FORUMS: list search recent posts

The Paradigm of the App Store

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Marvin Holdman
The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 1:39:30 am

Over the course of the last week I've been thinking a lot about the incremental update that just came out and what it might mean in the broader picture of how FCPX will continue to develop. It would appear that it's going to be a slow process to see this application get the functionality and integration capabilities that its predecessor had. It would also appear that it is going to be MUCH more reliant on third party software vendors to restore it. Given the fact that Apple was and is very tightlipped regarding what they are doing with their product, combined with the their suggestion that the app store delivery of FCPX will allow more frequent upgrades and their severe limitation of releasing their API's, I wonder if this isn't the sign of an app that is getting ready to be a continuing heartbreaker?

Sure the integration with the OS and AV foundation is enticing. But will it be enough to keep people struggling with a perpetual cycle of upgrade and broken plug-ins?

It's been suggested by some that this is all part of a "master plan" that will unfold in the coming months. That somehow Apple is wise enough to know what they are doing with an industry they have all but ignored during this update. I'm sure it is true that FCPX will continue to evolve, but if the core concept of how it works is fundamentally flawed, how will it ever work? The core concept I'm speaking of has nothing to do with magnetic timelines or metadata, it is about program cohesion with 3rd party sources.

It seems obvious to me that part of the design criteria was to create a program that was App Store friendly. It would seem that much like the hardware appliances that Apple has created, they were hoping to turn this "Pro" app into vehicle to create more App store purchases. While many Apps on the store are selling for way less that $100, this one is selling for $300 and is one of their top grossing apps, as I type this.

When you look at what they chose to launch with as a 3rd party app, Automatic Duck, I think we're seeing what they envision their partners to be like. Higher priced plug-ins for more specialized applications. I don't know for sure, but I would also suspect that App Store sales by these venders put a percentage of the sale in Apples pocket. Higher prices, higher profit for Apple for being nothing more than the gatekeeper.

The more time passes by, the more it seems that FCPX was designed in the boardroom by the marketing department. The fact that it seems to advocate a less functional core with a much higher degree of 3rd party dependency seems unrealistic for an enterprise level application.

I don't remember anyone asking for further proliferation of 3rd party vendors in their editing software? It certainly wasn't a feature that I even remotely imagined, but then again, I'm not on the board.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 5:10:32 am

[Marvin Holdman] "Over the course of the last week I've been thinking a lot about the incremental update that just came out and what it might mean in the broader picture of how FCPX will continue to develop. It would appear that it's going to be a slow process to see this application get the functionality and integration capabilities that its predecessor had."

They put out a .0.1 release with a non-trivial feature payload 91 days after they shipped 10.0. This is a slow rev cycle? Compared to what?

[Marvin Holdman] "Given the fact that Apple was and is very tightlipped regarding what they are doing with their product, combined with the their suggestion that the app store delivery of FCPX will allow more frequent upgrades and their severe limitation of releasing their API's, I wonder if this isn't the sign of an app that is getting ready to be a continuing heartbreaker?"

They posted an FAQ stating what they were working on, when they would release it, and they have adhered to those statements. They have reiterated they will be bringing two more critical features (broadcast monitoring and multi-cam) in the next rev. This is tight-lipped? Apple might not have an emissary on these forums, but they have been uncharacteristically candid (for them) about their plans for FCPX.

And what is the "severe limitation" in their APIs?

[Marvin Holdman] "It seems obvious to me that part of the design criteria was to create a program that was App Store friendly. It would seem that much like the hardware appliances that Apple has created, they were hoping to turn this "Pro" app into vehicle to create more App store purchases. While many Apps on the store are selling for way less that $100, this one is selling for $300 and is one of their top grossing apps, as I type this. "

Certainly, Apple is all-in on the App Store as their distribution channel for software. But that isn't because they make their money there, it is because they think it lets them deliver a more cohesive user experience for the people who buy Macs (where the real money is). The App Store isn't a cash cow. In fact, Autodesk said the only reason they aren't selling the full version of AutoCAD on the App Store is that there is presently a cap on prices at $999. If the App Store is anything like the iTunes store, its profits are a drop in the ocean.

[Marvin Holdman] "When you look at what they chose to launch with as a 3rd party app, Automatic Duck, I think we're seeing what they envision their partners to be like. Higher priced plug-ins for more specialized applications. I don't know for sure, but I would also suspect that App Store sales by these venders put a percentage of the sale in Apples pocket. Higher prices, higher profit for Apple for being nothing more than the gatekeeper."

Yes, they want to pass off niche functionalities to third parties (though OMF is arguably not so niche). Regardless, Automatic Duck was never for sale via the App Store. And I doubt Apple had any say in what the price was. If anything, Apple's attitude about software pricing is to make prices disruptively low.

As I type this, I see no accessory apps (aside from tutorials) for FCPX on the App Store outside Apple's own Motion and Compressor. I do agree there is a race-to-the-bottom effect associated with pricing FCPX at $299, but in the world of AE and Pro Tools, it is common for plug-ins to cost more than the app they are sold for. If Apple has some nefarious plan for making fistfuls of cash off the FCPX ecosystem, there isn't even a whiff of that happening yet despite plugins and helper apps already available for sale outside the App Store.

Besides, a lot of the third party software for use with FCPX will be FREE. DaVinci Lite? AJA Control Room? BlackMagic Media Express? You can bet the forthcoming camera-native codec support will be gratis as well. The stuff they are leaving to third parties will not cost extra very often. $500 Automatic Duck OMF support will be the exception, not the rule.

[Marvin Holdman] "The more time passes by, the more it seems that FCPX was designed in the boardroom by the marketing department. The fact that it seems to advocate a less functional core with a much higher degree of 3rd party dependency seems unrealistic for an enterprise level application. "

I'll agree that product marketing executives have a lot to do with steering product development, but the way Apple seems to be handling development for FCPX looks very shrewd to me. Think about it: what were FCP's big development shortcomings in the past? Codec support limitations that had to wait for major revs every 18-24 months to address. Brittle legacy QuickTime frameworks that were not designed to handle the rigors of accurate video. Now? Apple is actually baking broadcast video muscle into the OS frameworks. Instead of asking the Pro Apps team to deal with low-level stuff like new codecs, they are now free to work on high-level features.

I don't think the thing that makes rapid development practical is the App Store as we've heard a few times from Richard Townhill. I think they get rapid development because they have a proper foundation to build on. If they deliver on their promise for the next version, they will have achieved critical feature parity with FCP7 in less than a year. That's impressive.

[Marvin Holdman] "I don't remember anyone asking for further proliferation of 3rd party vendors in their editing software? It certainly wasn't a feature that I even remotely imagined, but then again, I'm not on the board."

What is so bad about building a platform? FCP was as successful as it was because it was so open to third party enhancement at a time when Avid only worked with Avid hardware (right down to the hard drives they "qualified" and marked up by 300%). Apple has been adamant that they think an ecosystem is better than a monolith. Maybe no one was blogging about how much they wished Apple would leave tape transport to AJA and BMD, but there were plenty of people complaining about how spotty the Edit to Tape function was in legacy FCP.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Greg Andonian
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 5:54:07 am

[Andrew Richards] "If they deliver on their promise for the next version, they will have achieved critical feature parity with FCP7"

That's not true. FCP7 could open projects from previous versions.

______________________________________________
"THAT'S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."


Return to posts index


Andrew Richards
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 3:39:27 pm

[Greg Andonian] "That's not true. FCP7 could open projects from previous versions."

Fair enough, and Apple has stated they aren't going to chase that dragon. However, with the new XML capability, CatDV can convert FCP7 sequence XML into FCPXML. Not a perfect translation, but then nothing could be. Interchange between any two NLEs will lose some level of detail like effects, titles, etc.

The more salient point is that the barriers to using FCPX in any real world workflow are quickly coming down. Then it becomes a matter of preference instead of outright missing capabilities.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 8:58:17 am

[Andrew Richards] "they will have achieved critical feature parity with FCP7 in less than a year. "

seriously?


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


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 3:54:17 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "seriously?"



What were the critical workflow capabilities missing from 10.0?

  • XML I/O = solved
  • Multi-track audio output = solved (and very elegantly, IMHO)
  • Shared storage support = solved (though not as wide open as it was with legacy FCP)
  • OMF export = already supported by 3rd party (Automatic Duck)
  • Legacy project support = already supported by third party (CatDV)
  • Multi-cam = next rev
  • Broadcast I/O = next rev

They also addressed some less than critical omissions like sequence starting timecode and connected clip transitions.

The theme here is that the debate must shift from what FCPX can't do at all to what we think about how it does everything it needs to do in order to play ball. Plenty of valid points on both sides of that debate, as we've seen in some threads around here.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 4:07:57 pm

[Andrew Richards] "XML I/O = solved"

What can I do with FCPXML today? What other apps support it? Can FCPX successfully roundtrip an edit to itself via FCPXML?


[Andrew Richards] "Multi-track audio output = solved (and very elegantly, IMHO)"

The commentary I've seen here from the video-oriented posters is that roles are great; the audio-oriented posters remain unconvinced.


[Andrew Richards] "OMF export = already supported by 3rd party (Automatic Duck)"

Where do I buy this? Not from http://www.automaticduck.com -- that's a news release about AD's new relationship with Adobe.


[Andrew Richards] "Legacy project support = already supported by third party (CatDV)"

Isn't this extremely limited?


[Andrew Richards] "The theme here is that the debate must shift from what FCPX can't do at all to what we think about how it does everything it needs to do in order to play ball. Plenty of valid points on both sides of that debate, as we've seen in some threads around here."

Although I don't think we're nearly as far along as you've argued (see above), I do think you're calling out the right theme going forward. I expect that many of the "missing" capabilities will be added over time, and then we can get back to debating the merits of the design decisions in FCPX.

Of coures, by then, we may also have a better idea what to expect from CS6 and MC6. I don't expect it to get dull around here anytime soon.

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

Andrew Richards
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 6:11:06 pm

[Walter Soyka] "What can I do with FCPXML today? What other apps support it? Can FCPX successfully roundtrip an edit to itself via FCPXML?"

You mean other than Smoke, Resolve, and CatDV? That is just the launch-day list. AJA and BMD are hot on the trail.

[Walter Soyka] "Where do I buy this? Not from http://www.automaticduck.com -- that's a news release about AD's new relationship with Adobe."

Yeah, curious, that. Adobe and Automatic Duck need to crap or get off the pot. Is this an acquisition? Are the products going away? Apple isn't the only company with questionable corporate communications.

[Walter Soyka] "Isn't this extremely limited?"

It is, but we are one week hence from the release of 10.0.1. I'd be very surprised if more folks don't try to attack this problem. The demand is certainly there.

[Walter Soyka] "Of coures, by then, we may also have a better idea what to expect from CS6 and MC6. I don't expect it to get dull around here anytime soon."

We'll need to lobby for renaming this forum "NLE Wars" or something broader than the FCPX debate.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 6:28:34 pm

[Andrew Richards] "You mean other than Smoke, Resolve, and CatDV? That is just the launch-day list. AJA and BMD are hot on the trail."

Really? Resolve 8.1 [link] is still unreleased.

Like Resolve, Smoke's FCPXML support is coming [link], but not here today.


Andrew, I think I am coming across as way more argumentative with you than I really mean to be, and I apologize for that. I agree with your general point that all this is coming, but suggesting that interchange is a problem that's totally solved today isn't accurate. Soon -- but not now.


[Andrew Richards] "We'll need to lobby for renaming this forum "NLE Wars" or something broader than the FCPX debate."

I like Craig and Tim's suggestion of "Industry Trends." I'd love to see this level of interest and debate broaden significantly. I've learned a ton here.

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


Andrew Richards
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 6:46:08 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Andrew, I think I am coming across as way more argumentative with you than I really mean to be, and I apologize for that. I agree with your general point that all this is coming, but suggesting that interchange is a problem that's totally solved today isn't accurate. Soon -- but not now."

No worries. Soon, very soon. My main point was that Apple held up their end of the bargain by rolling out XML interchange and by including some high-profile partners for early access so they could add the functionality to their apps very soon after FCPX could print out its XML.

[Walter Soyka] "I like Craig and Tim's suggestion of "Industry Trends." I'd love to see this level of interest and debate broaden significantly. I've learned a ton here."

"Industry Trends" would be a lot less combative, wouldn't it? We certainly live in disruptive times. It dovetails with the Business and Marketing forum too.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 9:49:21 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I like Craig and Tim's suggestion of "Industry Trends." I'd love to see this level of interest and debate broaden significantly. I've learned a ton here.
"


Ditto. I would very much like to widen this conversation beyond FCP X.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 29, 2011 at 6:32:04 am

[Chris Harlan] "[Walter Soyka] "I like Craig and Tim's suggestion of "Industry Trends." I'd love to see this level of interest and debate broaden significantly. I've learned a ton here.
"

Ditto. I would very much like to widen this conversation beyond FCP X."


We're pretty much there, right? :-)

The problem is that if we name it the "Industry Trends Forum," we might as well call it the "Nothing Interesting Here, Now Where Can I Go Yell About FCPX Forum." This discussion is what drew the crowd, and FCPX is still fueling the fire, so to speak.

So maybe "FCPX & Industry Trends" as gentler transition?

Not that this forum would even exist if gentle transitions were the order of the day.


Return to posts index


Chris Harlan
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 29, 2011 at 9:57:00 am

Hey, we're all in showbiz. If the title fills the seats, it should stay what it is.


Return to posts index

Andreas Kiel
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 4:37:41 pm

Andrew Richards wrote:
"What were the critical workflow capabilities missing from 10.0?

XML I/O = solved
..."

Hmm, at least for this point I can't say it's solved. It's there, but that doesn't mean it's working as expected by some users.
I think it's good step, but no solution.
If you can't do a XML round trip from FCP X to FCP X that doesn't sound like a solution - at least for me.

Not that I dislike FCP X. For example I love how the did the Motion interactive FCP generator options - they are not perfect yet, but pretty cool. Everybody can build effects now.

Regarding the shop and updates I got a mixed feeling. If I'm in a region where internet connection is slow and expensive it's bad - very bad. My temporary provider tried to charge me about 4000 USD for the FCPX download (took 10 days).

On the other hand it could be very convenient and maybe a bit more environment save.

Spherico
http://www.spherico.com/filmtools


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 6:18:19 pm

[Andreas Kiel] "Hmm, at least for this point I can't say it's solved. It's there, but that doesn't mean it's working as expected by some users.
I think it's good step, but no solution.
If you can't do a XML round trip from FCP X to FCP X that doesn't sound like a solution - at least for me."


Apple held up their end of the bargain, anyway. And why can't you round trip? FCP X writes and reads FCPXML. I don't have details for Smoke and Resolve round tripping, but CatDV 9.0.1 round trips. That many users don't really understand what XML is and in turn projected a false hope for native XMEML/FCPXML interchange is just the natural outcome of that (reasonable) ignorance.

[Andreas Kiel] "Regarding the shop and updates I got a mixed feeling. If I'm in a region where internet connection is slow and expensive it's bad - very bad. My temporary provider tried to charge me about 4000 USD for the FCPX download (took 10 days)."

This could be a VAR opportunity. But like they did with Lion, I think it would behoove Apple to offer alternative distribution methods for larger app payloads. Not everyone is on unlimited broadband and multiple GB downloads are impractical for a lot of people.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index


John-Michael Seng-Wheeler
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 7:15:11 pm

[Andrew Richards] "And why can't you round trip? FCP X writes and reads FCPXML. "
Currently, Audio levels and a lot of clip settings are not saved. You'll have a hard time round tripping a nearly finished project.


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 7:22:00 pm

[John-Michael Seng-Wheeler] "Currently, Audio levels and a lot of clip settings are not saved. You'll have a hard time round tripping a nearly finished project."

Ah, good point. On the other hand, in my limited experience with round tripping for final sound and picture, we got stems back from Pro Tools, ready to lay in. I just figured once you left FCP for Pro Tools or Resolve, you wouldn't be coming back for more edits, you'd be coming back to conform output.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 10:26:33 pm

[Andrew Richards] "I just figured once you left FCP for Pro Tools or Resolve, you wouldn't be coming back for more edits,"

The problem with that thought is that, potentially, there are ALWAYS more edits.


Return to posts index

Marvin Holdman
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 12:44:16 pm

[Andrew Richards] - "They put out a .0.1 release with a non-trivial feature payload 91 days after they shipped 10.0. This is a slow rev cycle? Compared to what?"

Actually, I believe I mention that releases would be more frequent, but even so, with this new reliance on 3rd party vendors, it's going to be a slow road to functionality. I don't doubt the release cycle will increase and that's part of the problem. Just because minor changes may come more frequently, it doesn't mean overall functionality will do the same. Here's a quote straight from Apple, via Townhill, "the first foundation stone in a building that's going to be assembled over the next ten years." Sounds like a slow train to me.

[Andrew Richards] - "Apple might not have an emissary on these forums, but they have been uncharacteristically candid (for them) about their plans for FCPX."

I would have to say this is due mostly to the blowback that came from this release. All indications are that they will return to "business as usual" regarding this particular software. Look at Townhill's revisionist statement regarding the matter, "The professional [editor] is critical to Apple, and it's a customer we don't want to lose." Pretty much just blows off any criticism regarding the release. Sure it's a statement, but it really doesn't say anything other than "What problem?" I wouldn't call spin "candid".

[Andrew Richards] - "And what is the "severe limitation" in their APIs?"

My bad, should have read "severely limited RELEASE of their API's". To date, only a small handful of select vendors have received the API's. This seems odd for an application that has continually stated the plans for 3rd party vendors.

[Andrew Richards] - " If Apple has some nefarious plan for making fistfuls of cash off the FCPX ecosystem, there isn't even a whiff of that happening yet despite plugins and helper apps already available for sale outside the App Store."

As they've stated this is a "long range" plan, I think we just haven't seen it come to fruition yet. Perhaps it's because they haven't had widespread release of the API's? perhaps they are still trying to define what exactly FCPX is going to be? Who knows, we can only speculate on the long range plan for this. I'm not saying I'm right regarding the App Store, I'm just saying it seems like a plan to me. I don't know that I would call this plan "nefarious", but I'm not sure it's the best way to create this type of software either. Frankly, there is a lot I like about the App Store. The convenience and lower price points overall make it pretty practical. The "whiffs" I'm getting are coming from the fact that the app store concept is an expanding one that goes beyond Apple. (Windows 8 anyone?)

[Andrew Richards] - "What is so bad about building a platform?"

FCS7 was "open" in as much as there were a fair amount of plug-ins available for it. Most of the core functionality, like tape control, EDL, XML was handled in the program. This, combined with a single source for OS, hardware and app, made for a very competitive product. Given the fact that we'll probably see some of the "dumbed down" included functionality enhanced by 3rd party vendors (like more control over effects) it seems like getting anywhere near the built in functionality of FCS7 is going to require quite a bit more 3rd party involvement.

What is bad about that? More pug-ins + more frequent upgrades + uncommunicative mothership = challenge to keep system current.

[Andrew Richards} - "I think they get rapid development because they have a proper foundation to build on."

I agree. I just wonder if this suggested architecture is "proper". It's a question that has been asked quite frequently in respect to timelines and metadata, I just wonder about it in terms of what Apple's suggested re-definition of what a NLE is. In a day when all the other NLE seem to be moving towards native inclusion of functionality, Apple's suggestion that it can all be outsourced is certainly radical. I just wonder about it's practicality, based on history. Perhaps Apple DOES have some nefarious plan to issue shock collars with API's in order to keep their 3rd party vendors in line? Maybe that's the delay? Working the bugs out of the hardware for the "Vender Motivation Program"?

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 4:32:06 pm

[Marvin Holdman] "Just because minor changes may come more frequently, it doesn't mean overall functionality will do the same. Here's a quote straight from Apple, via Townhill, "the first foundation stone in a building that's going to be assembled over the next ten years." Sounds like a slow train to me."

Except I would argue that the one minor rev we have so far added significant critical functionality and it did so in a very short time (by software development standards). The long tail Townhill is referring to is software that can grow with Moore's Law for a long time, not that they will drag their feet getting features added. They've already proven they can deliver big features on a short schedule. If the updates slow to a crawl after the next promised rev in "early 2012", then I'll eat crow. For now, they are doing just what they said they would.

[Marvin Holdman] "Look at Townhill's revisionist statement regarding the matter, "The professional [editor] is critical to Apple, and it's a customer we don't want to lose." Pretty much just blows off any criticism regarding the release. Sure it's a statement, but it really doesn't say anything other than "What problem?" I wouldn't call spin "candid". "

They have been claiming to love the pro all along, it just rang (rings?) hollow when you see the product. The candidness I was referring to was the FAQ and the bottom of the new feature page. Apple almost never talks about future product like that. They published their timeline and they hit their first deadline.

[Marvin Holdman] "To date, only a small handful of select vendors have received the API's. This seems odd for an application that has continually stated the plans for 3rd party vendors."

I'd rather see this stuff up on the Apple Dev site too. But practically speaking, we don't really know who is and isn't included on access to the camera SDK. If it turns out to be Sony, Panasonic, JVC, Canon, RED, and ARRI, will it matter the APIs weren't opened up?

[Marvin Holdman] "...I'm not sure it's the best way to create this type of software either. ...The "whiffs" I'm getting are coming from the fact that the app store concept is an expanding one that goes beyond Apple. (Windows 8 anyone?)"

It's just a distribution channel, and unlike iOS it isn't the exclusive distribution channel. Third parties need not participate. If anything, the way Apple has limited the spec for what is allowed for sale on the App Store precludes much of the post world's apps and plugins since they are not self-contained applications. Most of them wouldn't qualify for sale on the App Store even if they wanted to be there under the present rules. Apple has bent itself over backwards to use the store for its own non-self-contained-app software (Lion, Xcode 4), but the rest of the place is very much slanted to the casual consumer. If they ever make the App Store the only way to get software on a Mac, then I get very upset.

[Marvin Holdman] "Most of the core functionality, like tape control, EDL, XML was handled in the program. This, combined with a single source for OS, hardware and app, made for a very competitive product."

It also made for the bad old days when an innocent QuickTIme update for iTunes would bring FCP to its knees. Tape control in FCP was well known for its flakiness. XML is a moot point now, and really so is EDL (has anyone written an AppleScript to convert FCPXML to EDL yet?).


[Marvin Holdman] "What is bad about that? More pug-ins + more frequent upgrades + uncommunicative mothership = challenge to keep system current."

The outsourcing of features strategy can be a double-edged sword, yes. However, we always needed drivers to be updated for AJA and BMD cards in the past (for instance), and they have almost always been johnny-on-the-spot with them following revs to FCP. Everything else takes place with XML, and just like XMEML before it, FCPXML will have versions with varying levels of features added over time. The addition of FCPXML 2.0 someday won't break what works with FCPXML 1.0. The downside is users heavily reliant on third party stuff will need to be more cautious when upgrading, but again, how is that different from when Apple's new QuickTime update would break Apple's Pro Apps?

[Marvin Holdman] "I just wonder if this suggested architecture is "proper". It's a question that has been asked quite frequently in respect to timelines and metadata, I just wonder about it in terms of what Apple's suggested re-definition of what a NLE is. In a day when all the other NLE seem to be moving towards native inclusion of functionality, Apple's suggestion that it can all be outsourced is certainly radical. I just wonder about it's practicality, based on history."

I was thinking more of the underpinnings of the app, not so much the UI and its metaphor or the strategy to let third parties pick up any slack. But the underpinnings in the OS for handling video (AVFoundation, CoreMedia, and CoreVideo), for tracking project data (CoreData), and for rendering (shared engine with Motion and Compressor) mean less low-level tinkering by the Pro Apps team and more high-level feature work on a shorter timeline with fewer development resources. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them encourage third parties to jump in and solve problems and then add the features directly the app down the line. They've done it over and over before, so I doubt they will stop now.

As an aside, for anyone still doubting Apple's corporate commitment to pro media, I ask why they are putting so much exclusively professional media handling capability into the core of OS X? They are going from having a motley crew of apps with different guts and development legacies to a suite of tools that all work from the same bones (I'm including Logic in that statement, anticipating Logic Pro X to be built on all the same bones). That's the ten year plan: stop duplicating work and let the OS do the heavy lifting. This serves at least two purposes. It lets the Pro Apps teams focus on the visible stuff, and it acts as an incubator for the OS team to see firsthand how third party developers will interact with their APIs. OS X is on the verge of relevance in the IT world at large, and being ready with tried and tested development platforms is a good thing for the platform and ultimately for Mac sales.

I empathize with your concern over the whole outsourcing of features concept, but on the whole I think what they are doing is a net positive.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 4:48:11 pm

[Andrew Richards] "As an aside, for anyone still doubting Apple's corporate commitment to pro media, I ask why they are putting so much exclusively professional media handling capability into the core of OS X?"

What "exclusively professional" media handling are they building into the OS?

I'd argue that users want media-rich apps, so developers want to build media-rich apps, so Apple wants to provide developers with the tools to build media-rich apps.

If you're going to build a new media architecture anyway, why not make it as generalized and powerful as possible (supporting things like arbitrary resolutions and color management) so you can provide your developers with some stability, and not have to scrap the whole thing in a few years when we all have 4K iPads?

This doesn't change the fact that Apple has some really wonderful technologies upon which professional applications may be built -- but isn't it also plausible that they're just good, forward-thinking engineers without a deep professional media master plan?

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

Andrew Richards
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 6:26:02 pm

[Walter Soyka] "What "exclusively professional" media handling are they building into the OS?"

CoreMedia specifically lists codecs like ProRes and DVCPRO HD and container formats like XDCAM. This is deep OS-level stuff, brand new in Lion. Any developer can write an app for Lion with native 64-bit GPU-accelerated support for broadcast acquisition formats. There is no consumery web use case for XDCAM.

[Walter Soyka] "This doesn't change the fact that Apple has some really wonderful technologies upon which professional applications may be built -- but isn't it also plausible that they're just good, forward-thinking engineers without a deep professional media master plan?"

The big difference is at the corporate level, Apple has decided to have the Core OS team shoulder load that can only be useful to the Pro Apps team (at least internally). The old way was silted QuickTime teams, OS teams, and Pro Apps teams all working in parallel, instead of in concert. I'm not saying that Apple's market target for FCP hasn't changed, I'm just saying that there is clearly some level of commitment to pro video when you have support for handling XDCAM at the OS level.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 6:16:18 pm

[Andrew Richards] "Except I would argue that the one minor rev we have so far added significant critical functionality and it did so in a very short time (by software development standards). The long tail Townhill is referring to is software that can grow with Moore's Law for a long time, not that they will drag their feet getting features added. They've already proven they can deliver big features on a short schedule. If the updates slow to a crawl after the next promised rev in "early 2012", then I'll eat crow. For now, they are doing just what they said they would."

I fear I disagree. They were under inordinate pressure because of the PR backlash. IMHO, it's not like they made these alterations based a normal time table. And look at the promises in the FAQ. Certainly, they managed to just deliver on the "this summer" promises, but failed on "in a few weeks..." promise. Also, there was a fairly strong implication that i/o was just around the corner. Now its next year. I'm saying this, not in judgement of the Apple people, but because I disagree with your argument that we can make behavioral assessments based on the last few months. Also, I think I have to disagree with your definition significant critical functionality. I just see a few steps forward, which are welcome ones, but small.


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 6:38:49 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Certainly, they managed to just deliver on the "this summer" promises, but failed on "in a few weeks..." promise. Also, there was a fairly strong implication that i/o was just around the corner. Now its next year."

We only saw an update "this summer", but in order for Blackmagic, Autodesk, and Square Box to ship launch day FCPXML support for Resolve, Smoke and CatDV, they almost certainly had access after "a few weeks". But I'll grant that the FAQ sure made it seem like public access to the new XML would come in a few weeks, not a few months.

[Chris Harlan] "I disagree with your argument that we can make behavioral assessments based on the last few months. Also, I think I have to disagree with your definition significant critical functionality. I just see a few steps forward, which are welcome ones, but small."

Fair enough, it isn't an adequate sample size to really know for sure. It is just so far, so good.

As to critical functionality, I'm thinking of that as the aspects of the software that make it able to operate in a modern post workflow. Aside from what they have already delivered (XML, Roles, SAN support) and what they have repeatedly stated they will add (Multi-cam, Broadcast I/O), what else is missing? The XML feature makes all manner of interchange possible, even if FCPX itself never exports OMF or EDL files. Others hate the idea of third parties being responsible for features essential to their particular workflows, but I'm OK with it. As I look through the lens of the last shop I worked at, the next rev will deliver everything needed to tick all the requirements boxes for their workflow.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 6:45:44 pm

[Andrew Richards] " Others hate the idea of third parties being responsible for features essential to their particular workflows, but I'm OK with it."

Surely the fact that Automatic Duck OMF export was something you could buy at the start of this week and now no longer can says quite a lot about how fragile the third party support model actually is - especially since AD is/was about the only third party solution yet available.

This is not to say that Automatic Duck won't be back to business as usual next week but it's not a good precedent.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 7:06:01 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Surely the fact that Automatic Duck OMF export was something you could buy at the start of this week and now no longer can says quite a lot about how fragile the third party support model actually is - especially since AD is/was about the only third party solution yet available. "

That is the big risk, yes. The caveat I would point out though is that AD had exclusive early access to the hooks for delivering OMF. Essentially a monopoly position, reflected in their price. With FCPXML out there in the wild, anyone with the time and the talent can make an OMF export widget and sell it for whatever they think is fair. Nearly all third party integration depends on that XML capability, so the way things were for the first three months likely won't be the way things will be moving forward.

Risk is certainly there, but then HP could decide to get out of the PC business, Microsoft could completely reskin Windows, and a tsunami could wipe out SR delivery. Unless we somehow go open-source, we're always at the mercy of larger forces. Adobe is completely dependent on NVIDIA for CUDA. Apple is completely dependent on Intel for new Xeons to build a new Mac Pro around. Avid is still in the red (though they seem to be slowly clawing their way out). It's a crazy world out there.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 7:13:46 pm

[Andrew Richards] "Risk is certainly there, but then HP could decide to get out of the PC business, Microsoft could completely reskin Windows, and a tsunami could wipe out SR delivery."

Fair point - it sure ain't a risk-free business ... or a risk free world, especially these days.

But for my money Apple are taking easily avoidable risks by getting third parties to take care of really basic stuff like OMF that they could soooooooo easily have built into the app themselves. Why they didn't is quite simply beyond me. Any ideas?

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 7:18:56 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "But for my money Apple are taking easily avoidable risks by getting third parties to take care of really basic stuff like OMF that they could soooooooo easily have built into the app themselves. Why they didn't is quite simply beyond me. Any ideas?"

Search me. I'm not convinced they won't add it back in, especially in response to this AutoDuck puzzlement. I wonder if their (arrogant) attitude is something like "all interchange should be via XML, and all other interchange formats are obsolete." They aren't technically wrong that XML provides much more info than an EDL, but as a practical matter that kind of hubris, if real, isn't doing anyone any favors.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 7:30:24 pm

[Andrew Richards] " I wonder if their (arrogant) attitude is something like "all interchange should be via XML, and all other interchange formats are obsolete.""

Yes, I do get the sense that that's where they're coming from - clearly everyone wants to have the interchange format that rules the world and it must always have narked Apple that they had to support AVID's OMF ...

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 7:02:13 pm

[Andrew Richards] " It is just so far, so good. "

Agreed.

[Andrew Richards] "As I look through the lens of the last shop I worked at, the next rev will deliver everything needed to tick all the requirements boxes for their workflow."

You may very well be right about that. In fact, given the pressure caused by the outcry, I'd say you probably are right about that, but I'm sure you can understand the skepticism since none of these things were part of the initial release, and many of the step forward appear to people as workarounds or bandaids. I think Roles is an interesting idea that, despite its cleverness, screams "afterthought."

Now, I freely admit that interesting and even eventually essential things are often born in this kind of chaos, which is the main reason I delight in this forum. So, I'm still following along, playing with the software here and there, and if anyone ever publishes and edl export, I might actually use it on a non-time sensitive bit of work to force myself to dig in deeper. I just find it troubling to try to second guess Apple's intentions. My gut guess is that Apple is having the same problem.


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 7:14:33 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I'm sure you can understand the skepticism since none of these things were part of the initial release, and many of the step forward appear to people as workarounds or bandaids. I think Roles is an interesting idea that, despite its cleverness, screams "afterthought." "

I can, and that goes with the territory of shipping a product with holes in it and filling them in as you go. I don't think Roles are an afterthought though, they were there in 10.0, just with no apparent use. There is a rhyme and reason to a metadata-centic organization, but they shipped that feature half-baked and the casual observer can be forgiven for their skepticism.

Steve Jobs is famous for pushing for a shipping product and then iterating that product over time. They've followed that ethos since he came back to Apple in almost everything they've done. The saying is, if you wait for it to be done, it is never done.

[Chris Harlan] " I just find it troubling to try to second guess Apple's intentions. My gut guess is that Apple is having the same problem."

I bet there are epic arguments in the halls and meeting rooms in Cupertino daily. May the best idea win!

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 7:27:05 pm

[Andrew Richards] "Steve Jobs is famous for pushing for a shipping product and then iterating that product over time. They've followed that ethos since he came back to Apple in almost everything they've done. The saying is, if you wait for it to be done, it is never done."

This strategy has served Apple very well in the consumer space and with brand new products -- but FCPX feels different.

They are trying to drag an entire industry along with them toward their vision of the future, with little regard for their customers, whom they have now trapped in between two less-than-ideal offerings.

XML is a perfect example: if Apple had shipped FCPX with XMEML output, Smoke and Resolve could have finished FCPX projects in June. Instead, Autodesk and DaVinci are tasked with writing new importers to deal with FCPXML, and FCPX is disqualified from collaborative workflows until they're done.

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

Chris Kenny
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 29, 2011 at 9:26:27 am

[Walter Soyka] "This strategy has served Apple very well in the consumer space and with brand new products -- but FCPX feels different.

They are trying to drag an entire industry along with them toward their vision of the future, with little regard for their customers, whom they have now trapped in between two less-than-ideal offerings."


Err... how is this different from usual? The OS X and Intel transitions could be described in precisely the same way, and the evolving relationship between iOS and OS X will probably yield similar accusations.

As far as I can see, FCP X is a classic Apple move. If it "feels different" to some people its because of their own relationship to the FCP franchise, not because of a significant difference in Apple's approach.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 29, 2011 at 1:30:54 pm

[Chris Kenny] "Err... how is this different from usual? The OS X and Intel transitions could be described in precisely the same way, and the evolving relationship between iOS and OS X will probably yield similar accusations."

Apple is applying their new product strategy to a dominant product, knocking it back to square one.

I'd point to the OS 9 / OS X and PPC/Intel transitions as the right way to accomplish the sort of foundation overhaul that FCP desperately needed. Apple worked hard to smooth both those transitions, supporting both 9 and X, developing Classic, porting Carbon to X, giving developers long roadmaps, developing Rosetta, and adding universal binaries.

The FCP/FCPX transition was a cut; the other Apple transitions you mentioned were dissolves.

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

Chris Harlan
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 8:47:04 pm

[Andrew Richards] "I don't think Roles are an afterthought though, they were there in 10.0, just with no apparent use. There is a rhyme and reason to a metadata-centic organization, but they shipped that feature half-baked and the casual observer can be forgiven for their skepticism.
"


That's quite a statement. And a cheep shot. By that logic, there are tracks in FCP X too. Inside the code, there is a whole graveyard of ways FCP X didn't go. Some of it may show up; a lot of it never will. It is just as likely--in fact, more likely from my perspective--that some of the development team realized, early on, the potentially serious pitfalls of the magnetic timeline and began track work-arounds long before the project debuted. That was deemed unnecessary by the powers that be, but got worked back in after the release outcry. You see a lot of order is this product. To my mind, that is a far more likely scenario. I believe waring concepts about the product's identity took place all through development, and that those leaks from a few years ago--that I so easily dismissed at the time--were accurate. The casual observer does not need to be forgiven their skepticism--Apple is 100% responsible for that because of the fog they generated. What I'm not sure of, though, is that you should be forgiven your optimism.


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 29, 2011 at 12:34:17 am

[Chris Harlan] "That's quite a statement. And a cheep shot"

I've managed to inadvertently insult you again. I'm sorry. I didn't mean you are a casual observer, I took your reference to "the skepticism" not to be self-referential. I'm not trying to belittle you.

[Chris Harlan] "Inside the code, there is a whole graveyard of ways FCP X didn't go. Some of it may show up; a lot of it never will. It is just as likely--in fact, more likely from my perspective--that some of the development team realized, early on, the potentially serious pitfalls of the magnetic timeline and began track work-arounds long before the project debuted. That was deemed unnecessary by the powers that be, but got worked back in after the release outcry."

The roles in 10.0 aren't buried in the code or referenced in some obscure framework. They are metadata dropdowns in the Inspector, same as in 10.0.1. As I understand it, they drove the OMF export capability in Automatic Duck. Now they do more.

I don't think they are flailing in the dark with their new metaphor. I think they are iterating like they always do, except now they are under a microscope. But I guess either of us could be right. We'll never know for sure.

[Chris Harlan] "The casual observer does not need to be forgiven their skepticism--Apple is 100% responsible for that because of the fog they generated. What I'm not sure of, though, is that you should be forgiven your optimism."

The skepticism you're defending is skepticism that the Pro Apps team has any idea or plan at all for what they are doing. My unforgivable optimism supposes they are not incompetents and that they might be onto something.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 29, 2011 at 12:39:31 am

[Andrew Richards] "Chris Harlan] "That's quite a statement. And a cheep shot"

I've managed to inadvertently insult you again. I'm sorry. I didn't mean you are a casual observer, I took your reference to "the skepticism" not to be self-referential. I'm not trying to belittle you. "


Oh, you know. It is thin-skined Wednesday here at the hacienda. Sorry about getting sparky.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 29, 2011 at 1:05:49 am

[Andrew Richards] "The roles in 10.0 aren't buried in the code or referenced in some obscure framework. They are metadata dropdowns in the Inspector, same as in 10.0.1. As I understand it, they drove the OMF export capability in Automatic Duck. Now they do more."

THAT is interesting. I didn't know that. Okay, I just moved 3.7% in your direction.


[Andrew Richards] "I don't think they are flailing in the dark with their new metaphor. I think they are iterating like they always do, except now they are under a microscope. But I guess either of us could be right. We'll never know for sure.
"


I don't either. I think they are very knowledgeable folk. I just think that opposing design theories/goals created a bit of chaos in the design. As I've said, I do believe good or interesting things can out of that. In fact, it might be argued that such a state is often required to inspire real innovation. I don't think anyone is stumbling around in the dark, but I think there are some sizable ambiguities in the development plans.



[Andrew Richards] "The skepticism you're defending is skepticism that the Pro Apps team has any idea or plan at all for what they are doing. My unforgivable optimism supposes they are not incompetents and that they might be onto something.
"


No, my skepticism--and really it is skepticism, nat gussied-up fatalism--is based on the notion that internal politics related to commercial forces were so powerful that the pressure from them created over-riding design flaws in the project that it might or might not be able to recover from.

Your tenacious optimism, which I really quite enjoy, as well as your thoughtful arguments are one of the many terrific reason to visit this forum. Calling you an unforgivable optimist, was simply a needlessly grumpy retort on my part. It is, after all, Thin-skinned Wednesday.


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 29, 2011 at 3:22:34 am

[Chris Harlan] "No, my skepticism--and really it is skepticism, nat gussied-up fatalism--is based on the notion that internal politics related to commercial forces were so powerful that the pressure from them created over-riding design flaws in the project that it might or might not be able to recover from. "

The features at this early stage are very schitzo aren't they? On one hand, 4K and scopes, on the other, the Ken Burns effect. They replaced Final Cut Express and are backfilling Final Cut Pro. Getting capabilities back is step one. Then they need to hone the UI. Aindreas is right- the ratio of fluff and chrome to meaningful control surface is too high. There is room for much improvement within the metaphor they've chosen.

[Chris Harlan] "Your tenacious optimism, which I really quite enjoy, as well as your thoughtful arguments are one of the many terrific reason to visit this forum. Calling you an unforgivable optimist, was simply a needlessly grumpy retort on my part. It is, after all, Thin-skinned Wednesday."

Water under the bridge. I am rooting for good ideas and good design. I'm eager to see what legacy cruft Avid is able to shake off in their transition to 64 bit in MC6. They won't abandon their UI, but they would do well to leave behind some of their architecture that prevents them from embracing a broader third party ecosystem. I'd love to see Adobe streamline their apps so that they don't bury my Applications folder in so much clutter. How many months till NAB?

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 29, 2011 at 3:37:50 am

[Andrew Richards] "How many months till NAB?"

I don't know if I'm going yet, but I'm very interested in what word will be around the SMPTE tech conference next month.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 2:56:21 pm


"They posted an FAQ stating what they were working on, when they would release it, and they have adhered to those statements. They have reiterated they will be bringing two more critical features (broadcast monitoring and multi-cam) in the next rev. This is tight-lipped? Apple might not have an emissary on these forums, but they have been uncharacteristically candid (for them) about their plans for FCPX."


You have just listed - almost in its entirety - all communications Apple have made about their plans. It may take another sentence or two to complete the picture.

You think this is good communication? You accept this as being forthcoming?

One assumes they've taken down the FAQ because that communication is no longer relevant to their plans.

It is ridiculous that you have to qualify "candid" ("for them") and you don't see the irony ...

Apple is a company that doesn't communicate - it uses marketing.


Franz.


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 4:47:27 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "You have just listed - almost in its entirety - all communications Apple have made about their plans. It may take another sentence or two to complete the picture."

When Avid had their preview event for MC6 where they started off with a huge disclaimer stating nothing they were showing was a promise. How much more communication do you need? Does Randy Ubillos need to host a weekly call-in show? The FAQ said everything they needed to say about the immediate future of FCPX, and then they walked the walk.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "One assumes they've taken down the FAQ because that communication is no longer relevant to their plans."

I assume they took it down because they did everything they said they were going to do in the FAQ, save for two more features they still list publicly as being forthcoming with a timeline. Discussing future product plans is a dangerous exercise. Go mention "Longhorn" in Redmond and see what kind of reaction you get...

[Franz Bieberkopf] "It is ridiculous that you have to qualify "candid" ("for them") and you don't see the irony ..."

What irony? Everything is relative. They are habitually mum on new products and with FCPX they have been unusually forthcoming. I'm not sure what standard you are holding Apple to, but I can't find the blogs on Adobe's site telling us all about the ongoing development of CS6 or on Avid's site telling us all about what they are working on for MC6.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Apple is a company that doesn't communicate - it uses marketing."

Everything a company does in public is marketing.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Marvin Holdman
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 7:17:38 pm

[Andrew Richards] - "How much more communication do you need? Does Randy Ubillos need to host a weekly call-in show? The FAQ said everything they needed to say about the immediate future of FCPX, and then they walked the walk."

I just find it lacking when I get more information from their products, and a clearer idea of where it might be headed, from you than from Apple. Yes, I think Randy DOES need to host a weekly call-in show. I realize that will probably never happen, but it would certainly be better than broad spin statements from Mr. Townhill.

I have been with Apple a long, long time. I very much understand their "way", but in this case, I think it would have been a good time to depart from their "way". You have to admit, Apple shines best when it launches new technology. However, in this case the new technology they are proposing does more than just change the tools, it suggest that we change our work habits to conform to their tools. Not bad, if it were a REAL 1.0 release, but that is part of the problem. They would like their current customers to accept their idea that everything that has been done since FCP1 be thrown out of the window (years of experience and jobs) to make way for this program. Don't you think that might warrant more than just a FAQ, a splash page and some vague marketing statement?

I appreciate you willingness to provide feedback on this. While I don't agree with your perspective on all of this, it's really great to have an intelligent counter-point.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 7:33:29 pm

[Marvin Holdman] "I just find it lacking when I get more information from their products, and a clearer idea of where it might be headed, from you than from Apple. Yes, I think Randy DOES need to host a weekly call-in show. I realize that will probably never happen, but it would certainly be better than broad spin statements from Mr. Townhill. "

Don't get me wrong, I was and am very frustrated with the deafening silence. I was just giving them credit for backing up their statements from the FAQ. Believe me, till they did that I was one foot out the door. I like where it looks to me they are going, but I'm very disappointed in how they handled all this. Bad form.

[Marvin Holdman] "Not bad, if it were a REAL 1.0 release, but that is part of the problem. They would like their current customers to accept their idea that everything that has been done since FCP1 be thrown out of the window (years of experience and jobs) to make way for this program. Don't you think that might warrant more than just a FAQ, a splash page and some vague marketing statement?"

I wanted more in response to the outcry, and I only forgive them a little because they backed up their statements in the FAQ with a quality update.

I'm still smarting from the loss of FC Server, which was my bread and butter till June 21st. I wish they would just open source it, but then maybe there are licensing encumbrances that make that impossible. I hold out hope for some kind of successor to FCSvr, but who knows when or even if anything will come of the hints that collaborative editing and live-shared Projects and Events will become a reality.

[Marvin Holdman] "I appreciate you willingness to provide feedback on this. While I don't agree with your perspective on all of this, it's really great to have an intelligent counter-point."

Likewise!

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Greg Burke
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 7:23:58 am

[Marvin Holdman] "The more time passes by, the more it seems that FCPX was designed in the boardroom by the marketing department. The fact that it seems to advocate a less functional core with a much higher degree of 3rd party dependency seems unrealistic for an enterprise level application. "

Nicely said.....

I wear many hats.
http://www.gregburkepost.com


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 6:58:13 pm

"Nicely said" if you think there's any relevance to Marvin's guessing. And I mean no slight by that. Marvin seems both intelligent and thoughtful.

But I think that broad, sweeping assumptions are fun to write and read but have little value in making real decisions...sort of like what's wrong with politics in general.

Personally I prefer the glass half full/half empty view.

Right now there's good reason for the disenchanted to be disenchanted and the hopeful to be hopeful.

You can see Apple's moves as part of a strategy being implemented on schedule or action in response to criticism. I'd expect that the latter is part of the former (exchanging "criticism" with "feedback")

The knee jerk criticisms are as predictable as are the knee jerk defenses.

I like the middle road.
Apple is obviously a smart company - all the intelligent folks here have decided to build businesses with their inventions.
Apple is imperfect and capable of bone-headed decisions and obviously horrid communication at times.
All the smart people here have experience with other programs and their initial shortcomings and growth pains.

To me, today, given my similar experience, it appears that Apple is on a good course with X not a stupid and reckless course.

Note that I didn't say "brilliant" or "visionary", I said "good".

I've been wrestling with the X decision like a lot of other business owners.
Things are progressing in that regard, obviously not fast enough for many but time (and nothing else) will tell.


Return to posts index

Marvin Holdman
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 7:27:18 pm

[Jim Gilberti] - ""Nicely said" if you think there's any relevance to Marvin's guessing. And I mean no slight by that. Marvin seems both intelligent and thoughtful."

I think the main relevance is that many of us are left with that feeling. It was a humorous statement, but by virtue of that fact required a grain of truth to make it funny. I'm certain marketing didn't make ALL of the design decisions for this software, but you must admit they had at least SOME influence on them. Of course, that can be said of most any product. In this case the ridiculous nature of FCPX will bring some equally ridiculous speculation. In this case, the speculation makes me smile at the thought of some of those board meetings.

I do agree with you Jim, the middle way is the best. I guess some of us are trying to find our way back there after the events of the last few months. Perhaps that's yet another function of this forum?

Here is one of my favorite shorts relating to our business. Would love to see this re-done with the FCPX development team...







Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 28, 2011 at 10:05:52 pm

Yeah, I love that piece Marvin (I own an ad firm).

And I agree that the Cow has been a great place to work this out in typical support group fashion (if support groups began by dropping blotter acid.)

I've grown to appreciate the sense of humor and irony from both sides of the debate. For example, initially I thought Aindreas was a ranting malcontent. Now I've come to understand that he's a ranting, creative thinker with a most commendable attribute - self-deprecation.

I can't help but be impressed with the thoughtful opinions and insight from people like David L, Craig S and other opposing views.

If you removed a couple of the relentlessly condescending and douchey voices it would be a lot more enjoyable, but for someone that's vacillated over X since it was released, the Cow has become a daily visit for me and I have little doubt that the thoughtful opinions have had impact in Cupertino.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Paradigm of the App Store
on Sep 29, 2011 at 12:46:22 am

oh god no - I'm a malcontent, self deprecating andwhathaveyou - but.. its all malcontent baby.

the smart stuff is indeed with seeman, soyka and lawrence.

beir bua FCP.


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


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]