my guess to what will happen to the suite
Was working with Soundtrack first time after the FCP X news today and here's my guess to what will happen to the suite of software that is now FCP studio.
FCP X of course is new.
Color will be integrated into FCP
Soundtrack and Motion will get an update to be 64bit and the usual tweaks and new features that pop up now and then. Also they will be now available as separate purchases from the App store.
The reason for this guess is that Soundtrack and Motion are already new apps as far as code base is concerned. For instance both are single screen from the start (though you can customize).
my 2 cents :-)
I think you are basically correct.
My guess is also that color is dead as a separate product. I actually think that the revamped colorcorrection tool we saw in the sneak peek is everything that is left of Color.
Motion will probably live on as a separate application, and depending on the number of sales on App Store may or may not have a long and prosperous future.
Soundtrack Pro is more of a problem. They've already moved some of the film/video-centric features (eg. noise reduction) to FCPX and Apple already has Logic as their prime audio tool. So I think Soundtrack Pro may disappear quite soon.
DVD Studio Pro is in direct opposition of Mr Jobs view of the future (iCloud) and developing it further would be the same as creating "a faster horse".
Compressor will live on as a stand alone conversion tool.
Thats my two cents.
Yeah Soundtrack Pro is done for,IMHO. However I would not be surprised if you see a Motion/Shake hybrid of sorts pop up. DVDSP was dead several Studio's ago and will probably not be supported any longer.
Well, don't forget; the more pieces of software they can produce, the more revenue streams they will have. That's a motivator - they stand to make around 1.5 - 2.0 billion off FCPX in the first year alone.
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
[Aindreas Gallagher] "they stand to make around 1.5 - 2.0 billion off FCPX in the first year alone"
Yeah, but that's less than 2% of Apple's total revenue. With over 50% of their revenue coming from iPhones and iPads they have a strong incentive to focus their resources on many other things apart from the studio apps.They can use FCPX to lure more people over to mac and sell more computers, but spending money on the other Studio apps that only benefit a tiny fraction of even the FCPX users is just money wasted for Apple.
[Devin Crane] "However I would not be surprised if you see a Motion/Shake hybrid of sorts pop up."
Sure, if they figure out a way to add "awesome" and "jaw dropping" features that makes hardcore compositing easy for the average prosumer I'm sure they would try. It definitely would be interesting to see what they could come up with. But after dumping Shake they have fallen so far behind both AE on the low end and Nuke on the high end that it would take a lot of money, sweat and a miracle to catch up.
that's not quite right - revenue versus profit is different for a Mac Pro or an iPad assembled in multiple locations using exotic materials than it is for a software play developed in house and dropped onto the appstore as a pure profit play with no distribution costs. If say 1.5 billion is the revenue -then say, conservatively, 1 billion of that is pure profit - that billion would represent 20% of Apple's total profit for the last quarter - over the financial year it would run to about 4-5 % of apple's total profit for the year. that's not shabby. As there are no material or distribution costs, its all cream - if they can do it three times, say with Motion and Colour too, or Soundtrack Pro - then you're getting into quite a serious revenue stream for apple.
Hence I think they would be strongly motivated to keep a few other pieces of the studio in play.
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
Aindreas, you are absolutely right, but what I am saying is that I'm not convinced that everybody who bought the Studio package will invest in the other separate applications. If Apple takes the basic/most needed features from Color, Motion and Soundtrack Pro and incorporates them into FCPX then my (absolutely uninformed) guess is that only around say 20% of the FCPX users will have a need for the extra features that the other applications bring. So the revenue and profit would be substantially lower. So either they have to sell them for a much higher price than FCPX, or sell them dirt cheap to increase volume which they of course could since they have more or less zero distribution costs. But I don't think apple has any interest in developing niche products, if they can satisfy 80% of the users I doubt they will spend much resources reaching the last 20%.
But I may be wrong, it's happened before.
yeah, I'm really not sure at all what'll happen here either - and Apple do like their 80/20 ratio after all..
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
Your comments are why I think they'd never sell the apps as separate programs. They each have a competitor that is better on the high end and possibly on the low end as well.
SoundTrackPro has competition from Apple itself with GarageBand on the bottom and Logic on the top. I'd think the entire STP would have to be integrated into FCPX or maybe they'll add Logic integration such that they'd be tied to a common time line (Logic would "Plug-in" to FCPX).
Color might sell as a "poor person's" Resolve though. Keep in mind that a good colorist is going to need control surface integration. But even Resolve has a "poor person's" Resolve which is . . . Free. Apple would have to once again have an app that integrates using a common timeline as a sales motivator.
Motion can't compete with After Effects or Nuke so keys would be ease of use and integration into a common timeline. Motion still has potential to be very powerful and easy to use.
Compressor, in its current state is a mess. It has just about the worst H.264 encoding in the industry, can be unreliable talking to FCP7 and QMaster can have fits. Even with a major overhaul it would still have to be an integrated freebee as it can't compete with Telestream Episode or Sorenson Squeeze. The low end competition is MPEGStreamClip which is free. Whatever Apple does, they'll still need a free clustering, batch encoding tool especially if we are to take them seriously about file distribution replacing disk.
So STP and Compressor have to be integrated since there's virtually no value as separate sales.
Motion and Color can go either way as separate apps or integrated. Motion has value as a "mid market" FX tool for those who don't use high end dedicates tools and want a Mac UI ease of use experience. Color isn't a very Mac like interface to begin with so Apple may weigh development costs vs price vs ease of integration.
They don't have to "catch up." They just have to integrate a tool set into the app. And it's usability and results have to make the user decide "hey I can just do that here, don't need to round trip."
-- pan and scan (Ken Burns effect)
-- glowy shimmering travel matte type things
-- blending modes
I think you and I have very different expectations when it comes to the capabilities of a "Motion/Shake" hybrid.
I hated motion. Never used Shake. For mograph, I use After Effects, and unless they integrate expressions they'll never tap that market. Also to make a difference for me they'd need to integrate animated cameras and 2.5d.
"But after dumping Shake they have fallen so far behind both AE on the low end..."
I'm wondering what (in your mind) makes AE a "low end" application (not offended or anything, just curious).
I'm not a Mac user, but I'm pretty interested to see if Apple releases something like a ShakeColor hybrid for less than $2,500 US... this would make me strongly consider buying a Mac. But they should hurry, Blender's Composite Nodes is looking pretty compelling... and it's free. :-)
'Low end' was not in any way referring to the capabilities of AE. I just meant in comparison to the high end market, the big post houses doing feature films and high profile commercials, where Nuke has more or less taken over as the standard compositor. Shake used to have this position when Apple chose to kill it off. AE on the other hand is the standard application in the lower end of the market. But thanks to a maturing feature set, low price and especially the extremely large userbase AE is of course steadily making it's way into the 'high end'.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. I should point out though, that AE has been in use on high end projects for a long time... just not necesarily for compositing. AE's built in grain/noise tools and MoGraph capabilites have been a staple in Hollywood for years... though most post houses haven't liked talking about that in the past. Things are changing though, as the CS5 Suite has been getting a better reputation, boutique houses are getting less shy about admitting their use of AE and PP. Truthfully, I wouldn't be all that surprised if Motion was being used for certain, quick and specific tasks on big feature films... it just doesn't sound as sexy as saying that 'you' used Inferno to develop and finish 30, 10 second VFX shots on Ironman V. :-)
Anyway, as a Premiere Pro user on Windows 7, I'm hoping that FCPX will be as good or better than advertised... I'm even hoping for a souped up version of Shake, just to keep Adobe on it's toes. Hopefully, Apple will even make a tool or a Suite of tools so good (and cost effective) that I will have no choice but to invest in a Mac and go bi-platform. :-)
[Stephan Walfridsson] "they have fallen so far behind both AE on the low end and Nuke on the high end that it would take a lot of money, sweat and a miracle to catch up."
Agreed... Much of Motion will be integrated into FCPX. If people can do basic motion graphics work without leaving FCP, ala Discreet, that is all Apple can do to ward off AE. Motion will never be AE, so make it work inside FCPX where it can help do basic stuff that can't be done in FCP7's horrific effects GUI.
Compressor can be shown the door IMHO, and with 64bit memory and Grand Central, there's no reason why compression can't be done in the background as long as it's effectively "sandboxed".
The danger of all this background processing is it can bring down the whole app. Hopefully these separate processes will work much like Log & Transfer does now in FCP7.
[John Heagy] "Agreed... Much of Motion will be integrated into FCPX. If people can do basic motion graphics work without leaving FCP, ala Discreet, that is all Apple can do to ward off AE. Motion will never be AE, so make it work inside FCPX where it can help do basic stuff that can't be done in FCP7's horrific effects GUI."
Actually, I think they are quite happy to concede this segment of the market to Autodesk Smoke for Mac. Keep the behavioral stuff from Motion and build it into FCP X. Want more? Buy Smoke. Right now they have a good synergy and the companies have a good working relationship.
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
[Oliver Peters] "happy to concede"
Never ever ever will you here any CEO say "happy to concede."
[Richard Herd] "Never ever ever will you here any CEO say "happy to concede.""
Well, "say it"... No. It's a good philosophical position to take, but it isn't true in actual practice. Apple is an 80/20 company that is focused on delivering a great user experience to a broad market. The focus is on broad, not deep. Just compare Numbers versus Excel. Both are a nice spreadsheet app for the typical user, but Excel blows away Numbers when it comes to the needs of a power user. Just try running a 3,000 entry spreadsheet through the two and it becomes obvious. Jobs knows what a niche company looks like. He founded NeXT and pulled Apple out of the pit. That isn't his focus.
FCP X looks like it appeals to a much broader potential user base than FCP 7. It will have a lot of advanced technology and very cool features, but it's unlikely to be a high-end leader, like Autodesk or Quantel or Filmlight. After all, FCP 7 greatly lags behind Premiere Pro (and even Media Composer) in flat out media performance and it lags behind Media Composer and DS is pure advanced features. So FCP X has to leapfrog them for what a broader editor base wants an NLE to do. It will likely do that and be a leader in the mainstream desktop NLE business.
Apple has done a brilliant job of balancing R&D investment against mass market products. But it certainly has been quite willing to concede sales when products hit too small of a share or don't warrant the level of investment Apple has to continue to put into them. Prime examples are Shake, Xserve RAID and Xserve.
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
I'm pointing out that Steve Jobs et al are not "happy to concede" anything to anyone. They may in fact concede, but they would not be happy about it.
I also don't know what you mean by advanced features.
[Richard Herd] "I also don't know what you mean by advanced features."
I'm not sure if you are referring to my comments about what FCP 7 currently lacks - or what advanced features I think FCP X WILL have - or what's different about apps like Smoke or Pablo.
But, advanced features in my mind are things like,
ScriptSync and PhraseFind
planar or 3D tracking
high-quality HSL keying for color grading
high-quality blue/green-screen keying
3D lighting and effects built around 3D space
rotospline matte tools
DPX import/export support
native RAW support for a wide range of RAW camera formats
native codec support for advanced camera codecs, like HDCAM-SR or AVC-Intra
Proper cadence handling when mixing 23.98 and 29.97
the ability to mix color spaces without gamma shifts
proper 2.5/3D DVE tools
And more ...
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Maybe also you could put an A if avid does it, an S for smoke, and so on.
Is there a single app that allows you to do all of those plus just cutting picture?
And I think different hats are worn at different times. For example, when cutting the story, I just need a small computer and some headphones. But then after the story is told, other tools are needed to finish. FCPX will be a finishing system for the microbudget producer, just as FCS is now.
[Oliver Peters] "It will have a lot of advanced technology and very cool features, but it's unlikely to be a high-end leader, like Autodesk or Quantel or Filmlight. After all, FCP 7 greatly lags behind Premiere Pro (and even Media Composer) in flat out media performance and it lags behind Media Composer and DS is pure advanced features."
I've been very surprised at the number of posts that use FCP X and Smoke in the same sentence, but I think this is the first time that DS has come up.
While Apple, Avid and Adobe are jockeying for rank in the low and mid markets, Autodesk is positioning Smoke on Mac well as a high-end complement to FCP -- and getting a lot of attention.
Autodesk has staged live Smoke demos, followed up by phone, pushed the trial download, posted all kinds of free Smoke training online, broadened hardware compatibility, added new features in twice-yearly releases, produced case studies left and right, and captured trade press attention. Where on earth is Avid with DS?
In the year that Smoke has been on Mac, I've seen precisely one press mention on DS -- that's it's available as a software-only license like Smoke. Is DS viable anymore? Who's using it? Is Avid ceding their high-end to Autodesk, intending to continue to duke it out with Apple for the lower-end?
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
[Devin Crane] "Yeah Soundtrack Pro is done for,IMHO. However I would not be surprised if you see a Motion/Shake hybrid of sorts pop up. DVDSP was dead several Studio's ago and will probably not be supported any longer."
DVDSP is dead? What's going to be the new DVD program? If it was dead several studios ago what have people been using to create DVDs?
I don't have any charming or witty things to put in my signature. So as Peter Griffen says, "That's may mama!"
[Vincent Strader] "DVDSP is dead? What's going to be the new DVD program? If it was dead several studios ago what have people been using to create DVDs?"
My guess is DVDSP development is dead but the program may still be available from Apple online store. For example, iDVD is not available in the App Store but it's still included in the box set from Apple online store as well.
I didn't say it was buried. There hasn't been any major updates since FCS2 came out and I'm not sure there was a major change since FCS1 hit the shelves, at least none in the past 4 years. Even though Apple started off on the Blu-Ray consortium board they (Steve Jobs) have since taken a stance against Blu-Ray. If Apple was just a computer company then yes you would already have Blu-Ray Studio Pro years ago but it is no longer the case and Apple is going to great lengths to kill discs all together with the advent of the App Store. So as far as DVD Studio Pro goes it's possible you can still purchase it in the future but don't expect it to be developed any further.
[Devin Crane] "If Apple was just a computer company then yes you would already have Blu-Ray Studio Pro years ago but it is no longer the case and Apple is going to great lengths to kill discs all together with the advent of the App Store. So as far as DVD Studio Pro goes it's possible you can still purchase it in the future but don't expect it to be developed any further."
I don't think Apple is too far off the mark in their Blu-ray assessment especially relative to their R&D resources and ROI on such.
You can do high quality Blu-ray "screeners" now in FCP7/Compressor. It's just that the menu tools rank below even iDVD capabilities. There's certainly some demand for designed DVD menus. I'm not sure there's the same demand for Blu-ray
In the corporate market I believe such businesses still prefer DVD if they're distributing a hard copy and certainly may want nice menu design. I don't think there's a demand for that kind of Blu-ray menu design in the same market because businesses are less likely to distribute Blu-ray as hard copy given their need to reach the widest audience (DVD) compared to the smaller market penetration of Blu-ray.
The demand for good menu designed Blu-ray is a small and very high end market (IMHO) and Apple has no reason to compete with such tools especially if they believe that market will be short lived.
While a business might chose Blu-ray for presentation (and that can be file based as well), for distribution in that market DVD still dominates, I think.
Blu-ray menu design seems to be limited to feature film and doc use and people doing that kind of work may be opting for higher end software.
Macworld: DVD Death Watch: Sales drop 20 percent
Nearly 30 million U.S. households now have Blu-ray hardware sitting in their entertainment centers, according to the entertainment group. But when you consider there are more than 116 million households in the country, 26 percent Blu-ray penetration isn’t that impressive.
Especially if you compare Blu-ray popularity to HDTV adoption. In November, Nielsen said 56 percent of U.S. households now have HDTVs. So high-definition viewing is big, but Blu-ray isn’t.
With only 26% market penetration I don't think most business would be driven to distribute menu driven Blu-ray discs. I suspect they'd be relegated to a company's use for presentation (what I call "screeners") in which menus don't have to be much more than utilitarian which can be done in FCP7/Compressor currently.
And in your crystal ball, what does it say about the future of motion templates? They are incredibly convenient for repetitive projects. If they are separate apps, it makes me wonder if they'll talk to each other.
[Ariane Fisher] "If they are separate apps, it makes me wonder if they'll talk to each other."
They are separate apps now and they talk to each other. At the very least it will remain that way but it seems possible they'll be integration at least with a common time line.
[Craig Seeman] "At the very least it will remain that way but it seems possible they'll be integration at least with a common time line."
I think that is very much a "faster horses" way of looking at it ;-)
It seems that going forward it will be the core components of the OS (rather than separate applications) which will be handling everything - components like AVFoundation, CoreData, CoreAnimation etc etc.
All that is required of a new 'application' like FCP X or son-of-Motion etc will just to be a GUI interface to manipulate the basic media assets using the OS-provided toolset.
So everything can only be 'totally integrated', and as a 'timeline' will be a low level 'composition', defined by its own metadata, any GUI can work on it any way you want.
It seems to me? ;-)
Obviously they have got to 'make-this-all-happen', which may take a while.
Possibly until 2013 according to some rumours....
Paul, that's what I meant by common timeline integration.
I didn't want to say that was "likely" because I'm not sure what's likely given that Apple hasn't mentioned or shown any Motion like features . . . except one big clue. When Ubilos demo'd moving the frame about, the key frame editor that opened in the timeline was like Motion's expanded timeline. I didn't notice any interface utility to open Motion specific assets but the beta version they were showing was from February apparently and others, having spoken to an Apple person after the Supermeet, said a lot has been added.
[Craig Seeman] "Paul, that's what I meant by common timeline integration."
It all comes down to semantics ;-)
[Craig Seeman] "Motion specific assets..."
I reckon those are gone. In future everything will be a shared asset.
[Craig Seeman] "I'm not sure what's likely given that Apple hasn't mentioned or shown..."
I reckon Apple have been very shrewd and focussed with their Sneak Peek.
They knew there would be a barrage of reaction (mostly anti) from the existing post production fraternity about the changes in the new software, and have carefully dropped enough hints for the most forward thinking brains (like Larry Jordan and Philip Hodgetts) to get some sort of damage limitation out there before the official FCP X announcement.
Which is what is happening all over the FCP-focussed parts of the web.
[Paul Dickin] "I reckon those are gone. In future everything will be a shared asset."
Semantics but that's not really "gone" though. It may not be ready for the June release though.
[Paul Dickin] "I reckon Apple have been very shrewd and focussed with their Sneak Peek."
I really think the whole thing is a work in progress. That's one reason why they were showing a February beta (likely being the most stable). It's not like the June release ends development nor does it mean a two year wait for the next major feature set roll out given the new App Store distribution model.
[Paul Dickin] "They knew there would be a barrage of reaction (mostly anti) from the existing post production fraternity about the changes in the new software"
The ultimate focus group actually. They didn't show the "work in progress" aspect and, with the response, they can see how to prioritize the progress.
[Paul Dickin] " carefully dropped enough hints for the most forward thinking brains (like Larry Jordan and Philip Hodgetts)"
Larry has very limited information (saw the February private demo) but seems to have some access to Apple. Philip is just using his own insight as he's said he has no access. Steve Martin of Ripple Training on the other hand is a beta tester and I suspect will be doing the first "official" tutorials, quite possibly the intros that will be on the Apple site.
[Paul Dickin] "some sort of damage limitation out there before the official FCP X announcement."
I"m not sure I've seen any damage control as of yet. I don't think there's been any real damage yet. Just wild speculation. I think all those, except the most rash, claiming to jump ship are really waiting and that's EXACTLY what Apple wanted to happen, given major purchase decision are made as a result of NAB. Apple put the jumpers on hold IMHO.
[Craig Seeman] "I think all those, except the most rash, claiming to jump ship are really waiting and that's EXACTLY what Apple wanted to happen, given major purchase decision are made as a result of NAB. Apple put the jumpers on hold IMHO."
It's quite funny how divided our initial response to this sneek peak has been. Some see the proverbial glass as half empty and others as half full. Everybody speculating wildly as we don't really know anything except that the flavor of what is in the glass is new and presumably "improved". Probably to the taste of some and disgust of others.
Some here on the Cow really give Apple the benefit of the doubt, others just doubt. My personal point of view is that I've seen Apple release shiny, innovative, gorgeous things before that were in many ways lacking in features compared to the competition. Just think of the iPhone, a truly new way of thinking of a mobile phone (well some had thought of similar ideas before but Apple obviously set the standard). But the first iPhone was not top of the line in features or specs. The camera sucked, no 3g, lousy batterylife and much more. And they are still behind in many areas. Yet A LOT of people bought it and keep buying the new iPhones, including me. Apple with all their marketing wisdom were able to make the iPhone a success story despite all of it's shortcomings. It's actually what they are really good at, isn't it?
I think FCPX looks very promising, 64 bit and background rendering are things that I'll really appreciate. But I don't think that Apple has discovered the holy grail of editing when creating FCPX, and I am convinced that many things that were present in FCS3 will be missing, and missed by a lot of people. Building new software from the ground up is difficult and many features will have been pushed way down on their list of priorities. Some will even be gone forever because they don't make business sense to Apple. And history shows that they have no qualms about skipping features or killing apps if it makes business sense to them.
Some things will reappear in future updates, but software as complex as FCP and the other studio Apps aren't easy to update every 3-6 months or so. Bug fixes sure, but not adding major features. Beta testing and development takes a lot of time. The AppStore distribution model isn't that different from the software updates that we are used too. And we all know how hesitant we are to install those.
[Stephan Walfridsson] "Some see the proverbial glass as half empty and others as half full."
But even the people who claim the glass is half empty will buy FCPX at $299. If "the marketer's" goal is to get the product on your machine, Apple has already won (I expect). Even those saying they'll switch will buy a copy. Even if they start using another NLE, there may be the one job that FCPX feature may excel at that will say, "for this job we'll use X" and as the feature set grows it may pull them back.
[Stephan Walfridsson] "Apple release shiny, innovative, gorgeous things before that were in many ways lacking in features compared to the competition."
And generally Apple eventually won against the competitors. As I've mentioned before FCP 1.0 wasn't even close to Avid Media Composer's capabilities in 1999.
As long as FCPX gets it foot in the door, it will at $299, it will eventually win people over based on Apple's past pattern with new products.
[Craig Seeman] " If "the marketer's" goal is to get the product on your machine, Apple has already won (I expect)."
I'll buy it, no doubt about it, I wish it was already on my machine. And I have no doubt in my mind that Apple will succeed in growing their marketshare even more with FCPX. That was partially what I tried to say in my post.
[Craig Seeman] "As long as FCPX gets it foot in the door, it will at $299, it will eventually win people over based on Apple's past pattern with new products."
But the question if the new release of FCP will remain my main tool of choice doesn't depend on wether other people are won over (by the low price or the feature set). I need to make sure that it's still the best tool for me and currently I have no clue. Very little was shown and since it isn't based on the old FCP architecture I can't make the assumption that it will have the same features as FCP7.
Their past pattern also shows that they aim for the mass market, not the niche market (which I have a sneaky feeling that I may belong to). As Oliver put it:
"But it certainly has been quite willing to concede sales when products hit too small of a share or don't warrant the level of investment Apple has to continue to put into them. Prime examples are Shake, Xserve RAID and Xserve."
I usually find choosing NLE a matter of choosing the lesser of a number of evils, no reason to think it will be different this time.
[Stephan Walfridsson] "But the question if the new release of FCP will remain my main tool of choice doesn't depend on wether other people are won over"
It depends on your needs. When first released it may be missing features that are added later. Just as happened with FCP1. FCP1 was nice but not an Avid killer. By the time FCP3 rolled out some people began to move. By FCP4-5 range many more moved. It depends on your needs and the speed at which Apple rolls out more features (which should be faster IMHO).
GENERALLY SPEAKING, Apple will win over those who need more advanced features as they roll them out.
With SOME FEATURES it will EXCEED FCP7 right out of the gate and building a system based on those features will cost less. For those using file based media needing high speed Thunderbolt based storage, it'll likely win out of the door. For those who must export XML or OMF, we do not know yet. For those who need tape input, we do not know yet. For those who fast render, multi codec sources without transcode, it'll be a MAJOR time saver and it can win those right out of the door.
It may well depend on what projects walk into your facility. You can set up a blazing fast file based edit system on a new iMac for a lot less then other systems. It may win that market out of the door.
When Video I/O with tape control (likely third party) happens, it may win that market as well.
Eventually I believe they'll manage the XML OMG output features if that's not there out of the door. When that happens it'll win over some more.
It's not like a given point of time is the END of development. As FCPX meets more needs it'll win that market unless the competitors can match the price at a given feature set.
[Paul Dickin] "Obviously they have got to 'make-this-all-happen', which may take a while.
Possibly until 2013 according to some rumours...."
So, stick with an antiquated version of FCP until the new version restores the efficient workflow I had before? I suppose I'll need to download the app and do some good ole-fashioned efficiency studies to see if it's quicker for me to transcode but use existing motion templates, versus native editing plus title generation for each project. Of course, it's all wild speculation and they may not have gotten rid of motion templates anyway.
It's a valid argument to say that users can sit and wait a year or more as FCP X gets up to the feature level we use in FCP 7 and the rest of the suite. But to base that argument on FCP 1.0 and the competitive landscape is nonsense.
When FCP first came out, it was up against Avid and not much more. That's no longer true. In fact FCP X is just as much up against FCP 7 as any competitor. FCP 1.0 would have never gone past a hobby DV editor if it hadn't been for the 3rd party hardware vendors like Digital Voodoo, Pinnacle and Matrox. Then later AJA and Blackmagic Design. Once you could do uncompressed SD and HD at a fraction of the cost of an Avid Symphony or DS, people were willing to suffer through its deficiencies.
Until Motion, Soundtrack Pro and Color came along, most FCP users were quite happy with the app as it was. Apple was never asking the user to take a step backwards - only also forward with the next update.
If FCP X is PERCEIVED as taking a step backwards in some pro features, heavy duty users will move on. There simply isn't the sort of grace period that there used to be.
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
[Oliver Peters] "When FCP first came out, it was up against Avid and not much more."
Don't forget that Avid announced they were discontinuing development on the Mac (and did a very fast backpedal) so Apple was in danger of losing Mac sales which were already small at the time.
[Oliver Peters] "If FCP X is PERCEIVED as taking a step backwards in some pro features, heavy duty users will move on. There simply isn't the sort of grace period that there used to be."
If Apple gets you to buy a Mac and FCPX they still have your money and business. The large FCPX base will be very attractive (already is) for third party developers. As I've noted elsewhere I expect FCPX on Thunderbolt iMacs and MBPs to be a significant combination as cost (but not feature) leader over Avid.
Apple's new none disc and ship based distribution model should mean faster feature distribution as they're developed rather than a two year wait. What might not be there in June may well be added by December.
[Craig Seeman] "As I've noted elsewhere I expect FCPX on Thunderbolt iMacs and MBPs to be a significant combination as cost (but not feature) leader over Avid."
I don't disagree, but this doesn't exclude Avid or Adobe. Both can run on that machine and both take 3rd party hardware. Once Avid opens up to all the i/o options (only Matrox MXO2 Mini and AJA Io Express now) and these offer a Thunderbolt adapter, you will be able to use any of the top 3 NLEs. Apple still makes money either way and probably still sells seats of FCP X. So, in a sense, it could be a win-win for each.
[Craig Seeman] "Apple's new none disc and ship based distribution model should mean faster feature distribution as they're developed rather than a two year wait."
I doubt that's been a hold-up, but sure. Avid and Adobe have already been doing that.
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Anyone remember Media 100?