FORUMS: list search recent posts

Failing so hard

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Ben Holmes
Failing so hard
on Dec 1, 2011 at 11:59:17 am

Just had to pop in to say that FCPX appears to be the second highest grossing app on the store only behind Lion.

Apple - when will you ever learn?

Edit Out Ltd
----------------------------
FCP Editor/Trainer/System Consultant
EVS/VT Supervisor for live broadcast
RED camera transfer/post
Independent Director/Producer

http://www.blackmagic-design.com/community/communitydetails/?UserStoryId=87...


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 1, 2011 at 2:30:29 pm

It is also the most expensive app in the apple store. And there are a lot of iMovie people who want more than iMovie has to offer.

Good for them. They gave the masses the NLE they wanted.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Brian Mulligan
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 1, 2011 at 2:44:49 pm

[Shane Ross] "Good for them. They gave the masses the NLE they wanted"

Now the rest of the world just needs to move on. Use it or don't, but the FCP zealots just need to let it go.

Brian Mulligan
Senior Editor - Autodesk Smoke
WTHR-TV Indianapolis,IN, USA
Twitter: @bkmeditor


Return to posts index


Christian Schumacher
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 1, 2011 at 5:02:00 pm

Why not rename this forum to "The Dead Sea Scrolls", then?
All the zealots could scribe about ancient ideas for the future generations. Hidden here, into the Qumran caves, they would praise how good the old times were and how things used to work back in day of the past ruling.
Simply rename the Bug Techniques to FCPX, and all the paradigm-shifters would embrace the new order, while watching their temple being burnt down and so these can pray for rebuilding a better and eternal one, forever.


Return to posts index

Frank Gothmann
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 1, 2011 at 2:59:39 pm

You mean the very same app store that removed negative reviews when the app first came out and then reset the ratings after the upgrade came out?
Not my most trusted source for how the app is doing.


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 1, 2011 at 3:39:57 pm

[Ben Holmes] "Just had to pop in to say that FCPX appears to be the second highest grossing app on the store only behind Lion."
That's because they do not sell FCS3.

And anyway, where are, or what are doing the new FCPX users?
I don't know if the traffic in the COW is a good indicator of an application acceptance, bu
the FCPX Techniques Forum looks like a sad party (some 4 new posts per day, half of them with c) while the funeral of the extinct FCP keeps a great ambience.
To my amazement seems that the release of FCPX and the special offers for PP and AVID have done but increasing the appreciation for such a great application.

rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 1, 2011 at 3:44:36 pm

Developers like good market penetration if they think users will by their plugins and hardware. With that will come the Pro market as happened with FCP legacy.

I suspect there will be an "uptick" with the next FCPX but time will tell. It may not be the same market share as FCP7 but it will be enough to move some people, especially new people entering the NLE market doing professional work (much of it is NOT Broadcast or Feature Film which is a very small market).



Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 1, 2011 at 4:21:12 pm

Ben,


I don't know whether you've misread this forum deliberately or by casual blindness, but the debate has not been about whether or not FCPX will sell - it is about who will buy and what sort of impact it may or may not have.

But, the App Store is a pretty poor source of information - how many licenses have they sold? Who is buying? How are they using it? (Incidentally, where I am, FCPX is outranked by iMovie at 15.00.)

You probably missed Craig Seeman's calculations a while back but by his guestimate sketch the number was around half a million.


Franz.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 1, 2011 at 4:45:13 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "You probably missed Craig Seeman's calculations a while back but by his guestimate sketch the number was around half a million."

Yes, by comparing known Lion sales and price relative to the ranking of FCPX sales and price since both are sold through the App Store only.

FCP (legacy) market share I believe was estimated at just over 2 million but it's not clear if that included FCE and those who did not upgrade vs those who did from earlier versions.

It seems that FCPX may have around 1/4 quarter the market share but given its newness it's still a healthy enough portion of the market to interest third party developers.

My own hunch is that the next major release early next year will be telling along with any new Computers Apple may release.



Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 1, 2011 at 4:56:53 pm

[Craig Seeman] "It seems that FCPX may have around 1/4 quarter the market share but given its newness it's still a healthy enough portion of the market to interest third party developers."

Do you think it was a lack of third-party interest that has been holding back third-party development?

I haven't gotten the sense that Apple has made development easy (or even possible in some cases).

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

Craig Seeman
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 1, 2011 at 5:24:27 pm

There are some serious issues with the API as I understand it. One of the bigger ones is the inability to implement custom GUI. This is impacting BorisFX, NoiseIndustries (certain plugins), CoreMelt (certain plugins), RedGiant (certain significant plugins). I think this speaks to the very "unfinished" nature of FCPX.

It's one reason why, even though it's obvious to everyone I like the FCPX paradigm, I consider it alpha (features not implemented) even preceding beta (features implemented and under testing).

I also understand that one reason Broadcast Monitoring wasn't there were due to issues relating to Lion. I suspect both will be receiving updates when the next major FCPX release happens.

As to tape input (output?) I had talked to someone at AJA and they said VTR Xchange will handle tape control inside of FCPX. I'm not hearing much "buzz" about that though but if it works that would be significant.

Honestly, as much as I like FCPX as a paradigm, I really don't get the business reasoning behind Apple's release schedule/strategy although I and others have speculated.

Ultimately, if Apple doesn't make developing for FCPX a feature rich and developer friendly environment it may even have limited appeal in non broadcast environments. One thing that made FCP legacy so popular was that, despite its problems, it was enormously extensible.

My own guess is Apple will listen to developers and the APIs will be improved. I can only hope that's part of the next major release though.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 1, 2011 at 6:09:40 pm

[Craig Seeman] "There are some serious issues with the API as I understand it. One of the bigger ones is the inability to implement custom GUI. This is impacting BorisFX, NoiseIndustries (certain plugins), CoreMelt (certain plugins), RedGiant (certain significant plugins). I think this speaks to the very "unfinished" nature of FCPX. "

My question was a bit rhetorical -- the custom GUI problem is a huge problem for developers. My point was that it's not the adoption of FCPX that has delayed plugin releases; it's Apple's lack of developer outreach. Given the number of features Apple was "removing" from FCPX, I would have thought getting more developers on board earlier should have been a much higher priority to help soften the blow.


[Craig Seeman] "It's one reason why, even though it's obvious to everyone I like the FCPX paradigm, I consider it alpha (features not implemented) even preceding beta (features implemented and under testing)."

Agreed!


[Craig Seeman] "I also understand that one reason Broadcast Monitoring wasn't there were due to issues relating to Lion. I suspect both will be receiving updates when the next major FCPX release happens."

That's an excuse. Avid and Adobe have monitoring on Lion, right?


[Craig Seeman] "As to tape input (output?) I had talked to someone at AJA and they said VTR Xchange will handle tape control inside of FCPX. I'm not hearing much "buzz" about that though but if it works that would be significant."

That's great to hear! Having to go outside the NLE to a third-party utility for tape I/O would make insert editing totally unpractical. Keeping it in the app somehow would be a really big deal (for those still delivering on tape).


[Craig Seeman] "Ultimately, if Apple doesn't make developing for FCPX a feature rich and developer friendly environment it may even have limited appeal in non broadcast environments. One thing that made FCP legacy so popular was that, despite its problems, it was enormously extensible."

Hear, hear.

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


Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 1, 2011 at 4:57:01 pm

[Craig Seeman] "It seems that FCPX may have around 1/4 quarter the market share ..."

... of which market?

I think you mean it has around a quarter the sales.


Franz.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 1, 2011 at 5:31:32 pm

That would be all markets.

It certainly can't have much of the broadcast market beyond the "news cutter" anecdotes we see in this forum. It certainly has none of the feature film market and probably not much in the indie and documentary market. I do suspect that it's having some presence in the small business market.

I aslo suspect that a lot of purchases were "experimental" in nature as would be more likely with a $300 download than a $1000 physical package purchase.

Again, the next major update will be telling. I suspect we'll be the real "meddle" tests at that point. Either some facilities (such as OutPost Digital) will jump to it or those waiting will make their final longer term decisions.



Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 1, 2011 at 6:32:36 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "You probably missed Craig Seeman's calculations a while back but by his guestimate sketch the number was around half a million."
Half a million users?
Who is smoking?
I know 1 (one) guy using FCPX.

[Craig Seeman] "It seems that FCPX may have around 1/4 quarter the market share but given its newness it's still a healthy enough portion of the market to interest third party developers."
You are not saying that seriously Craig, don't you?

That Apple has done half a million USD selling 1500 licenses is acceptable.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index


Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCPX Sales Speculation
on Dec 1, 2011 at 6:39:59 pm

Rafael,


The original back-of-napkin calculation:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/19507#19520



Craig,

These numbers would be helped by info for the number 3 slot.


Franz.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX Sales Speculation
on Dec 1, 2011 at 7:58:43 pm

I do hunt to find other numbers to better position the estimate. in Top Grossing Pages is number 3 and iPhoto is number 4.

While FCPX shows at 19 today in Top Paid (which I suspect means Unit Sales) to get a perspective on where that's situated it's just behind Angry Birds Seasons at 18 (Angry Birds at 12) and well ahead of Angry Birds Rio at 34. Grand Theft Auto is at 32. While I haven't seen recent Angry Birds sales numbers, you might imagine they're quite high. FCPX is pretty closely matched to the top selling paid games. The nearest Apple program ranking higher than FCPX is Aperture at 17. Half a million certainly would seem a reasonable estimate given that.

If you're just looking at Top Grossing Video, FCPX is ranked first . . . ahead of iMovie.
If you're just looking at Top Paid Video FCPX is ranked 2nd . . . behind iMovie.

All things considered, FCPX seems to be selling well.
This has nothing to do with who is using it and under what environs.

While some might want to know where that sites compared to FCP legacy, I wonder how it might look compared to FCP1 about 5 months after its initial release.

If developers feel those sales give them a profitable market, it'll be well supported.
If FCPX drives people to upgrade their computers for an app that devours more CPU/GPU resources then Apple and the developers will pursue a spiral up the market niches (much as FCP did).

Regardless of who you think is buying FCPX and why, Sales is sales and if FCPX accelerates Mac sales and developers see an expanding market and they're moving product, it'll be a healthy market.

A lot depends on the next major FCPX update but I wouldn't be surprised if FCPX sales are passed One Million units by the end of 2012 if not sooner. Baring something blowing up or Apple decelerating major updates, I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of 2013 (24 months), FCPX sales will have closely matched FCP legacy sales.

That does NOT mean it will match Broadcast or Feature Film market share (which is a very small portion of the NLE market) but it may well be deep into the small business and corporate post facility market.

At least "Angry Editors" may match the sales of Angry Birds.



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 1, 2011 at 7:26:31 pm

[Rafael Amador] "I know 1 (one) guy using FCPX."

We're talking about OWNING, not using. I know a large number of people who bought it and a number of people experimenting with it and certainly some already using it for professional paying work although usually non broadcast.

[Rafael Amador] "You are not saying that seriously Craig, don't you?"

Most of the plugin developers and nearly all the video card developers that supported FCP legacy have either publicly stated they will support or are already supporting FCPX. Davinci Resolve and CatDV already support its XML for example. AJA is supporting Tape I/O. And all this despite FCPX is still very much "incomplete" in its implementation.

[Rafael Amador] "That Apple has done half a million USD selling 1500 licenses is acceptable."

I have no clue how you're coming up with that number. I documented my estimate number based on known Lion sales vs FCPX sales ranking in the Apple store. Based on that FCPX has sold around half a million copies. This estimate is about a month old so the numbers are likely higher now.

Nothing above is new info so I'd guess you're not following the forum that closely.



Return to posts index


Mitch Ives
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 2, 2011 at 3:31:14 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Most of the plugin developers and nearly all the video card developers that supported FCP legacy have either publicly stated they will support or are already supporting FCPX. Davinci Resolve and CatDV already support its XML for example. AJA is supporting Tape I/O. And all this despite FCPX is still very much "incomplete" in its implementation."

I'm not sure where you're getting that. Isn't VTR Exchange standalone, not in FCPX? That's how AJA demoed it last week... nothing from within FCPX. All this future support is speculative. Red Giant had to lower expectations and extend timelines to "unknown". Resolve appears to be using duct tape and bailing wire... as I understand it it's more of a technology experiment than a solid solution at this point. The fact that FCPX uses a "unique to the universe" version of XML isn't helping.

Will everybody eventually work with FCPX. I'd like to think so, but the truth is I don't know... and neither does anybody else. It's all up to Apple. Will FCPX be extensible, or did they paint themselves into a corner with all this revolutionary stuff? Time will tell. I'm rooting for total openness to 3rd party solutions... which require a big change by Apple and some serious reworking of the GUI...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 2, 2011 at 8:33:32 pm

I'm a broken record here Craig - but london is a ghost town for FCPX Craig - no one from the high to the low is touching it with a barge pole.

why would they? apart from anything else its crappy, buggy software that is barely fit for purpose on any professional level.

Its been met with undisguised scorn in nearly all quarters over here, and vague horror from post houses based on an FCP studio paradigm.

Worse it has resulted in FCP and the mac as a whole being thrown out by the BBC, CNN and a few other large incumbents over here. Actions like that have ramifications don't they? How can we keep saying things like "well its not ready for broadcast." We're saying the successor to FCP studio is unfit for broadcast. Six months after introduction. But then are we genuinely surprised? the thing is built and modelled on iMovie, in ways great and small.

FCPX was expressely designed to monetise iMovie users. That is its reason for being.
that is what Apple chose to do with FCP - monetise their iMovie users.

lest we forget "Apple don't care about the pro market now" the guy who said that had worked on FCP for a half a decade. He's CEO of postereous or something now.

Bottom line - we're six months in, its buggy and unstable as hell, and it is hard to call it anything other than a market failure from any rational professional perspective. An appstore success? absolutely Craig. thats the money in their pocket apple was looking for. They are now in a position to monetise iMovie going forward. That was their goal, and they have achieved it handsomely.

It is not an application built for, or intended for, anything we could vaguely describe as the professional market (say where your Job depends on its capabilities and reliability): it is intended to take three hundred dollars out of the pocket of the casual enthusiast, one who is feeling a little constrained by iMovie, and will feel nicely empowered, but never confused, by the big shiny buttons and near identical methodology, philosophy and GUI of FCPX.

Or... it is somehow not at all exactly what it looks like, and it will calmly over 24 months glide back into professional usage after a massive re-fitting from Apple, one that will require the re-introduction of necessary complexity and flexibility in order to make it usable, thereby completely endangering the target iMovie audience currently lapping it up. You know - the audience it was patently designed for.

mmm.


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


Return to posts index

Syd Foster
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 3, 2011 at 10:34:34 pm

Why not both? They've given a glimpse of potential to so many iMovie neo film makers, and brought them along into the FCPX interzone through which they can expand into the greater scapes of the empowered editor, and then bloom FCPX into the feature rich fully geared up pro app the serious workers are missing right now, but in two years will be flying with, and the whole field has exponentially expanded!?

Seems a decent legacy from that nutty dude Jobs, hmmm?


Return to posts index

Jason Jenkins
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 4, 2011 at 7:56:37 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "why would they? apart from anything else its crappy, buggy software that is barely fit for purpose on any professional level."

I've made quite a bit of money editing on FCPX so far. I find I can get my work done faster with it.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "FCPX was expressely designed to monetise iMovie users. That is its reason for being.
that is what Apple chose to do with FCP - monetise their iMovie users."


I've never used iMovie.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "
It is not an application built for, or intended for, anything we could vaguely describe as the professional market (say where your Job depends on its capabilities and reliability): it is intended to take three hundred dollars out of the pocket of the casual enthusiast"


I've got six figures worth of work lined up for next year. Based on my experience with FCPX so far, I anticipate using it for the majority of that work. Not bad for a casual enthusiast.

Jason Jenkins
Flowmotion Media
Video production... with style!


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 4, 2011 at 11:05:57 am

six figures of advanced billings booked for next year already? Well that's impressive..

You don't find FCPX problematic then? You don't have issues with stability, reliability, the canned effects from motion with limited parameters, inability to manage large projects, how do you work with music based edits? Are you flooding the primary with the audio? That's the only thing I can do, and that just feels incredibly stupid. Don't you find the fact that we're being asked to use iMovie and iPhoto events in the least annoying? Isn't that a bit of a stupid paradigm for professional use? Anyway.. Either end, if it works for you, it works for you, and good luck with it.

The people who acknowledge the bugs and instabilities in this software while defending it, will always call it beta software- but when you look at the basic architectural flaws like the project file mutating in size to a point where the software grinds to a belt, based on basic edits, compound clips and markers *MARKERS* - that too me just doesn't look like particularly good software. I don't think this is very good software. What is so special about it? Seriously - what is so amazing that I couldn't have picked up in iMovie? This feels like a very, very, very buggy expansion of iMovie.


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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 4, 2011 at 3:12:04 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "You don't find FCPX problematic then? You don't have issues with stability, reliability, the canned effects from motion with limited parameters, inability to manage large projects, how do you work with music based edits? Are you flooding the primary with the audio? That's the only thing I can do, and that just feels incredibly stupid. Don't you find the fact that we're being asked to use iMovie and iPhoto events in the least annoying? Isn't that a bit of a stupid paradigm for professional use? "

Within it's known limitations FCPX is perfectly usable, I've used it on a dozen projects and it's been great. Many others are using it for commercial work and it's fine for them also. Cutting music based edits is NOT a problem when you actually learn to use the software. I don't give a monkeys about the iMovie and IPhoto imports because I never use them.

Have you started learning Avid yet?

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Failing so hard
on Dec 4, 2011 at 3:25:47 pm

Still january. New rig = learn Avid time.

Wasn't talking about iMovie imports - was talking about the event paradigm itself. I don't understand how people cannot see that events were intended as , and designed as, chronological buckets arcing back in time for casual consumer use in iMovie and iPhoto. that is what they were made to do - that is their function. No consumer wants to turn off events. But we have to - because we don't match the behaviour for the intended customer for what is clearly a souped up, (and amazingly buggy) iMovie+.

we turn off chronological ordering, and we begin monkeying around with events in the finder to get a workable professional schema out of a consumer orientated product.

It's a consumer enthusiast product filled to the brim with consumer simplifications. Apple could not care less if it enters into broad professional paid usage. That's not what they designed it for - they designed it to expand and monetise the deep consumer base familiar with, and regularly using, iMovie.

That the odd professional here and there perseveres with it is sort of here nor there - sure as jeremy said - its the editor not the tools, whatever works, but apple simply don't care, we are not in any way who this product was designed for.


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]