“I CUT” would have been a better name. Then those who hate it could retort, “I BLEED.”
If the new application version does not open the files of the old version, then it is not in the same application line. Final Cut Ten One point 0, not Final Cut Pro anything. Period.
Same history with Imovie. Apple pulled the plug on millions of hobbyists with a new interface and missing features. After many bad reviews and protests, Apple offered the EOL Imovie HD as a free download but never updated it. They added the missing features on the new one slowly but the workflow/UI remained less … educated. Ironically, the new Imovie had the same look and some of the same feel as the new FC.
OSX 10.5.8; MacBookPro4,1 Intel Core 2 Duo 2.5 GHz MacPro4,1 2.66GHz 8 core 12gigs of ram. GPU: Nvidia Geoforce GT120 with Vram 512. OS X 10.6.x; Camcorders: Sony Z7U, Canon HV30/40, Sony vx2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.
[Craig Alan]"I CUT” would have been a better name."
But not from the perspective of Apple's marketing department.
Certainly FCPX is an entirely new app but it's not too uncommon for companies to keep a name to create the illusion of lineage.
Randy Ubillos wanted to name what eventually became iMovie 08, "First Cut." That name might have accurately reflected that iMovie would be a rough cut/selects system for import into what is now FCPX. But Randy did want a different name for the new iMovie. Apparently he was overruled.
OSX, despite being superficially one version up from OS9, was an entirely new and unrelated operating system.
Your comments do allude another difference between how EOL was handled for another product compared to the FCPX introduction fiasco.
OS9 to OSX had a long transition. OSX was not very usable the first couple of iterations and was missing features from OS9 for some time.
iMovie 6 was made available for free to iMovie 08 purchasers for a long time.
Throw in the fact that when Shake was EOLd (with no obvious replacement) it remained available at a reduced price for some time.
Unlike any of the above routes, FCS was pulled immediately with no (now very limited) availability and no transition period. In this case, keeping the same product name created more animus because the path was more typical of an upgrade (old version is replaced by new version). This, more than any other reason, is why some people felt it should have been named differently. In previous cases when Apple had a new product maintaining a different product's name, there was a transition period.
Calling the new iMovie "First Cut" would have been logical in 20/20 hindsight given the new "Final Cut" given the UI connection and import feature. On the other hand if Apple felt strongly about using iMovie for the new product than iCut certainly could be a logical outgrowth. In both cases though, Apple continued the original product name which might have kept naming consistency within each product but creates a discontinuity between their relationship.
Now riddle me this. We have iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad but we also have iMac. Yet we have MacMini, MacBookAir, MacBookPro, MacPro. Why does the iMac get a name that matches the iOS devices but all the other computers are MacName? Maybe the iMac should really be called the MacUni (all in one) or something similar. Why did the iBook change naming lineage to MacBook?
Sounds like Apple's naming conventions are a bit all over the place.
So what would a fan be? MacHead or iHead? iNeither but some of you would say iDoubt It.
[David Lawrence]"Because the iMac came before iOS devices."
Then the following should be iMacMini, IMacPro. Easy enough to be consistent. This would be especially so if the claims that the next major OS after Lion will "unify" iOS and OSX.
iMac was actually the first "i" then the marketing reason to diverge into iDevices and Non iDevices creating incongruity in the marketing message on product line names. They could have changed the name of the iMac just as iBook became MacBook.
[Craig Seeman]"Then the following should be iMacMini, IMacPro. Easy enough to be consistent. This would be especially so if the claims that the next major OS after Lion will "unify" iOS and OSX.
OK, to take your argument to the nth level... Why wasn't the iMac called the "iMacintosh"? All of the previous machines were known as "Macintosh". Wait... the original iMac was PowerPC based. It should have been named the "Power iMacintosh" or perhaps the "iPower Mac Macintosh Plus SE".
[Craig Seeman]"Why did the iBook change naming lineage to MacBook?"
At the time the purpose was to reinvigorate the Mac brand. Now that iDevices have truly taken off it's hard to remember that Apple was still fighting for it's life not too long ago. They weren't as inevitable as they are now.
I also think they are looking for a way to rename AppleTV iTV once they can get through the trademark issues.