FORUMS: list search recent posts

Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Jeremy Garchow
Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 12, 2011 at 6:07:01 pm

Just in case this isn't obvious:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57341267-264/version-1.0-is-the-new-0.9-g...

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 12, 2011 at 6:16:48 pm

Good article.

"Just because everything electronic these days is a work in progress doensn't mean everybody gets a free pass. iOS 5 shouldn't have had battery-draining problems and Samsung's Galaxy Nexus shouldn't have had that volume bug, and both those problems should have been caught earlier. An IBM mainframe and your car's antilock brakes should be held to a much higher standard, too. And if Amazon doesn't get its Fire's act together soon, the market will punish it, because quality and reputation still matter."

I wonder where the X roll-out fits in?

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 12, 2011 at 9:07:33 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I wonder where the X roll-out fits in?
"


I would imagine - perfectly.

If the article's premis is correct, (and I think the author is totally on to something here) then the only real value of any "release date" is how it effects a companies marketing efforts.

Once upon a time (like last year!) Totally finished software was what you needed for a golden master to send to the plant to press and box and put on the trucks.

With the App store, that's all gone. When software masters live online - they can change every 5 minutes if there's a good reason to do so.

It may seem like a slap at customers - but as the author implies - it's probably the best way to get enough "real world" data to understand how any complex code will fare in the wild is to put it out there.

Release dates kinda become "good enough to begin public testing" dates and with remote updating in play, you can much more rapidly begin to address the world of actual (not test lab) users concerns.

You're not actually buying "a software program" any more. You're buying into a software ecosystem that you expect to evolve and improve over time.

And that kinda defines ALL the software I currently rely on for any serious work.

Interesting read!

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 12, 2011 at 10:03:47 pm

Read Phil Bloom's Blog on why he returned his Red Epic.
Some will complain about a $300 NLE being beta but how about an $80k camera kit.
http://philipbloom.net/2011/12/10/nomoreepic/



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 12, 2011 at 10:24:19 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Some will complain about a $300 NLE being beta but how about an $80k camera kit."

It's how it goes these days.

Red is pretty honest about what is turned on and what isn't.

AJA is honest about what features are turned on and what isn't.

The Arri Alexa had some growing pains.

The Scarlet will too, as will the C300.

MC6 is not without problems.

As we have mentioned before, developing this stuff, even with massive resources, is not easy. You simply can't put the software/hardware through every single combination and permutation of end user and their environment. Not only that, if you delayed the product, you simply start to lose your ROI.

The "known issues" blurb has never been more important. Setting expectations is paramount.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 12, 2011 at 10:43:00 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Some will complain about a $300 NLE being beta but how about an $80k camera kit."

Three points:

1 - Red officially calls the Epic a Beta product, (in contrast to you-know-who)

2 - They didn't kill off a successful line to offer the Epic,

and

3 - They gave him back his money, including the cost of third party accessories.


So it cost him nothing, and he continues working with the cameras he already owns, and the eco system that supports them.

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


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 12, 2011 at 10:14:59 pm

The article was written for a website specializing in consumer electronics reviews. In it the author clearly separated the world of consumer software from such items as car brakes and IBM mainframes. No one is going to confuse an NLE with lifesaving car parts, but the question remains where on the line between an iphone ap and an IBM mainframe does an NLE reside?

The requirements for a professional piece of software are much higher than for consumer items - while it's true no one has ever died from a bad edit, people have lost a lot of money, not to say their job, making the wrong bet on some bits and bytes.

It's always been understood that version 1 software is unstable, professionals go there at some risk. The reward is to be at the bleeding edge, the risk is to fall into the abyss; but to say that I should have the same tolerance for Beta software that helps me earn a living as I do for one that connects me to Google is a bit naive.

I agree with your point that the new distribution channel makes potential upgrades easier and the idea of a fixed release date fuzzier, I'm not at all sure that it means that I will accept and expect lower standards from the companies I do business with. In fact, with all of this so called ease of distribution, X has had precisely 1 upgrade in the last 6 months, and that after a rollout that can only be described as catastrophic. Legacy came out with dot point fixes at least as fast.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 12, 2011 at 10:21:19 pm

See the Phil Bloom blog link I just posted regarding Red and the release of Camera Betas.



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 12, 2011 at 10:26:59 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The article was written for a website specializing in consumer electronics reviews. In it the author clearly separated the world of consumer software from such items as car brakes and IBM mainframes. No one is going to confuse an NLE with lifesaving car parts, but the question remains where on the line between an iphone ap and an IBM mainframe does an NLE reside?"

Good points, Herb. One way to answer that question is to look at what markets the NLE serves. Though it didn't start that way, FCP legacy evolved into an enterprise-class ecosystem capable of supporting the needs of Fortune 500 level companies. Expecting users like this to be beta-testers for mission critical software isn't a winning strategy for keeping them as customers.

The rules for the consumer space and the enterprise space are very different.

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


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 12, 2011 at 11:03:38 pm

[Herb Sevush] "In fact, with all of this so called ease of distribution, X has had precisely 1 upgrade in the last 6 months, and that after a rollout that can only be described as catastrophic."

It was only ever "catastrophic" among an inside group of people who relentlessly began tearing down aspects of the software they had NO CLUE about. Go back and read all the early threads about how X didn't do "insert function" only to have people respond that, well, yes, actually X did that function perfectly well, just not in the same way it had been done in legacy.

The big lesson I learned from the X rollout, was to shut up, think before I posted. And try to see what the "intent" of the changes were before I exposed my (admittedly vast) ignorance to the world.

I can say this with confidence, since in the first week here on this forum, none of us had any really clear idea about what the new software was trying to do differently.

I remember taking a self imposed "holiday" from the discussion in the early days, precisely because I was resorting to guesses and opinions that were based on my "impressions" of the software, rather than how it actually worked. As I started to build expertise in operating it, I finally started to understand it's design, and found that while it hurt to lose my 12 years of operational expertise in Legacy, there was a LOT to like about the new software.

Then when I had to travel and edit on my laptop for some work in Southern California and X helped me be amazingly productive while away from the studio - it started to slowly reveal that it was a new tool that could have a very important place in how my business was evolving.

In fact, the very article this thread is based on is sticking with me.

It talks about software as a constant work in progress - and how rather than yesterday's start-build-finish model of a program, it's more a "start - get to useful status - then revise and refine for a much longer lifespan" model.

And that's *fascinating* to me.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 12, 2011 at 11:33:36 pm

[Bill Davis] "It talks about software as a constant work in progress - and how rather than yesterday's start-build-finish model of a program, it's more a "start - get to useful status - then revise and refine for a much longer lifespan" model."


Bill,


I think you're a bit off on your "yesterday's model".

I don't know much about software design and such, but isn't this the way software has always been approached?

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

Not exactly what he's talking about in the cnet article, but it comes down to the same principle - ship now, refine later.

The idea of software as a service (not product) has been a glint in eye of every major software corporation that has ever been anthropomorphized. Which means it probably isn't good for anybody. (Think about sudden changes in terms of service and use Facebook as your starting point.)

Anyway, it would be great to hear about the issue from anyone with software experience.


Franz.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 2:26:06 am

[Bill Davis] "It was only ever "catastrophic" among an inside group of people who relentlessly began tearing down aspects of the software they had NO CLUE about."

Bill the roll out was catastrophic as a marketing event totally aside from the actual quality of the software. No matter if FCPX becomes the model for all NLEs from here on in, the release was the biggest disaster since the Titanic.

The perception of FCPX is so bad it spawned this forum. The roll out was so bad it was parodied on the Jay Leno show - the only mention of an NLE in the history of broadcast TV was a total comedic assault. In future years the roll out of FCPX will be studied in business school the way Coke Classic and the Edsel is studied now.

Again, this has nothing to do with the actual content of the software, this is all about the way the software was marketed, released and perceived. The very fact that editors who have never tried the software hate it so much is the most damming evidence of the size of the cataclysm that was the release of X.

The only reason that X will probably weather this storm is the fact that it is so insignificant financially to Apple. If a company like Avid had released a product in this way they would already be in chapter 11.

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


Return to posts index


Chris Harlan
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 4:01:36 am

[Herb Sevush] "The roll out was so bad it was parodied on the Jay Leno show"

Oh, oh. I think Coco's gonna be pissed.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:08:33 am

[Herb Sevush] "The roll out was so bad it was parodied on the Jay Leno show - the only mention of an NLE in the history of broadcast TV was a total comedic assault. In future years the roll out of FCPX will be studied in business school the way Coke Classic and the Edsel is studied now."

Well, you got the first part of this wrong (it was Conan) so pardon me if I don't end up surprised if you get the second part equally wrong as well.

[Herb Sevush] "The very fact that editors who have never tried the software hate it so much is the most damming evidence of the size of the cataclysm that was the release of X."

Wow. That's an amazing sentence. Look at it again. "editors who have never tried it - hate it."

Once upon a time, people with any intelligence at all would have broken down laughing at an idea like this. And here you are, Herb, propagating it.

The "cataclysm" of which you speak was, actually, more along the lines of what you'd expect from a toddler peeing in a relatively large lake. BTW, I'm not arguing that it might not be a "cataclysm" for you. But if so, you need to spend your time learning an alternative. Just don't presume that your view is universal, cuz it's not.

I actually know it wasn't even close to "cataclysmic" for most editors. Seen in hindsight, the end of Legacy and the release of X was more a yawn than a cataclysm. It actually really hasn't forced much immediate change at all. Those who like Legacy are still calmly using it. Some are learning X. And some are moving to something else. The earth isn't shaking. Wolves aren't rampant in the streets. And every single FCP editor I know is still just editing away. Some "cataclysm!"

Your view I quoted second above, actually kinda disses the intelligence of the editing community at large. It's the working editor viewed as human sheep. "Just push the buttons and we 'smarter folk' will tell you what to think"

I don't buy that at all. I know too many editors. And they tend to be pretty sharp folks.

FWIW.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:07:30 pm

[Bill Davis] "Well, you got the first part of this wrong (it was Conan) so pardon me if I don't end up surprised if you get the second part equally wrong as well."

So that would be bad marketing wouldn't it - creating the impression of stupidity would, rightfully, lead you to invalidate the rest of my argument. So I thank you for correcting my error and also for demonstrating the fundamentals of a bad roll-out - creating a negative impression which supersedes the actual content.

[Bill Davis] "Wow. That's an amazing sentence. Look at it again. "editors who have never tried it - hate it."
Once upon a time, people with any intelligence at all would have broken down laughing at an idea like this. And here you are, Herb, propagating it."


It's not an idea I'm propagating Bill, it's merely a fact I'm stating. I'm not saying it's proper or wise for editors to hate something they've never used, I'm saying it's an indictment of Apple's marketing of X that this situation occurs so frequently.

[Bill Davis] "BTW, I'm not arguing that it might not be a "cataclysm" for you. But if so, you need to spend your time learning an alternative. Just don't presume that your view is universal, cuz it's not."

Your missing my point Bill so I guess I'm not making myself clear. My post has nothing to do with the quality or usefulness of FCPX for me or anyone else.

The release of X was and is a costly pain in the neck for me, but hardly catastrophic or cataclysmic. Those hyperbolic terms were used to describe the incredible ineptitude of Apple's marketing and release of X, not of the actual product itself. At the moment I have nothing to say about X as a product other than it's totally useless in my workflow.

[Bill Davis] "Your view I quoted second above, actually kinda disses the intelligence of the editing community at large. It's the working editor viewed as human sheep. "Just push the buttons and we 'smarter folk' will tell you what to think""

That's all we are to marketers; sheep, lemmings, in other words - consumers.

A marketer's job is to create a good initial impression about a product, to create a positive "buzz" that will lead the sheep to drink the water. It is not good marketing to scare the sheep away before they've even seen the sludge. The marketing release behind X created more initial bad will for a product than anything I ever saw or heard about. It's irrelevant whether the ill will was justified, as a marketing operation it was Apple's job to create a positive environment for their little baby. Instead they birthed it in a radioactive waste pit. As marketing goes, it can't get any worse.

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


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 12, 2011 at 11:34:07 pm

[Bill Davis] "Totally finished software was what you needed for a golden master to send to the plant to press and box and put on the trucks.

With the App store, that's all gone."


GREAT!

"ayyye, we were fond of finished software when we drove trams and buggies."

This isn't a kindle spewed out to disinterested consumers - this is a directly tied market of professional practise: so you are arguing that the lack of physical delivery mechanisms suddenly absolves professional software vendors from any onus to provide workable software to paying professional customers? This given that the vendors are by nature symbiotic to the understood professional practise and performance of their market?

that is the argument here?

for gods sake please.

[Bill Davis] "- they can change every 5 minutes if there's a good reason to do so."

AAABSSOOLUUTELY - run and gun for sure there! there are nightly builds of FCPX coming through the appstore..

apple's best minds are on that thing - late nights and furrowed brows over the imovie+ thing they dumped on the appstore half a year ago, whole boardrooms filled with apple's best and brightest pondering the unusability of it, the instability, failing autosave, the mutating file size, that rectangular colour corrector, that half of the critical plug in developers are locked out by the moron software the engineers made..


Apple Are All Over This. Espressos at midnight over at infinite loop! Emergency stations!

On a fundamental level, Apple care less about FCPX than they do about how the SMS bubbles animate and transpose from a composed message to the message thread in iOS.

This software, outside of strategically growing a monetised imovie base, which it is designed to do in a five year horizon - outside of that?
the editing software, market, our livelihood - it means nothing at all, nothing to apple.

They could not care less.

the NAB gambit makes you retch in retrospect - near heave - all they wanted was an ability to charge into a free PR run for an expanded prosumer item on the appstore. They cr*pped on everyone that day with glee. they lied about everything, and told everyone nothing. Apple will never be worse as a company than they were that day. they were malevolent, lying, dissembling guys trying to drum up some headlines to get imovie users to buy their stuff down the line.

Does anyone think that apple didn't know this software, that was effectively menu hidden at NAB, wasn't fit for purpose? Seriously - stop. Just forget all your perceptions of Apple. does anyone think that apple didn't know deep down that this wasn't, and by design may never be fit for purpose?

and how much damage that would cause? Whole FCP sectors in broadcast are dead over this end of the pond. What kind of people would do that simply to make a buck out of prosumers?

Who are these guys? Who exactly is Apple these days?

nasty, nasty, company with blueshirt moonies at the door to sell you is who they are.

increasingly nasty: a big, xanu volcano of apple truth, L Ron Hubbard style, big blue t-shirt rictus grinning company.

Apple is becoming a lie.


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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 1:20:03 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "so you are arguing that the lack of physical delivery mechanisms suddenly absolves professional software vendors from any onus to provide workable software to paying professional customers?"

I am arguing no such thing, Aindreas. (Perhaps it's my inability to make my thoughts clear enough - and if so, I'm sorry, I'll try harder.). The market place has a perfectly fine mechanism in place to reward/punish any company that delivers software that their customers feel is sub-standard.

For example, you clearly feel that FCP-X is sub-standard and have argued that here constantly. The problem is that there may be a huge and growing number of people - including myself - that feel it to be exceptionally useful and well designed. So the problem isn't anyone "absolving" anyone of anything. It's people telling other people what they "should" find useful.

That more clear?

[Aindreas Gallagher] "apple's best minds are on that thing - late nights and furrowed brows over the imovie+ thing they dumped on the appstore half a year ago, whole boardrooms filled with apple's best and brightest pondering the unusability of it, the instability, failing autosave, the mutating file size, that rectangular colour corrector, that half of the critical plug in developers are locked out by the moron software the engineers made.."

I stand in awe of your singular ability to deploy your consciousness out into the minds of others and suss out their intents, feelings, and inner-most thoughts!

Have you considered investing heavily in gambling? With your level of near-frightening acuity, I would imagine that the industry from Macao to Las Vegas will soon be trembling at your boots.

Remember me then, oh mighty one. Your humble acolyte.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "nasty, nasty, company with blueshirt moonies at the door to sell you is who they are.

increasingly nasty: a big, xanu volcano of apple truth, L Ron Hubbard style, big blue t-shirt rictus grinning company.

Apple is becoming a lie.
"


Uh, it's the holiday season in the US. They're wearing RED shirts these days.

(kindly adjust your tinfoil and antennas, as you're getting muddy signals in your current configuration.)


(And happy holidays, AG - sparing with you is easily as fun as greased javelina wrestling - if a bit more reminiscent of someone obsessed with this classic Titanic deck chairs as the iceberg of communications change relentlessly approaches. Peace to you and yours!)

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 3:34:59 am

[Bill Davis] "The problem is that there may be a huge and growing number of people - including myself - that feel it to be exceptionally useful and well designed."

Bill, this software is a failed execution. failed - the general market determination of this software is not a huge debating issue.

this software is a laughing stock.

this is now a cupertino tomato throwing exercise.

this software does not exist professionally, I feel near guilty landing the easy blow now, and slightly confused at the true final death of apple as we had them.

because Its all dead Bill - there will never be any quirky second storyline saving the compound clip marker project bloat off the motion effect tutorial. have you seen the youtube views for Steve Martin and the guys on FCPX? its barely a couple of hundred people.

that's never happening. its all dead - there is no FCPX, there wasn't from day one. It's completely dead.


[Bill Davis] ""apple's best minds are on that thing - late nights and furrowed brows over the imovie+ thing they dumped on the appstore half a year ago, whole boardrooms filled with apple's best and brightest pondering the unusability of it, the instability, failing autosave, the mutating file size, that rectangular colour corrector, that half of the critical plug in developers are locked out by the moron software the engineers made.."

I stand in awe of your singular ability to deploy your consciousness out into the minds of others and suss out their intents, feelings, and inner-most thoughts!
"


they never cared bill, the software is dead. And they really don't care what they did to it. either way, the software is dead for months now - dead. it never got into any of the pro-shops, the higher level is throwing out the entire existing FCP architecture - its done Bill. Its dead.

this software, and the minds behind it are a professional laughing stock.

they couldn't punch their way out of a software paper bag. their project file mutates in size at a whim, their autosave fails repeatedly, their rectangular colour corrector will be a joke for the ages, their plug in architecture is for morons, they have destroyed video material footage selection by modelling it to GTD applications, probably because they were itunes software engineers on a weekend, the timeline metaphors are a stupid joke, the timeline interactivity zoom scaling is heart stoppingly bad, the animations for activity in the timeline are fingers on blackboard irritating - (no please show me dissolve positional transitions for every action - you moron - you obviously care nothing for the reality of my existence) OH NO WAIT - YOU ACTUALLY DON'T

THIS IS ACTUALLY A CASUAL VIDEO EDITING GAME. THIS REQUIRES THE VISUAL TRIGGERS OF ANGRY BIRDS.

REMEMBER? ITS MAGNETIC. FOR CASUAL GAMEPLAY.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/imovie-to-finalcutpro/

the least we can do here Bill, is remind them that we fully understand what they, those utter morons, did to a century's craft of editing..

..those facetious, self involved, apple employed, low grade morons.




[Bill Davis] "
(And happy holidays, AG - sparing with you is easily as fun as greased javelina wrestling - if a bit more reminiscent of someone obsessed with this classic Titanic deck chairs as the iceberg of communications change relentlessly approaches. Peace to you and yours!)
"


sincerest holidays to you Bill sir, there may be icebergs, but the Apple north pole is gone.

Apple, in our terms, are gone. But they kindly left craft acid in their wake.


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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:10:00 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "the least we can do here Bill, is remind them that we fully understand what they, those utter morons, did to a century's craft of editing.."

I think you're giving entirely way too much credit to Apple, for what they have supposedly done for editing and the craft.

In case you missed it, this is from August 2001:

http://forums.creativecow.net/archivepost/8/3020

Blah, blah, blah.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:18:03 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "hat's never happening. its all dead - there is no FCPX, there wasn't from day one. It's completely dead."

You are quite simply wrong. Wanna know how I know that?

Glad you asked.

I know this, because even if everyone else on the planet totally ignores it - YOU alone, Aindreas will keep it alive with your consistent burning loathing.

Nothing insignificant or irrelevant can inspire such naked fear and hate.

Congratulations, savior of mind-share for FCP-X!

Like the enraged father that lies awake at night — lighting endless torches to better see the evil suitors coming (in his mind) to ravish the daughter - but who eventually only succeeds in burning down the family home — your blind loathing serves to feed the fearsome power of the imaginary foe.

Good job.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 2:57:05 pm

ha ha. you may really have a point there.

like if I'm the last one left screaming at it, I'll be keeping it alive in a quantum hatred observer kind of way.

[Bill Davis] "Nothing insignificant or irrelevant can inspire such naked fear and hate. "

lord almighty I don't fear it Bill - and hate may be the wrong word -
its software, it never set out to hurt anyone, what I do despise is the glib, hubristic, mercenary thinking behind this software.

ten year plan for FCPX my ass. They set out and executed a strategy to make a fast, large prosumer buck off imovie users on the appstore.


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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 3:31:18 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "ten year plan for FCPX my ass. They set out and executed a strategy to make a fast, large prosumer buck off imovie users on the appstore."

Are you thinking this is a one time charge? If so, what would be the point? Do you think Apple is that desperate for cash?

Just curious as to how you see this, as you keep bringing it up.

And, since we are all making guesses, what if (and it's a HUGE if) FCP 10 has a more fully featured FCPXML, video monitoring, and just for yuks (and for you), a more customizable workspace. Let's throw in true event/project sharing as well.

What then? What consumer is going to buy that? Do you think iMovie customers are rushing out to buy an AJA Thunderbolt box?


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 4:16:31 pm

Its a question of the actual market for this product. Craig Seeman did a calculation of the appstore sales for this software - it comes in at around half a million. I am going to say that 70-80% of the people typing in their apple IDs and pressing buy were consumers upgrading from iMovie.

That still leaves over one hundred thousand as a figure of paid editors buying it - that's reasonable out of the gate.

Right - so if that is vaugely accurate the installed customer base for this software, by a factor of at least three to one, are consumers. that is who this software is largely being sold to.

The vast majority of FCP license holders were editors or post houses, but there is No Way that the majority of FCPX users aren't graduating from iMovie.

Apple has made a new product for a prosumer audience - it is designed to monetise iMovie users going forward, its really easy to tell because out of the gate it was marketed to them, it was rich with consumer simplifications, and just tons of things we needed were dropped, along with the Studio and all the other software.

have a read of this again:

http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/imovie-to-finalcutpro/

As an iMovie user, you’re already familiar with some features in Final Cut Pro X — such as skimming and the Magnetic Timeline — so you can start working right away.

I'm not being mean, but the deliberate grim insistence on avoiding the screamingly obvious with this software verges on Stockholm Syndrome.

You ask what I would think if a ton of things come back - customizable Gui, source monitor, functioning plug-in environment, stability, autosave that doesn't fall over, a different colour corrector, less GUI chrome, tracks, better audio handling in the timeline, bins, sure it would be great if some or all of that came back, but the point is that Apple is not making this for us - the idea that one application can be simultaneously successful as a consumer/prosumer hand holding environment and a full featured, open, deep professional software environment is a lie. Sophistication and options engender necessary complexity. The primary market for this software - iMovie users, will not benefit from those kinds of changes and they are, inarguably, the primary market.

this application isn't coming back to us - the things that will be added to it will be to build it out as a prosumer application. We're never getting tracks, a persistent source monitor, the XML will stay buggy, underwritten with a four page manual due to their focus being elsewhere - probably advanced face recognition for your kid in the home movie or something like that - the sort of things an iMovie user would go wow! I want that stuff! - or whatever.

Mostly though I think its going to go mouldy, the professional user base, which never really began, is going to be formally declared dead in twelve to eighteen months of the software being completely ignored, at which point apple's gambit is over, they didn't somehow miraculously give the industry a lobotomy and convince them to go with a buggy, expanded imovie.

in a year/year and a half FCPX is professionally formally dead, this forum is long gone, and apple has a nice prosumer earner on the appstore that they can treat like pages or whatever - it'll never have any relevance outside of the appstore and the consumer install base, its broadly ignored like pages, but they're feeding it nicely to the consumer base and they're making coin. Any pretence at development of this software for a professional base will be completely gone in 18 months, the top end goes back to Avid, everyone else goes to Premiere.

And that, children, is the story of how Apple completely destroyed FCP.


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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:03:36 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I am going to say that 70-80% of the people typing in their apple IDs and pressing buy were consumers upgrading from iMovie."

There's no way to know or substantiate that. It's one thing to estimate FCPX sales figures because there's known Lion download figures and known FCPX ranking behind it, there's now way to know the motivation of the buyer. One can argue since every FCP7/FCS3 owner has iMovie on their systems, they all bought FCS3 as an upgrade to iMovie. There's no way to know motivation for purchase. It's certainly possible for iMovie users to move into the professional arena as well. In fact if you look at this forum one can argue that many FCP7 users purchased FCPX to give it a run. Given that there's now a 30 day free trial, the purchase decision may be even more substantial since one knows what one is buying at that point.

Over half a million people bought it (a number that's still climbing given the continued #2 ranking behind Lion) and I'd guess a substantial portion are playing with it even if it's not ready for higher end professional needs.



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:16:28 pm

I'm making a supposition there Craig, not a crazily unreasonable one - I hedged it down to three to one as well.

It was sold and marketed to iMovie users - the reason they're not moving into the professional sphere, although some may, is because they are prosumers buying a prosumer product marketed to them as such - as prosumers they are likely doing something else that pays them, there are lots of different jobs in the world.

It's just a prosumer app FCPX - it's never going to be anything else, it's performing well as a prosumer app, aimed at regular iMovie users. That's all this thing is. It doesn't, in a certain sense, really have much to do with us.

It wasn't intended to be a professional application - it's a more advanced hobbyist tool grown out of iMovie. That's all it is. It's not going to stop being that.


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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:49:36 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "It's just a prosumer app FCPX - it's never going to be anything else, it's performing well as a prosumer app, aimed at regular iMovie users. That's all this thing is. It doesn't, in a certain sense, really have much to do with us.

It wasn't intended to be a professional application - it's a more advanced hobbyist tool grown out of iMovie. That's all it is. It's not going to stop being that.
"


In your embittered but sometimes incredibly humorous opinion perhaps.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 6:17:46 pm

Oh absolutely, opinion she be.


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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 6:13:46 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "It's just a prosumer app FCPX - it's never going to be anything else,"

Not if you know anything about some of the features and others on the way. Sorry you're flatly wrong on this. I'm not going to rehash the features it already has that have nothing to do with the "prosumer" market.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 7:05:53 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "The vast majority of FCP license holders were editors or post houses, but there is No Way that the majority of FCPX users aren't graduating from iMovie."

I'm not so sure about this and would be hard to prove. Almost every DP, PA and Producer I know has a copy of FCP. It wasn't just for editors and post houses.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "have a read of this again:

http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/imovie-to-finalcutpro/"


Yeah, I've read it. Notice no mention of FCPXML in there at all, but yet, it's in there. Although, there's not much to talk about yet. If Apple is using "consumers" to immediately pay for the R&D that went in to FCPX, then so be it. This, of course, is predicated on the fact that Apple will continue to build on the software to be pro worthy.

I could care less if "consumer" editors use FCPX or not. It was already happening with FCP/FCE. It's not a big deal to me.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I'm not being mean, but the deliberate grim insistence on avoiding the screamingly obvious with this software verges on Stockholm Syndrome."

I'm a big fan of skimming, and I don't mind the magnetic timeline. I just wish there was more control of certain aspects of it.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "he idea that one application can be simultaneously successful as a consumer/prosumer hand holding environment and a full featured, open, deep professional software environment is a lie. Sophistication and options engender necessary complexity. The primary market for this software - iMovie users, will not benefit from those kinds of changes and they are, inarguably, the primary market."

And you don't think FCP7 fit in to a prosumer category? or FCExpress? Was FCP7 that complicated/complex? Not really, it had a mature XML language that allowed other application to speak with it. FCPX isn't there yet for XML, but once it is there, then all we are getting down to is UI. There are many things that solve completely stupid problems of FCP7. Log and Transfer, as well as media management being a few. If FCPXML matures, then we can get some of the control back.

I don't mean to over simplify this, FCPX is certainly not ready for our shop yet.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "And that, children, is the story of how Apple completely destroyed FCP."

You crack me up.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 7:29:08 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "And you don't think FCP7 fit in to a prosumer category? or FCExpress?"

Come on Jeremy, FCP7/Studio was enterprise-class. Do you really think BBC/CNN/Disney and all the other Fortune 500 level users were running FCExpress?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 8:10:05 pm

[David Lawrence] "Come on Jeremy, FCP7/Studio was enterprise-class. "

Was it, though? Or did they just make it work because it was cheaper than a Unity system?

FCP itself, is not extremely "enterprise class" although it did allow you to move the media around through XML to connect to other "enterprise class" software.

The media management is shotty, project sharing is a chore, native format support is dismal, rs422 is a crap shoot, interlaced pulldown issues abound, renders could come up missing, moving shots in and out of bins via XML is non existent, the plugin well is goofy, real time performance is crap, multi format timelines are a joke, file searching - laborious.

Don't oversell FCP7. The underlying frameworks were crusty.

[David Lawrence] "Do you really think BBC/CNN/Disney and all the other Fortune 500 level users were running FCExpress?"

I have no idea. Probably not. If they could, I bet they would.

My point is that FCP7 was used by Pros AND Prosumers, or pros in other areas of production that aren't editors. FCP7 was not "Pro Only", it was too cheap.

Just because CNN uses it doesn't mean a prosumer can't. CNN is sourced by consumers anyway, didn't you hear? http://filmmakeriq.com/2011/11/cnn-fires-editors-photojournalists-because-a...

I am not saying that FCP7 wasn't ubiquitous and extensible, or used by top notch establishments. It certainly was, and a lot of that was due to the mature XML language and nothing else. But it wasn't the holy grail of technology that it seems to be made up to be.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 8:40:32 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I am not saying that FCP7 wasn't ubiquitous and extensible, or used by top notch establishments. It certainly was, and a lot of that was due to the mature XML language and nothing else. But it wasn't the holy grail of technology that it seems to be made up to be."

Agreed 100%, with one addition: FCP was enormously fluid, flexible, and tactile. Compared with Avid, FCP offered a multitude of ways to accomplish the same editorial operations, and never required the interruption of a mode change to continue work. I think FCP's interface -- which built on what came before, while also offering new ways of working -- played an important role in its success.

On the subject of XML, FCPX has a huge uphill climb here. Apple threw out a perfectly good interoperability standard because they wanted to change the way the timeline works and solve problems nobody had. Prioritizing a novel timeline paradigm at the expense of interoperability with every other piece of editorial software on the planet is a bizarre choice for a developer who is serious about the markets Mr. Lawrence is referring to.

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 8:42:57 pm

[Walter Soyka] "On the subject of XML, FCPX has a huge uphill climb here. Apple threw out a perfectly good interoperability standard because they wanted to change the way the timeline works and solve problems nobody had. Prioritizing a novel timeline paradigm at the expense of interoperability with every other piece of editorial software on the planet is a bizarre choice for a developer who is serious about the markets Mr. Lawrence is referring to."

No doubt. XML was far from prefect, though. You could only push it so far. Since FCPX seems to be all about containers, it seems that you would be able to push FCPXML a bit farther, but it will certainly take some more work.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 10:13:53 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "My point is that FCP7 was used by Pros AND Prosumers, or pros in other areas of production that aren't editors. FCP7 was not "Pro Only", it was too cheap."

We're in agreement here. My point is that FCP legacy scaled in both directions -- from hobbyists and prosumers cutting on a laptop, all the way to Fortune 500 companies like Disney and CNN.

[Walter Soyka] "FCP was enormously fluid, flexible, and tactile. Compared with Avid, FCP offered a multitude of ways to accomplish the same editorial operations, and never required the interruption of a mode change to continue work. I think FCP's interface -- which built on what came before, while also offering new ways of working -- played an important role in its success."

The importance of this cannot be overstated. Sure, FCP legacy was far from enterprise-ready when it launched, but it was cheap, flexible, open, and most important of all, designed around an industry standard UI paradigm. XML was an important part of this, but so was an industry standard timeline UI that for many people simply worked better. Being better and incrementally building on industry standards is very different than being clever and dumping industry standards in favor of your own.

[Jeremy Garchow] "FCPX isn't there yet for XML, but once it is there, then all we are getting down to is UI."

Isn't that the core of what this debate we've been having for the past 6 months is all about? It's all about the UI and who it's designed for and whether it's so baked into the data architecture that it's beyond repair.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "the idea that one application can be simultaneously successful as a consumer/prosumer hand holding environment and a full featured, open, deep professional software environment is a lie. Sophistication and options engender necessary complexity. "

This statement is spot on. Apple is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand they want to simplify the UI to make it more approachable and attractive to hobbyists, prosumers, and iMovie users who want to step up to something more powerful. On the other hand, they're trying to attract/retain professional users by adding a bunch of high-end features.

The problem, is that this strategy simply doesn't work. UI flexibility/control directly and necessarily lead to complexity. You usually have to choose - simple/optimized or complex/flexible. They're on different sides of the design spectrum. Moving in one direction pulls you away from the other. It's very difficult and very rare to nail simple/flexible.

Some may argue that iOS does this but in fact it's a great example of simple/optimized. The reason the iPad is a hit is because Steve Jobs/Apple was smart enough to realize that a tablet should not try to be a laptop. It's successful because it's a simple, highly optimized device. It can certainly replace a laptop for may basic uses, but laptops aren't going away anytime soon.

It's very clear that Apple wants to put a consumer-friendly face on a product that was formally targeted mainly to professionals. I think the fallout from this decision will prove to be a huge barrier moving forward. Adding pro features may not be enough to fix this. It all depends on how FCPX fits into high-end workflows and adapts to complex editorial needs.

Agree that the big 2012 update will tell us a lot. But I wouldn't use broadcast monitoring as the main indicator of Apple's seriousness. I'd also look at the project bloat bug. That kind of deep, architectural FUBAR should have some Pro App engineer's hair on fire right now. If they can't get that fixed ASAP, then I think it says a lot about how baked in the design problems are.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:55:20 pm

[David Lawrence] "Isn't that the core of what this debate we've been having for the past 6 months is all about? It's all about the UI and who it's designed for and whether it's so baked into the data architecture that it's beyond repair."

It's some of the debate. I feel that if XML was more complete, broadcast video monitoring and capture card support was there, and Roles had more user control to function like tracks but not be tracks, this argument would be completely different. There are many things that I, personally, like about the UI. There are many helpful ways to get my job done faster and easier with great quality, without sacrificing creative at all, as a matter of fact, it helps it. I'm OK with that, really. In my feeble mind, there's no question that Apple will fix what's broken. I have no idea how long it's going to take, but it's how I feel. If they can get some XML features back in there so give us a "relationship backup" of sorts, and optimize some of the App, I'd start using it (of course, I also need monitoring, but that has already been announced). I am not afraid of it. I could care less who else uses FCPX. I don't care if it's a soccer mom, or Walter Murch. My job does not depend on that cache, perhaps I am lucky. What I do need is industry support from workflow enhancers (like Andreas Kiel) and hardware companies. If that isn't there, then I am forced to look around so perhaps I can't have one without the other. I don't know. I hear PPro is the FCP8 that never was and Adobe is where I'd start looking. I already use the rest of the Creative Suite, and even if FCPX comes around to a level of safety I feel comfortable with, I will still use AE over Motion.

There are people (pros even) that like this software and they are actually using it on real live jobs. For them, it's not a proverbial soy titty. But I guess they don't count?


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 12:08:03 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "For them, it's not a proverbial soy titty."

By jove, I think you've coined a new phrase, and I'm proud to have been a part of it's gestation.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 12:11:59 am

[Herb Sevush] "By jove, I think you've coined a new phrase, and I'm proud to have been a part of it's gestation."

Thanks for posting it. It gave me some great chuckles.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 7:33:48 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " "For them, it's not a proverbial soy titty.""

yes. this is a good proud phrase. Damon Runyan via Soylent green. me like.


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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 1:08:00 am

[David Lawrence] "Agree that the big 2012 update will tell us a lot. But I wouldn't use broadcast monitoring as the main indicator of Apple's seriousness. I'd also look at the project bloat bug."

I'm not sure I understand what, exactly you mean by "bug", David.

As I understand it, the main problem with "project bloat" in X is people who are doing something they think works one way - only to come to the understanding that the "bloat" is the natural result of their failure to understand how the software functions under the hood.

As I understand it, it's kinda like if I have a word document, and as I make my changes, I'm not noticing that instead of being sensible by dumping all my revisions and false starts, I leave all that crap at the head of the main file. Then with that overly bloated and complex document (timeline) to start with, I then start doing a "select all" and copying and pasting that bloated document so that it concatenates over and over increasing it's size wildly. That's not a BUG in the program so much as it's my ignorance of what I'm doing.

Maybe there's an actual "bug" in FCP-X that I don't understand, but I read here pretty regularly, and after following the discussion as well as I can, that's the understanding I've come to.

When X users start making compound clips, cutting and pasting the results - and otherwise truncating them not understanding that they are actually pointers to larger files, and so, they end up duplicating big files by a factor of 2, then 4, then 8, then 16, ets - they're getting really big files - precisely because their specific actions have told the program that's what they want.

The solution is to change ones actions. To learn how not to inadvertently double your file sizes.

If there are actual memory leaks causing files to blow up - that's one thing.

But if users are just mis-understanding the nature of how the program works, and adopting bad editing habits - how can that be the programs fault?

Just wondering.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 1:19:05 am

[Bill Davis] "As I understand it, the main problem with "project bloat" in X is people who are doing something they think works one way - only to come to the understanding that the "bloat" is the natural result of their failure to understand how the software functions under the hood."

Like using markers? http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/344/5732

If the guy in that thread is just holding it wrong, how does he get around the problem? Markers can be very valuable - best practice to just not use them, I suppose?

And if it is just a case of people holding it wrong then Apple really needs to step up and explain how their software should be used and practices to best avoid so you don't lose your work and have your project file bloat out of control. They're pretty mum on the whole subject, considering.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 1:39:18 am

[Michael Hancock] "
Like using markers? http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/344/5732

If the guy in that thread is just holding it wrong, how does he get around the problem? Markers can be very valuable - best practice to just not use them, I suppose?

And if it is just a case of people holding it wrong then Apple really needs to step up and explain how their software should be used and practices to best avoid so you don't lose your work and have your project file bloat out of control. They're pretty mum on the whole subject, considering.
"


I believe this bloat is a bug. It is an non-optimized XML structure. There's no reason for all of the repeated data.

Apple themselves are holding it wrong on this one.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 1:49:14 am

I hope it's a bug. If it's hardwired into the code it may be incredibly difficult to fix. EDIT: By hardwired I mean, if that's how it's supposed to work. Seems like an incredible oversight. How was it not caught during beta testing?

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 2:02:45 am

[Michael Hancock] "I hope it's a bug. If it's hardwired into the code it may be incredibly difficult to fix. EDIT: By hardwired I mean, if that's how it's supposed to work. Seems like an incredible oversight. How was it not caught during beta testing?"

I could insert a snide half joke here about how that's exactly the location this bug was caught.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 2:58:36 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I could insert a snide half joke here about how that's exactly the location this bug was caught."

Hah! Where I come from, bugs like this are considered alpha! ;)

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 2:55:49 am

[Michael Hancock] "I hope it's a bug. If it's hardwired into the code it may be incredibly difficult to fix. EDIT: By hardwired I mean, if that's how it's supposed to work. Seems like an incredible oversight. How was it not caught during beta testing"

Exactly.

Bill, I'm calling project bloat a bug because I want to be optimistic. If it's a bug, it's fixable. If it's a deep engineering failure, it could easily kill the product.

The bloat problem seems deeper than an XML optimization bug. An XML export is simply a list that gets generated at export time reflecting the current state of the timeline. This bloat problem is clearly tied to the database architecture and the data model at the foundation of the program. This is why it's a bit scary. It's a lot more difficult and expensive to fix a bad foundation after a house is built than it is to get it right to begin with.

The database design for compound clips is broken. This is a simple fact. A "Your holding it wrong" argument doesn't change or fix it. Hopefully Apple's engineers can and will.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 3:52:57 am

[David Lawrence] "The bloat problem seems deeper than an XML optimization bug. An XML export is simply a list that gets generated at export time reflecting the current state of the timeline. "

Axel, then, whatever is underlying language is. Magic and unicorns, SQLite, MS-DOS

If read those tests, it's caused from over duplication (and then not deleting) of certain elements. This duplication shows up in XML exports, even if it's not in the timeline. It's not optimized and can be fixed.

With multicam coming (you know that consumer feature) and I would imagine some sort of compound clip container (multi clip), this bug will get squished.

Or not.

Puppies!


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 6:04:10 am

Since I'm not an engineer I'm clearly just guessing.

(As I suppose we all are.)

So I'll shut up and wait with everyone else to see what happens during development.

(It can't be any worse that waiting for Legacy V3 to fix all the stuff (IIRC) that broke between 1 and 2!)

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 5:57:15 am

[Michael Hancock] "If the guy in that thread is just holding it wrong, how does he get around the problem? Markers can be very valuable - best practice to just not use them, I suppose?
"


That's one spin.

An equally valid one is to simply realize that "they've changed how the thing shoots and if you hold it like you used to - you'll get shot" In that context, you re-learn pretty fast how to hold the thing differently and you're incredibly happy you learned the new stuff at the rubber-band gun stage and not with a loaded pistol!

It's also helpful that the loudest yellers who seemed to think that Apple was about to come to everyone's house and de-install all working copies of 7 were a bit premature, huh? Here we are months after the "end of life" scare - and most folks are doing just fine, thank you very much. Plenty of time to look around and decide when and if it's time to make a move.

Yeah, markers can be useful. I've seen people who have built ENTIRE workflows that are totally dependent upon them. (timelines with so many that it looked like somebody with a bad cold sneezed markers everywhere!) Personally I never did. I used them rarely, on maybe 10% of my projects. And with my new workflow in X, where "marking" stuff is more a matter of range selection and key wording, rather than littering my timelines with markers that point to things, but don't do much else - I'm pretty happy I never came to depend upon them overly much.

But that's a personal thing. And I totally get it that it's annoying for someone who's become addicted to how they worked in Legacy. And all I can say is if you liked markers - you should LOVE range selection and key wording - since takes the concept of "this area of my media is important to me" and applies a warp engine to it.

Thankfully I had plenty enough to re-learn with my migration to X - and I'm delighted that new marker use habits wasn't amongst them.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 8:15:39 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You crack me up."

Absolutely - and I'd like to be the first to nominate Aindreas as my Man of the Year 2011. Unquestionably the best thing about the last twelve months!

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 8:24:11 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I'd like to be the first to nominate Aindreas as my Man of the Year 2011. Unquestionably the best thing about the last twelve months!
"


Agreed.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 8:24:32 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Absolutely - and I'd like to be the first to nominate Aindreas as my Man of the Year 2011."

I second the motion.

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

Steve Connor
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 8:25:26 pm

[Walter Soyka] "[Simon Ubsdell] "Absolutely - and I'd like to be the first to nominate Aindreas as my Man of the Year 2011."

I second the motion."


Motion is carried!

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 8:47:39 pm

ara lads - ye make me blush.

I have to say, getting to go regularly stark staring berserk on this forum has been a boon and a balm in these troubled/interesting times..


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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 9:05:01 pm

The Lewis Black of the Creative Cow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Black

Black's style of comedy is that of a man who, in dealing with the absurdities of life and contemporary politics, is approaching his personal limits of sanity. Sarcasm, hyperbole, profanity, shouting and trademark angry finger-shaking bring emphasis to his topics of discussion. He once described his humor as "being on the Titanic every single day and being the only person who knows what is going to happen." He claims that he doesn't write his jokes down, he merely starts talking about something that makes him angry until he has to move on before he has a stroke.



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 10:30:09 pm

I love that guy. And now I feel I know a little more why.


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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 10:39:35 pm

"There's no such thing as soy milk. It's soy juice. But they couldn't sell soy juice, so they called it soy milk. Because anytime you say soy juice, you actually start to gag. And ... we all know there's no such thing as Soy milk 'cause there's no soy titty, is there?"

Lewis Black


And we all know there's no such thing as Final Cut Pro 10, because there are no tracks, but if they called it Imovie Pro we would start to gag ...

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 10:50:02 pm

And there's no such thing as a bin in an NLE either. A bin is a physical boxie thing I drop little film clips in.
And if you're using a Red or Alexa you ain't using film neither. Heck you ain't even taping.

I'm going to go back to drinking my coconut milk now.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:10:35 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I'm going to go back to drinking my coconut milk now."

There's no breasts on a coconut either, so I guess it's really coconut juice.

"Wise men say that time is like a river. I say time is like a river of SHIT... and as you float down that river in your little canoe, your paddles are getting smaller and smaller."

Lewis Black

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:48:35 pm

[Herb Sevush] "There's no breasts on a coconut either,"

Well if you cut the coconut in half . . . you must have seen those pictures . . . never mind.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:31:26 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "And that, children, is the story of how Apple completely destroyed FCP.
"


Well then I hope they keep destroying it again, and again, and again.

I know I've stretched into new work areas and even have a few completely new clients based on the fact that this particular tool is AMAZING for producing certain types of content.

And not only are my web-centric customers increasingly asking for these new types of content - my corporate clients seem to be clamoring for this (less video more motion graphics) style as well for their meeting support shows. It's a contemporary alternative to yesterday's "movie like" training content that everyone seems to be really tired of.

So we'll see whether this turns out to be all "it's crap because it can't edit my seventh "resume movie" and give it a hollywood level look." (which was the model that largely built Legacy, IMO) or rather turns out to be a "this thing ROCKS because it lets me communicate easily and efficiently in new ways using all sorts of moving images that people really like" product.

I'm betting on the latter.

New requirements, new tools.

That's X in a nutshell from my perspective.

But as always - YMMV.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:50:19 pm

[Bill Davis] " I've stretched into new work areas and even have a few completely new clients based on the fact that this particular tool is AMAZING for producing certain types of content."

[Bill Davis] "not only are my web-centric customers increasingly asking for these new types of content - "

[Bill Davis] "my corporate clients seem to be clamoring for this (less video more motion graphics) style as well"



I.. really didn't want to have to do this Bill, but.. I have to cite you for invoking magical rainbow ponies.








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


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 1:07:38 am

[Bill Davis] "I know I've stretched into new work areas and even have a few completely new clients based on the fact that this particular tool is AMAZING for producing certain types of content."

So this is the only NLE on the market that allows you to have moved into these new areas, and it's the only software that is well suited for producing that "certain types of content"? And for clarity, what types of content is it, and what is the metric you measure FCPX against?

I say, if your metric is FCP7 then it's a false comparison, for FCP7 - at its death - was woefully behind the other major players both in features and speed.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 1:35:20 am

[Michael Hancock] "was woefully behind the other major players both in features and speed."

Finally some corroboration.


Return to posts index

Neil Patience
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 12, 2011 at 10:34:04 pm

I always think it is pretty interesting how we have all become accepting that computer software and to a degree some tech hardware is sold to us basically not working entirely properly with a promise that "it will be fixed in the next release"
I cant think of any other product that we buy where we would consider this acceptable.
To pick up on Herbs car brakes anaology, imagine of we went to buy a car and the salesman said "Yes I know that looks like a sunroof - but it doesnt yet open - it will in the next release, just bring it back in 3 months and we will make it work"
or
"Yes this car runs on a new concept fuel. You cant actually get it anywhere yet but in the next year every gas station will probably be able to supply it - sorry its not compatible with the "legacy" fuel that every one else sells"
We would all just laugh and leave - yet somehow over the years computer companies have got us to accept the "jam tomorow" model.

How did that happen and is there any other product you would buy on the same basis ?

best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 12, 2011 at 11:20:45 pm

[Neil Patience] "How did that happen and is there any other product you would buy on the same basis ?
"


Actually, when you think about it, LOTS of things work like this today.

My Sony LCD TV does regular software updates to it's OS overnight adding new channels and features.

My car dealer regularly updates the software in my car to increase efficiency, and my son keeps politicking to let is buddies re-flash the chips in our Honda to get "racing performance" out of it. (yeah, right!)

The whole core of the smart phone concept is that it's kind of an empty bucket that gets BETTER over time via software updates and app purchases.

Like it or not, this is how the world is moving. We expect what we buy today - to be made better tomorrow via software update.

It's just so new that we expect it some places (apps on the phone) but not in others (code in our cars.)

But it's clearly something we're all going to need to get used to.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 12, 2011 at 11:28:11 pm

To keep the theme going:

http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1453

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:25:36 am

Is like buying a house that you know will be full of water leaks as soon as rain, because they promise they will fix it as soon as they get few thousands call from soaked customers.
A plus to buy is that you will train then "on the job".

Brilliant future.
Where does fit the word "excellency" here?
They know consumers take whatever.
Are you a consumer?
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 3:53:52 pm

[Rafael Amador] "Are you a consumer?"

I'd be lying to myself if I said I wasn't. Can't trade pelts for salt at my local grocery store, although I've tried!

Sure, I demand more from NLE software than a "consumer" does.

Is there software our there that you find truly "excellent"? Just curious.

One stipulation, it can't be free.


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:38:13 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I'd be lying to myself if I said I wasn't. Can't trade pelts for salt at my local grocery store, although I've tried!

Sure, I demand more from NLE software than a "consumer" does.

Is there software our there that you find truly "excellent"? Just curious.

One stipulation, it can't be free."

No one Jeremy, therefor I try to be the less software dependent I can and I'm not talking just about video.
I'm a consumer too, but there are very little things that help me enjoy life that depend on a software update :-)
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Marvin Holdman
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 7:47:29 pm

In the end, the lingering question is...

What possible "features" can be added (down the line, of course) that will make this a compelling piece of software?

Given the fact that ANY possible innovation that MIGHT be in this software will surely be mimicked by the competition by that time.

I keep returning to this dead horse again and again, with less and less frequency hoping SOMETHING good might come of all this. Sadly, nothing has appeared, nor does it seem likely too. I will certainly check back in Q1 2012, but don't have much hope to see more than the same jokewarez with an extra bell or whistle tacked on. For me, the debate is over... FCPX is the lamest "upgrade" ever. A fail on too many levels to count.

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

Craig Seeman
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 8:02:49 pm

[Marvin Holdman] "ANY possible innovation that MIGHT be in this software will surely be mimicked by the competition"

Apple has a cone of silence for a reason. Others may mimic but they can't do that until after the features are out and then the implementation time for the competitors might be long.



Return to posts index

Marvin Holdman
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 8:47:29 pm

Aside from the already released "core engine" what paradigm shifting magical whiz bang might possibly be in that cone of silence???

Really, I would have to wonder exactly what relevant feature could possibly make this viable for the professional market? Seems they've already thrown the biggest features against the wall to see the market reaction.

As Aindreas so eloquently said, "...this software is a failed execution. failed - the general market determination of this software is not a huge debating issue." I would have to agree and don't really believe that there is some secret magical feature that will somehow rectify this debacle.

Been waiting and seeing for months, but so far nothing leads me to believe this will be anything but an odd video game. Don't get me wrong, I would REALLY like to see them release the "psychic render engine", anything short of that at this point is only going to be more "fail". But who knows, maybe you're right and Apple has it waiting in the cone?

I think the point you've repeatedly tried to make is that Apple HAS BEEN a technology company. Releasing bold new features before the rest of the industry and staying just 5 minutes ahead of the competition. This is one of the reason's I've been a loyal customer for many, many years. Unfortunately, it seems with this release and the seeming change of focus, this is no longer their primary mission. FCPX is a race to the broader bottom of the market, leaving those who have sailed with this friendly companion high and dry. Given the actions of the last couple of months, it's hard for me to buy into your dream of "magic in the cone of silence". Frankly, I was all about that dream just prior to release of this garbage called FCPX. I was right by your side in decrying the nay-sayers who had doubts prior to this release. When this came out, I lost a pound of credibility to this fiasco.

All that being said, what POSSIBLE new thing could EVER make me go back to the people who's money I spend and say, "This is the way to go!"? Cone of silence or not, what would that be? Really?

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

Craig Seeman
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 9:04:35 pm

[Marvin Holdman] "Aside from the already released "core engine" what paradigm shifting magical whiz bang might possibly be in that cone of silence???"

Good question. We can speculate but that would have no weight on reality.
I don't thin one would throw out old GUI concepts unless there's "more than meets the eye" they're working on but not talking about.

My own speculation is in server side media/asset management but that's just some interface observation and a crystal ball.

[Marvin Holdman] "Been waiting and seeing for months,"

Realistically things take time. It'll be a lot faster than other NLE companies can roll out burn and ship releases.

I don't think the next release is just going be multicam and broadcast monitoring. They'd only tell us stuff that might be important but of no value to the competition.

[Marvin Holdman] "Releasing bold new features before the rest of the industry and staying just 5 minutes ahead of the competition."

Given they've started from scratch it'll take time. The first iPhone was missing a lot too.

[Marvin Holdman] "FCPX is a race to the broader bottom of the market,"

Broader yes, bottom no. Apple tends to aim broad and climb up. It's way iPhones and iPads climb into enterprise, into Fortune 500, etc. Aiming wide creates the biggest appeal for third party developers and many of them rider the move up the later.

[Marvin Holdman] "what would that be? Really?"

In a rapidly tightening economy, cost benefit analysis and ROI are leading factors. If a new facility can setup and deliver for half the capital investment of another, they'll go with it. People really have short memories of where the original FCP came from.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 9:17:18 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Given they've started from scratch it'll take time. The first iPhone was missing a lot too."

I'd refer to the conversations on Aperture, which sees a major update roughly every 2 years and which hasn't progressed at all as the iPhone (or Lightroom) has.

Likewise with Motion; it's been slowly adding features that have been standard in AE for years, but Motion 5 is a lot closer to Motion 1 than the iPhone 4S is to the original iPhone.

I'm open to the possibility that FCPX is just getting started (that's why I'm still here), but it's also possible -- and would be consistent with Apple's history -- that FCPX is closer to complete than you're suggesting.

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: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46:35 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Likewise with Motion; it's been slowly adding features that have been standard in AE for years, but Motion 5 is a lot closer to Motion 1 than the iPhone 4S is to the original iPhone."

Perhaps the next leaps with Motion didn't happen because of FCPX. There may have been a major rethink which slowed things down. Personally when Apple EOLd Shake I thought we were going to see more of Shake creep into Motion. I thought they'd add a nodal option for example.

[Walter Soyka] "I'd refer to the conversations on Aperture, which sees a major update roughly every 2 years and which hasn't progressed at all as the iPhone (or Lightroom) has."

Admittedly I don't know where Aperture fits in Apple's plans at this point.

I'm not even sure where Logic is headed since, I suspect 9 was moved to the App Store since X is further out than some might have expected. There might be a major rethink happening there as well.

I do think FCPX has a specific goal to sell hardware and it had to keep moving forward in system resource demands and . . . desirability, if it's to achieve that. I don't expect to see major change in Motion until the next major update after the one in coming quarter.

BTW ProRes may present a quandary to be solved as well. Some are aware of this and that's why DNxHD seems to be moving in wider use. ProRes may have to break from both Quicktime and how the codec itself does (or doesn't) use system resources.

I'll also throw in my own 2¢ on Apple's H.264. For a company that points to online and "device" playback, they have one of the worst H.264 codecs I know of. It can't do High Profile or CABAC entropy encoding and that's what you're seeing on YouTube's own encodes for example. At least Compressor can now finally do an H.264 .mp4 encode (with limited feature control).

I still think we're facing another year long shakeout at Apple.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 4:28:50 am

[Craig Seeman] "Perhaps the next leaps with Motion didn't happen because of FCPX. There may have been a major rethink which slowed things down. Personally when Apple EOLd Shake I thought we were going to see more of Shake creep into Motion. I thought they'd add a nodal option for example."

Looking at what's happened with Motion, how do you retain so much optimism for FCPX?

Perhaps the next leaps didn't happen with Motion because there are no more next leaps -- just next steps.

Apple had Shake, they had the entire Nothing Real development team, and they had Motion. When Apple EOLed Shake in 2006, everyone assumed that some of its capabilities would work its way into Motion. Five years later, the Nothing Real team is gone, Phenomenon isn't real and probably never was, and not only has Motion not gotten anything from Shake, it's even lost basic compositing tools like Channel Swap [link] in the latest release.

I don't know what Apple's plans are for FCPX, but it's possible that just as Motion never became what Shake was, FCPX will never become what FCP/FCS/FCSvr was. Maybe FCPX will get built-in XSAN project sharing -- but then again, maybe it won't, just like Motion never got nodes.

We're all just reading tea leaves and making guesses.

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: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 5:35:56 am

[Walter Soyka] "Looking at what's happened with Motion, how do you retain so much optimism for FCPX?"

Because Apple decided to create a new program from the ground up and all the resources it takes to do that relative other options such as killing it entirely. It would make sense that other things have to wait if they are to interrelate with the new program with some very fundamental code changes. Most of the changes they did with Motion related to its function with FCPX.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 4:27:41 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Because Apple decided to create a new program from the ground up and all the resources it takes to do that relative other options such as killing it entirely. It would make sense that other things have to wait if they are to interrelate with the new program with some very fundamental code changes. Most of the changes they did with Motion related to its function with FCPX."

But just because they're creating FCPX from the ground up doesn't mean it will ultimately fill the niches that FCP Classic did -- just as Motion was created from the ground up, but never became what Shake was.

There are no Shake studios that adopted Motion on a wait-and-see basis. They stayed on Shake or moved to Nuke. Good for them, too, because as much as we may have all wanted Motion to assume Shake's feature set, Apple had something different in mind for it.

All I'm saying is we don't know if FCPX is the iPhone (big, continuous improvement that radically alter the capabilities of the platform) or Motion/Aperture (small, incremental improvements that make the product more useful, but do not radically extend its feature set into new areas).

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: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 4:46:12 pm

[Walter Soyka] "All I'm saying is we don't know if FCPX is the iPhone (big, continuous improvement that radically alter the capabilities of the platform) or Motion/Aperture (small, incremental improvements that make the product more useful, but do not radically extend its feature set into new areas)."

We don't know of course. I just can't see the business model behind investing the R&D for FCPX and not doing something more with it aggressively. I don't think Aperture was designed to sell hardware so it's not a highly motivated product. As I said, I think Motion's motivation hinges on FCPX. That's why it's only $50. Given what we're seeing with FCPX development between the addition of Roles (not announced in advance), the addition of Multicam and Broadcast monitoring (announced because they're really pedestrian features that are "catchup") and what I personally suspect will be unannounced surprises, this is already moving faster than Motion.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 4:54:11 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I just can't see the business model behind investing the R&D for FCPX and not doing something more with it aggressively. I don't think Aperture was designed to sell hardware so it's not a highly motivated product."

So why did Apple invest the R&D for Aperture, then not do something more aggressive with it?

I really do get your point of view, but it's one of two diametrically opposed visions of the future for FCPX -- and they're both consistent with aspects of Apple's past behavior.

I'm simply suggesting we continuously re-evaluate FCPX based on the features it has at the moment, not the features it might have someday because Apple has sunk cost invested in it, or because Apple has some technology in another product that might be a nice fit in FCPX.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 4:54:18 pm

[Craig Seeman] "this is already moving faster than Motion."

And let's be honest. I don't think anyone bought FCS for Motion. Maybe a few, but the vast majority of purchases I would venture to say was not for Motion. And Motion is not and ever would be Shake. I think Shake and Motion users knew that, right off.

I think Motion should be a part of FCP especially since it is now becoming an "fx" builder of sorts for FCPX.

Hopefully, FCPXML or MS-DOS will be able to tie these two applications together more seamlessly.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 5:14:18 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "And Motion is not and ever would be Shake. I think Shake and Motion users knew that, right off."

Fair, Jeremy -- of course, Motion and Shake were designed for totally different purposes and used by totally different market segments.

I latched onto that comparison in this conversation because Craig mentioned his hope of Shake features coming to Motion. It's never going to happen, because Motion was built to be FCP's title/effects engine, not a dedicated motion graphics or compositing powerhouse.

My point is this: just because Apple used to occupy a niche doesn't mean they'll continue to, and just because Apple has a technology in one product that might be useful in another doesn't mean we should count on it as a coming-soon feature.

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: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 5:20:19 pm

My point is if Apple owns technology they may use it in other products even if the kill the purchased product. The only thing I've heard of from Shake that moved into other products was its Optical Flow technology. That doesn't mean other things can't/won't appear . . . and they may still happen . . . as needed and determined by Apple if it fits their business model.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 5:25:49 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I latched onto that comparison in this conversation because Craig mentioned his hope of Shake features coming to Motion. It's never going to happen, because Motion was built to be FCP's title/effects engine, not a dedicated motion graphics or compositing powerhouse.

My point is this: just because Apple used to occupy a niche doesn't mean they'll continue to, and just because Apple has a technology in one product that might be useful in another doesn't mean we should count on it as a coming-soon feature."


I would agree.

Didn't optical flow come from Shake?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 6:14:13 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Didn't optical flow come from Shake?"

Yes, Shake used optical flow, but none of us know if Apple lifted Shake's implementation for Motion or not. There are other independent implementations of motion estimation, too, so it could go either way. We'd have to ask an Apple engineer (though this would be pretty low on my list of questions to ask).

Of course, Shake (and Motion 4, for that matter) had channel swap [link], too, yet Motion 5 does not.

I think we all agree that Apple may share technologies across products in their portfolio. The root of my debate with Craig is that the fact that the mere existence of suitable technologies for integration shouldn't imply it will happen any time 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

Marvin Holdman
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 2:27:13 pm

Walter Soyka - "We're all just reading tea leaves and making guesses."

That's one of my biggest problems with all this. How do you make a responsible business decision based on "tea leaves"? It's one thing to gamble your money as an independent producer, it's quite another to spend someone else's money based on shady marketing promises. All in all, the last couple of months has done nothing but move Apple further from any business implementation beyond solo independents. Perhaps that's what they see as the ENTIRE future of this business, but I can't help but think that's a VERY naive viewpoint. Fact of the matter is, while the TREND may be a downsizing of larger shops, it doesn't mean that they will all disappear. Some projects/business models require teams environments working in some centralized form of a business. This will NEVER go away. For a tool to be considered in that type of environment, it must not only be functional technically, but also viable from an administrative standpoint (think acquisition process). This product lacks most everything required to make it a viable implementation (history, road map forward, support, foreseeable cost of continuing usage).

While I can see SOME of the points that Craig is making in his "Just wait, it'll be great" argument, the fact is even if the next release is earth shattering, it will be at least 2 years before it can be seriously considered for implementation in just about any facility that I can see existing at that point. While it's true that any business has the right to make their own decisions, based on whatever whim they desire, it seems a bit irresponsible for Apple to do so much damage to this industry by EOL'ing what has been a major implementation for so many business's.

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

Craig Seeman
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 3:16:06 pm

[Marvin Holdman] "It's one thing to gamble your money as an independent producer, it's quite another to spend someone else's money based on shady marketing promises."

For an independent producer it's not too difficult as I think you imply. It's not a problem to buy Avid or Adobe and FCPX is only $300. This is especially so given Avid's move to more open hardware support.
It's certainly a bit more difficult when a facility has to consider the cost of x seats and training x personal and the ability to hire freelancers.

[Marvin Holdman] "it seems a bit irresponsible for Apple to do so much damage to this industry by EOL'ing what has been a major implementation for so many business's."

Any number of companies have done "irresponsible" things. I don't want to rehash that. Apple is a business. Granted they may risk future CPU sales as a result of their decision because of brand perception. Actually it's not the EOL by itself that was the problem it's pulling it sales suddenly which created a serious problem for facilities who needed more seats to carry them over. This damaged the "wait and see" process for many. The way Apple handled it was uncharacteristic as they generally leave EOL products available before sales terminate. I can't help but think there was another factor driving this decision. We don't know what the real "responsibility" they were dealing with.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 4:44:24 pm

[Marvin Holdman] "This product lacks most everything required to make it a viable implementation (history, road map forward, support, foreseeable cost of continuing usage). "

Minus history, it sounds like FCP alright. What's changed? Apple never had any of these things, really, so why all the fuss now?

Will everyone please remember where we came from?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 4:54:50 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Minus history, it sounds like FCP alright. What's changed? Apple never had any of these things, really, so why all the fuss now?"

What changed is the realization that Apple can and will pull the plug at any time. What changed is the belief that Apple is committed to high end video. What didn't seem necessary before seems very important now.

After you get caught cheating on your wife, you often have to be a lot more specific about where your going late at night, or so I've been told.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 5:29:18 pm

[Herb Sevush] "What changed is the realization that Apple can and will pull the plug at any time."

Nope. We all knew that, we just didn't think it'd happen to us! You know, that whole story.

[Herb Sevush] "What changed is the belief that Apple is committed to high end video."

So interchange aside (which is big), FCPX is not high end video edit capable?

[Herb Sevush] "After you get caught cheating on your wife, you often have to be a lot more specific about where your going late at night, or so I've been told."

And Apple has been fairly upfront about the features that are "coming soon". More so than before this fiasco.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 5:44:27 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " We all knew that, we just didn't think it'd happen to us! "

But that's what makes the difference.

[Jeremy Garchow] "So interchange aside (which is big), FCPX is not high end video edit capable?"

Not yet, maybe after the next upgrade.

[Jeremy Garchow] "And Apple has been fairly upfront about the features that are "coming soon". More so than before this fiasco."

Which is proof that things are different now. Apple is reacting to that difference, but for many people it's not enough to say that they are more open than before. That's like saying he's more talkative than a dead guy - it might be true, but it still ain't putting you on the debating team.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 5:49:05 pm

[Herb Sevush] "But that's what makes the difference."

Ignorance? I don't get what you are saying here.

[Herb Sevush] "Not yet, maybe after the next upgrade."

Funny, I can add 444 Alexa footage to an FCPX project and edit. i guess high-end is a moving target.

[Herb Sevush] "Which is proof that things are different now. Apple is reacting to that difference, but for many people it's not enough to say that they are more open than before. That's like saying he's more talkative than a dead guy - it might be true, but it still ain't putting you on the debating team."

So you are dismissing this then? No credit what so ever? Something that has changed for the better has no meaning?


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 6:07:58 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " I don't get what you are saying here."

It's one thing to know about something, it's another to experience it. It's one thing to warn your kid to wear a safety helmet when he rides his bike, it's another talking to him after he's taken a bad fall and had a concussion.

In other posts you often refer to the experience of Shake users as an example of what "everyone knows" about Apple. The thing is you'd have to ask Shake user's that question, and even then it's not analogous because they kept selling and supporting Shake for years after they announced the EOL. Show me another application that was killed totally without warning, and then let's go ask their users what they think of the parent company.

[Jeremy Garchow] " i guess high-end is a moving target."

High-end means meeting all the requirements to finish for complex workflows - no broadcast monitoring, no high-end.

[Jeremy Garchow] "So you are dismissing this then? No credit what so ever? Something that has changed for the better has no meaning?"

Better is good. More better is better. I have to make some major software/hardware decisions by NAB. The less Apple tells me about their future plans for both FCPX and the MacPro line, the more likely I go elsewhere.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 6:58:37 pm

[Herb Sevush] "It's one thing to know about something, it's another to experience it. It's one thing to warn your kid to wear a safety helmet when he rides his bike, it's another talking to him after he's taken a bad fall and had a concussion."

But if he had seen all the kids riding without helmets fall down and get hurt, did he not think that that he might be able to suffer the same consequences?

My point here is that they extremely rosy picture painted by Marvin Holdman was not that rosy. Yes, we wanted to believe Apple was looking out for us pros, but where they ever and we were just Ok with it?

[Herb Sevush] "High-end means meeting all the requirements to finish for complex workflows - no broadcast monitoring, no high-end."

Which has been announced. I am talking about a straight up edit and quality. I can use 444 RGB images in FCPX better than I could in FCP7, and I can still make cuts and dissolves. I know what you're saying, and interchange and extension is a huge part of usability It's the reason why I still can't use FCPX everyday.

[Herb Sevush] "The less Apple tells me about their future plans for both FCPX and the MacPro line, the more likely I go elsewhere."

Sure. But this has always been the case. We never knew what was coming. Ever. Whether we choose to believe that or not is up to you. Now, we are armed with the knowledge that FCS is dead. It finally happened to us. We are not out of the shooting range. What I am saying is that we must be honest with ourselves. These drastic actions are not new, we just feel the results more deeply.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 7:20:42 pm

Not to beat the proverbial dead horse, we are in agreement here, but...

[Jeremy Garchow] "But if he had seen all the kids riding without helmets fall down and get hurt, did he not think that that he might be able to suffer the same consequences?"

From this statement I assume you don't have kids, am I right?

[Jeremy Garchow] "High-end means meeting all the requirements to finish for complex workflows - no broadcast monitoring, no high-end."

Which has been announced"


Which is why I said in my first post, not high-end as yet.

[Jeremy Garchow] "These drastic actions are not new, we just feel the results more deeply."

Again, name another major app that was killed as suddenly and as totally; still expecting a new upgrade on Monday, EOL'd without sales or support on Tuesday. That was new. More than anything else, that is what changed my view on dealing with Apple. Even Discreet (a pox on them) sold and supported *edit for over a year after the EOL.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 7:39:37 pm

[Herb Sevush] "From this statement I assume you don't have kids, am I right?"

First bun is in the oven (a huge and new development).

[Herb Sevush] "Again, name another major app that was killed as suddenly and as totally; still expecting a new upgrade on Monday, EOL'd without sales or support on Tuesday. That was new. More than anything else, that is what changed my view on dealing with Apple. Even Discreet (a pox on them) sold and supported *edit for over a year after the EOL."

It's true, it happened at first but this has now changed. You can still buy FCS. I guess that's the difference we are talking about here. I see what they did to fix it, you see what they did to break it. I understand, there's no trust.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 7:49:52 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "First bun is in the oven (a huge and new development)."

Congratulations. Well, at least we won't have to guess why you've stopped posting in a few months. The triviality of all we've been discussing will soon become apparent.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 7:56:49 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Congratulations. Well, at least we won't have to guess why you've stopped posting in a few months. The triviality of all we've been discussing will soon become apparent."

Thank you.

Yes, life will be forever different, indeed.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 7:58:38 pm

[Herb Sevush] "[Jeremy Garchow] "First bun is in the oven (a huge and new development)."

Congratulations. Well, at least we won't have to guess why you've stopped posting in a few months. The triviality of all we've been discussing will soon become apparent.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions"


He'll be spending time dealing with purchasing compatible third party apps and all. There's probably a learning curve as well. That there won't be a printed or PDF manual is a factor as well.

Many happy Primary Storylines.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 8:10:25 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "First bun is in the oven (a huge and new development)."

Congratulations! That's wonderful news, and I'm very happy and excited for you.

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 8:29:27 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Many happy Primary Storylines."

[Walter Soyka] "Congratulations! That's wonderful news, and I'm very happy and excited for you."

Thanks so much, guys.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 9:33:39 pm

My congratulations as well, Awesome news!!!

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 9:37:08 pm

[David Lawrence] "My congratulations as well, Awesome news!!!"

:) Thanks so much, David L.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 15, 2011 at 2:14:12 am

belated gone back down the thread - fair play to you, and the very best congratulations and wishes to you and yours.

A


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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 15, 2011 at 4:18:56 am

Thanks a lot, Aindreas!


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 10:14:09 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "First bun is in the oven (a huge and new development)."

Well, this explains a lot...

Congrats Jeremy!!!

Meanwhile, here's a message to you from a good friend...

Luca Brasi: Jeremy, I am honored and grateful that you have informed me of your pending new arrival. And I hope your first child will be a masculine child. I pledge my ever-ending loyalty.

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

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

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 10:30:37 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "Congrats Jeremy!!! "

Thanks, David R W!

and you too Luca...although it's a bit spooky talking to you.


Return to posts index

Marvin Holdman
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 5:33:59 pm

Jeremy Gachow - "Will everyone please remember where we came from?"

We came from a company that didn't obsolete all of your prior projects. We came from a company that openly and aggressively supported high end professionals. We came from a company that built scalable systems. We came from a company that supported businesses and educational institutions. We came from a company that provided for transitional upgrades. We came from a company that defined who their customers were and supported them.

Sadly, where we came from has little to do with where we are now.

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 5:46:42 pm

[Marvin Holdman] "We came from a company that didn't obsolete all of your prior projects. We came from a company that openly and aggressively supported high end professionals. We came from a company that built scalable systems. We came from a company that supported businesses and educational institutions. We came from a company that provided for transitional upgrades. We came from a company that defined who their customers were and supported them. "

That's a rosy picture.

I see it differently.

[Marvin Holdman] "We came from a company that didn't obsolete all of your prior projects."

Ask Shake users about what is obsolete.

[Marvin Holdman] "We came from a company that openly and aggressively supported high end professionals."

You mean because of a few high end acquisitions or that FCS was a more mature product?

[Marvin Holdman] "We came from a company that built scalable systems."

As far as I can tell you can run FCPX on a macmini or a desktop with a SAN.

[Marvin Holdman] "We came from a company that supported businesses and educational institutions."

What has changed here?

[Marvin Holdman] "We came from a company that provided for transitional upgrades."

Yep, I'll give you that.

[Marvin Holdman] "We came from a company that defined who their customers were and supported them. "

They defined us? Hmm. I see it as they other way around.

[Marvin Holdman] "Sadly, where we came from has little to do with where we are now."

I am not saying that FCS does not deserve credit, it absolutely does. But the picture you paint wasn't that glorious, and some of it I am a bit confused on what exactly has changed. Apple has killed products before with little warning. This is not new.

At what version did you start using Final Cut Pro? What did you use before that?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 6:09:00 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Ask Shake users about what is obsolete."

So, using your logic, a killer is entitled to a free pass if they kill a second time.

I'm glad we're only judging NLE applications.

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

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

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 6:45:41 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "So, using your logic, a killer is entitled to a free pass if they kill a second time.

I'm glad we're only judging NLE applications."


Here we go. Point out the obvious and suddenly I'm the bad guy again.

No, it's not "OK", but I was responding to another post. This is not new from Apple.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 6:18:17 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Ask Shake users about what is obsolete."

Apple licensed Shake's source code for $50,000. Studios with serious pipelines built around Shake could buy a license to the code and maintain or customize the application themselves.

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 - CNet Article
on Dec 14, 2011 at 6:46:15 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Apple licensed Shake's source code for $50,000."

Deal!


Return to posts index

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