where are the testimonials and the soundtrack? Or MBPs running a TB RAID and a few men-at-work?
They could've pulled this off, couldn't they? They cannot afford to hire someone to do that? Strange...
OK, they may be in different phases, one is in its maturity and the other is in its introduction. (as Tony also said)
But it still is very strange, nonetheless. Even for an overview promo. They are Apple for Gawd's sake!

Speaking of that, I think Apple got caught in a "Product Life Cycle" classic misunderstanding. Let me explain.
Every product (as per theory) should have 4 phases; Introduction, Growth, Maturity and Decline. I think everybody here will agree that Pro Apps and their CPUPro line were into Maturity. So, what happened was; At theirs slightest drop in sales some MKT geniuses may have signaled that -We're into Decline! Let's kill it and re-invent it all together! That's a classic problem of misinterpretation of the Maturity phase, in which by simply saying that a product reached its EOL time, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that the company must comply with.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

tony westRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 2:11:11 pm

[John-Michael Seng-Wheeler] "I think you have that backwards. They chose the R8 and the racetrack setting cause it looks like a pro shoot. Just the thing to market this product to consumers: "Look! we're editing a pro product with this, don't you want to edit your movies with a pro product?" "

I don't think so, if that is the case then use the R8 for Imovie ads also.

Imovie is for home movies so you show home movies as source.

A person that does not cut spots has no interest in watching someone cut a spot.
A person that does cut spots wants to see how this tool would be useful in cutting one.

As a pro I'm interested in pro features and workflow also.



Speaking of pro features, do you think "non pro" folks will know how to use these features from
X ?

They have no idea what anything below is and won't ever use them.

No reason to add control like this for home movies. No reason at all.



One of the features I like with X is I can show clients who don't know what they want yet different options in real time before I render anything.

"Here is how that will look. Like it? No? what about this? this? this? this?

I can do that in seconds. Saves me time. I like saving time.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

John-Michael Seng-WheelerRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 4:00:05 pm

I never said that FCP didn't have Pro features.

[tony west] "I don't think so, if that is the case then use the R8 for Imovie ads also."

huh? I think you're totally missing my point. I'm not talking about the program at all really, I'm talking about the ad.

For example, not a single one of those audio tools from your screenshot was shown in the ad. Instead, when the VO said "professional audio tools" what do they show? One click hum removal. Useful? Yes. Does iMovie have it? No. Does it show to a pro like me that FCPX has pro audio tools? Not in the slightest. Your screen shot does a far better job.

I'm saying that ad is marketed at consumers more then pros, and the use of the R8 helps sell it as a step up from iMovie.

If they really wanted to make a commercial that was aimed at pros, there'd be interviews with editors, the people who actually shot that footage..... oh wait! That sounds just like the FCP7 video.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 4:33:25 pm

[John-Michael Seng-Wheeler] "If they really wanted to make a commercial that was aimed at pros, there'd be interviews with editors, the people who actually shot that footage..... oh wait! That sounds just like the FCP7 video."

Let's be honest with ourselves, here.

It's just not there yet. That video is fcs3, fcp7, X is barely v1 and needs some maturity time. There's no monitoring yet, what post house is going to say they edit/finish without a monitor and be taken seriously?

And with all the bad press what post house is even interested?

I'm not saying FCPX isn't already useful, but the glossy marketing videos are a few versions off yet. It's only been on the market for less than 6 months, I highly doubt a TV series is going to go full force in FCPX without some battle testing. I don't edit a tv series, and I'm still testing the viability of using it in our little shop.

As I do like things in FCPX, it's not ready for prime time series creation.

I have a hunch the next version might be a start, though.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David Roth WeissRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 6:58:42 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "And with all the bad press what post house is even interested?"

It's not the bad press that keeps post houses disinterested Jeremy - it's pure pragmatism that does that. Primary among all the good reasons to stay away is the inability to professionally monitor work on FCP X. Of course, the other little things that aren't up to snuff yet also has something to do with

The issues are hardly the fault of the press. Sorry, but Apple bears complete responsibility.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 7:37:30 pm

We'll (and Apple) will have to see how OutPost Digital fairs when they switch to FCPX after the next big release. Either the 50 seat post house will hit rocks or we'll get some good info on post house viability.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 7:38:58 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "The issues are hardly the fault of the press. Sorry, but Apple bears complete responsibility."

Absolutely. Should have written it as "bad press", what I mean is editor backlash.

Basically, theres nothing to make a glossy user story marketing video about quite yet.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

tony westRe: Final Cut Pro in Ads - Everything Changed
by on Dec 4, 2011 at 4:42:39 pm

OK, I see where you are coming from. Points well taken.

It's kind of a double edge sword though right?

If they focused more on the type of tools I posted I don't think some folks would move up to it as fast.

I still think they will have interviews with editors when they put out their next round of ads.

That ad made me at least give it a look.

I'm glad I did.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook


FORUMSTUTORIALSFEATURESVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2014 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]