FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Shane Ross
FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 24, 2011 at 5:17:15 pm

Blog post by Art Guglielmo -

http://www.artguglielmo.com/blog/2011/12/24/think-for-yourself.html

He nails it with this statement:

"No one in their right mind would ask a "professional" photographer to do a job with a point and shoot camera. Why ? Its not because they cannot take great pictures with it, they most certainly can. Its because they cannot have the control they need to deal with any situations they run into, or creative ideals they may have."

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 24, 2011 at 5:28:47 pm

Yes, another informative blog from someone who hasn't spent the required amount of time learning the software, still trotting out the same tired old arguments about cutting music videos that are simply not correct.

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


Return to posts index

Bob Woodhead
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 24, 2011 at 6:03:51 pm

Absolutely true. There are plenty of better arguments about the direction Apple is taking. Away from pro editors, that is.


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 24, 2011 at 6:05:38 pm

[Bob Woodhead] "Away from pro editors, that is."

Away from SOME Pro editors

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 24, 2011 at 7:30:43 pm

Some pros need point-and-shoot editing software. Right. That's why Findl Cut Express existed. And why this should have been the new FCE.

But to kill the pro features is like Canon stopping making the 5D, that high end pros and hobbyist alike use, and replaced it with the Elph.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 24, 2011 at 8:03:02 pm

[Shane Ross] "But to kill the pro features is like Canon stopping making the 5D, that high end pros and hobbyist alike use, and replaced it with the Elph.
"


Not a very accurate comparison really

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


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 24, 2011 at 8:06:02 pm

Art is both completely correct...and, IMO, completely stuck.

As an individual editor, he needs to jettison X and get on with his life. (as to many others who keep coming back here with the same arguments based on their desire to shoehorn the new software into their historic workflows and expectations.)

They need to see their "editing" as thing that lives and dies in the timeline. It's what they know - and driving it is their central focus. Nothing wrong with that. It's a noble task that can certainly consume a lifetime. It's also, unfortunately, increasingly not where "general purposes content creation" is headed.

In that wider game, "editing" (more accurately "content assembly" is just one step in the overall scheme of things. Editing's relationship to content creation, (like this or not) is becoming a lot like type designs relationship to art. Society still needs pros who can do it - but not so many seats are going to be available for that, as seats for individuals who can work at the wider levels of "project creation."

Because that's what the market really values now. The market is increasingly seeking people who can efficiently provide the "whole package" not just one element of the package. This is driven both by a desire for short schedules, cost control, and that whole "democratization" thing where there are hardly any barrier left for anyone who wants to learn anything.

This makes it increasingly hard for specia*ists (spam trap killer), but it's way the market is going, like it or not.

The decisions that will remain for us are what games we want to play. Do we want to be exclusively "editors" for the rest of our careers? If so, work your ass off to earn one of the gently diminishing number of seats that will always be there for people who are great at narrow skill sets. And use a tool that empowers that.

But if you want to spend your career on a different level - you may want to learn a tool that has a more "balanced" emphasis where editing is ONE task presented to you in the window - along with some newly enhanced other tools like the more robust database management tools in X.

This is not odd, it's just a simple evolution.

After all, nearly all the "video editors" I know also do "type design" at a functional level. They are seldom true "type designers" - but they've learned enough of those skills to do a credible day-to-day job of it.

X encourages us to start building similar functional skills in database management, motion graphics, and compression/export with it's new design - rather than spending all our time in the narrow (if complex and very important) realm of the timing and finishing of our video streams.

More choices are better, IMO.

Simple as that.

"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

Shane Ross
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 24, 2011 at 9:01:54 pm

Bill. Final cut studio provided many tools for the entire post process, not just editing. Editing, motion graphics (and if you didn't like Motion, there was AE), soundtrack pro, color, DVD studio pro, cinema tools.

So are you saying that FCX now does ALL of that? No, it does not. It provides presets and shortcuts. Like a point and shoot camera sets the focus, f-stop and shutter for you. The ASA. Put it on the "A" and just press the button.

Fine. A vast group of editors need that. Yaay, you have that now.

The other part of that blog was trust. many of us put our trust into Apple, and they broke that trust. I guess it is hard to let that go. If I could, then it would help me stop posting here. But they just flipped us the bird and walked away. Tough to let go after 6+ years of trust in a company.

I was pretty vocally mad at Avid too. And I am using baby steps in going back to them.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 1:30:28 am

I get that this has mad you angry. Anger is a useful human emotion, but generally most useful to the person who is stuck feeling it. It typically encourages us to change things so we don't have to stay angry.

For everyone else it's most functional as a signal that theres something bothering the person feeling it.

The big problem here is that the anger has been understood and well acknowledged for months now. Everyone here gets it. Thoroughly.

So the communications function job is well and truly done.

Now it's becoming a bit self indulgent, IMO. The signal was sent. Mission accomplished. At some point the message changes to "see how superior my analysis STILL is... Or perhaps," I'm obsessed with my anger and can't move on."

Neither is particularly useful, IMO.

But whatever.

"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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 2:43:36 am

[Bill Davis] "I get that this has mad you angry. Anger is a useful human emotion, but generally most useful to the person who is stuck feeling it. It typically encourages us to change things so we don't have to stay angry."

The big issue seems to be the inability for those who are angry to resolve it.
Warning lots of speculation that may offend some.
If moving on doesn't resolve the anger then the thing that lingers is a poison, a cancer.

It may be they trusted a business when they shouldn't have. Avid, Adobe, Discreet and on and on have all made, or threatened to make, product moves that raised the ire. Shortly after people made decisions about their future directions.

It may be they genuinely fear the potential popularity of FCPX in certain post workflows even if it's a couple years down the road. Whereas some of use will be veterans, others fear they will be tossed into an alien and distasteful environment.

Maybe they fear that the broadcast/feature film niche is finding it harder to sustain developers with Avid having a tough time of it and Apple clearly taking a different approach to the industry altogether.

Remembering what Avid did around 2000 to Mac Avid users, with the risk of tends of thousands of dollars per seat, or, what Discreet did a few years later to those who used Edit*, the money stakes were much higher than the move from FCP7 to Avid or Premiere these days. Yet the anger festers. To me it seems disproportional to real world costs and even the learning curve.

If it's simply "trust" then these editors must never have experienced this in their past post history (where such costs would have been much higher).

I can't help but think there's something else that bothers them. Something they're not admitting to IMHO but "trust" doesn't hold for me, assuming one has been around the post industry for a few decades . . . when changes in technology bankrupted companies. I haven't heard of facilities closing due to the EOL of FCP legacy.

Something else is causing the anger IMHO.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 5:02:40 am

[Craig Seeman] "If moving on doesn't resolve the anger then the thing that lingers is a poison, a cancer. "

Cancer might be pushing it a little hard - more like a carbuncle, or crotch rot.

[Craig Seeman] "It may be they genuinely fear the potential popularity of FCPX in certain post workflows even if it's a couple years down the road. Whereas some of use will be veterans, others fear they will be tossed into an alien and distasteful environment."

Oh yeah, we're terrified you've got the edge on us with a program you praise for it's ease of learning. Next we'll be frightened of Imovie as well.

[Craig Seeman] "Maybe they fear that the broadcast/feature film niche is finding it harder to sustain developers with Avid having a tough time of it and Apple clearly taking a different approach to the industry altogether."

There are more new NLE's coming to market than at any time in recent memory. They come in 7 flavors now, not counting Smoke and Legacy, which is sorta, almost, still on the market.

[Craig Seeman] "It may be they trusted a business when they shouldn't have."

Mostly this.

[Craig Seeman] "If it's simply "trust" then these editors must never have experienced this in their past post history (where such costs would have been much higher)."

In my case it's specifically worse because of previous experience. I chose Apple and FCP precisely because I thought it was the safe place to be. Foolish, but there you have it.

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 24, 2011 at 10:16:07 pm

[Bill Davis] "Art is both completely correct...and, IMO, completely stuck. As an individual editor, he needs to jettison X and get on with his life."

Bill, your constant refrain is that FCPX is targeted at the new "content creators" and that traditional "complex workflow" editors should look elsewhere for a Legacy replacement. While I personally agree with you on this point (the difference being your happy about it and I'm not) don't you find it odd that Apple doesn't publicly agree with you? Don't you find it odd that Apple claims X will have all the functionality of Legacy and that it will be appropriate for the TV and Film industry? This has been Cupertino's position since they released X, with the admonition that we would have to wait for third party developers to supply the missing pieces.

Much of the fury and antagonism on this forum would vanish if Apple simply restated your position as their own. Why do you suppose they haven't?

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 2:51:29 am

[Herb Sevush] "Don't you find it odd that Apple claims X will have all the functionality of Legacy and that it will be appropriate for the TV and Film industry? This has been Cupertino's position since they released X, with the admonition that we would have to wait for third party developers to supply the missing pieces."

Over the next few years both the TV and Film industry and well as FCPX itself will change. The two will meet again. It will take some time though.

I find it odd that TV and Film is heavily dependent on Avid which apparently hasn't been able to make money (get out of the red) for five years and counting, with that industry's heavy dependence.

So if TV and Film can't support the one NLE company they depend on, it would be odd to base a business model primarily on those industries.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 5:07:20 am

[Craig Seeman] "I find it odd that TV and Film is heavily dependent on Avid which apparently hasn't been able to make money (get out of the red) for five years and counting, with that industry's heavy dependence. So if TV and Film can't support the one NLE company they depend on, it would be odd to base a business model primarily on those industries."

As you have so often stated, Avid's finances are not linked to it's software. It's financial problems are not necessarily an indicator that it's software isn't profitable or sustainable.

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 4:57:03 pm

[Herb Sevush] "As you have so often stated, Avid's finances are not linked to it's software. It's financial problems are not necessarily an indicator that it's software isn't profitable or sustainable."

It's certainly not profitable for Avid. Avid or MC family could be sold. Avid can't sustain their current business model (or it won't sustain them) and hasn't for 5 years running. One way or another this has to impact MC at some point.



Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 4:59:59 pm

[Craig Seeman] "It's certainly not profitable for Avid."

Are you saying you've seen Avid's financials and the software division is broken out separately and is not profitable?

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 5:08:38 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Are you saying you've seen Avid's financials and the software division is broken out separately and is not profitable?"

Avid is a hardware company. That's where the bulk of their revenue comes from. I've seen at least one recent analyst report that says their FCPX crossgrade discount hurt them further. Avid itself is not profitable nor is the current revenue from MC able to help them all that much.. With their current business model they need to sell Unity and Isis to make money and the market for those is small and not expanding. There are many articles going over the financials. I've posted some already in other threads.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 5:28:54 pm

Craig -

You are missing my point.

Yes Avid is loosing money and yes Avid makes most of their money from hardware sales and yes Avid's business model does not seem to be currently sustainable.

But no, you have given no evidence to show that MC software is losing money "by itself" and there is no evidence to show that if MC was broken off from the parent company that it wouldn't financially succeed on it's own merits. Avid's problems and MC software profitability are not the same, specifically because Avid is a hardware company, anymore than FCP profitability and Apple's profitability are highly linked, and for the same reason.

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 5:49:34 pm

[Herb Sevush] "But no, you have given no evidence to show that MC software is losing money "by itself" and there is no evidence to show that if MC was broken off from the parent company that it wouldn't financially succeed on it's own merits."

I don't disagree with you. MC itself or Avid as an entity may be sold to some other company. The question is how does MC fit into Avid's current business model. How will Avid change its business model to survive and how will that impact products including and especially MC.

Avid has a few options. The one not viable is to maintain the current business model and continue downsizing to cut costs . . . and demoralize remaining employees.

They will either
change their business model, impacting products including MC
file chapter 11 or, worse, file chapter 7
be sold off entirely
be broken down and sold

In any case, a company that's been downsizing as its most obvious "solution" to its problems is going to impact their product lines.

What is clear, regardless of MC's revenue to Avid, it can not sustain or otherwise turnaround the company without some other major change to their business.

Apple, also a hardware company, uses software to sell hardware. FCP legacy may not have been driving hardware sales upward beyond a slow steady replacement of MacPros and some MBPs.

Avid does not use MC to drive hardware sales. It did at one time though. It drove the sales of proprietary hardware. It no longer does.

You have to look at the business model a company works under. FCPX is designed to sell hardware (Macs of various types). Whether it succeeds is another story but it has a clear model. MC doesn't seem to fit in Avid's hardware business model anymore. Something will change. Change may be painful to some market segment. Unless you think Avid will become a software company driven by MC sales, MC will likely be impacted one way or another.



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 6:09:10 pm

Perhaps Apple might buy Avid, to recapture some of the "Pro" market :)

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 6:10:55 pm

[Steve Connor] "Perhaps Apple might buy Avid, to recapture some of the "Pro" market :)"

Yeah, that would Shake things up.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 6:14:38 pm

[Chris Harlan] "[Steve Connor] "Perhaps Apple might buy Avid, to recapture some of the "Pro" market :)"
Yeah, that would Shake things up."


Actually, that would be my only fear, that Apple would buy Avid to kill it, like it has done with every other product it touches. Apple is like an animal in the wild, it kills any child that isn't it's own.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 6:25:29 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Actually, that would be my only fear, that Apple would buy Avid to kill it, like it has done with every other product it touches. Apple is like an animal in the wild, it kills any child that isn't it's own.
"


There would be a certain inevitability about that happening. I still think BMD would be the obvious choice though.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 6:45:46 pm

[Steve Connor] "There would be a certain inevitability about that happening. I still think BMD would be the obvious choice though."

I agree. BMD is a company that uses software to sell hardware. It's hardware seems to go beyond the broadcast and film markets. ATEM is affordable. Resolve software starts at free and promotes upward movement to the paid version and the controllers, etc.

While they don't have the exact same business models, Blackmagic and Avid are certainly a good contrast. MC might fit well in Blackmagic's business plan if controlling the development of an NLE helps them move more hardware . . . and it might.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 6:09:16 pm

[Craig Seeman] "In any case, a company that's been downsizing as its most obvious "solution" to its problems is going to impact their product lines.
"


True enough, and Apple really gained from the experience. No offense, man--there is a certain amount of validity to some of the things you are saying, but you are at quite a distance from whatever is actually going on there, and the frequency with which you keep making these prognostications makes you sound a bit like Ted Waitt opining on the future of Apple.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 6:39:45 pm

Avid's situation is real. There's not prognostication in that.
That they will have to change something is common business sense.
What they change is up for grabs and I've presented some of the possibilities.

Avid is not a software company who's business model is dependent on MC.
Avid is a hardware company who's business model is dependent on Unity and Isis for the most part.
That's not prognostication.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 6:11:41 pm

Craig -

My response has been all about this statement from an earlier post:

"I find it odd that TV and Film is heavily dependent on Avid which apparently hasn't been able to make money (get out of the red) for five years and counting, with that industry's heavy dependence. So if TV and Film can't support the one NLE company they depend on, it would be odd to base a business model primarily on those industries."

It's totally misleading. The fact that Avid has made some poor choices does not mean the TV and Film Industry is an insufficient market to support the NLE that services them. Avid's failures as a company does not justify that statement. So no, I don't find it odd.

If you want to go back a little in time, Media 100 was a successful and rising company 10 years ago, with a strong NLE product. The company then invested 2 years and a lot of money on a real time compositor called the 844/x. Wrong product, wrong time and the company went bankrupt. Did that mean the Media 100 NLE was not a viable product? Hardly, as it's rebirth a few years ago by Boris demonstrates.

So I agree with you about the problems Avid has as a company, but I wouldn't be hesitant to invest my money or my future in MC software. It's too valuable a property to be left to die, if Avid can't fix their problems financially then someone else will pick it up.

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 6:36:32 pm

[Herb Sevush] "if Avid can't fix their problems financially then someone else will pick it up.
"


I often wonder if Blackmagic might.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 3:27:11 am

[Herb Sevush] "Much of the fury and antagonism on this forum would vanish if Apple simply restated your position as their own. Why do you suppose they haven't?"

Because it's what a small sub-section of the small sub-section of professional editors want, but not what Apple feels it needs.

They own the product, they make the rules. Period.

They do not consult us, nor should they.

That's not how companies win in the modern world. They've clearly proved this. Apple regularly markets products that nobody ever realized that they wanted. This is a world of hyper competition and instantaneous access to information. It's not the same world where companies could make a good product in one decade and count on that to sustain an income flow for many future decades. Today, we ALL change our purchase patterns on a dime. Which means that any company can out innovate any other company and strip away market share. I spent a solid 15 years supporting Sony. Then they lost me. They were "out-innovated" by Canon. And if tomorrow Panasonic or Red or JVC, or Kawasaki has the best camera value proposition for what I need to do - they'll get my money. That sucks for old style companies, but it's how we all operate today.

Many here exemplify that. They're pissed because the Mac Editing "brand" let them down. So they're open to change. But HOW did the brand let them down? By innovating away from where they were. And risking that they would leave behind a chunk of the editors who aren't as ready to change things.

Apple keeps innovating. They keep moving. They might move away from where you or I are positioned today - but maybe in doing so, they might actually move to where you or I need to be tomorrow. Nobody knows. That's the exciting part.

If it's true for more purchasers than it's NOT true for - they win in the long run. Simple as that.

"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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 4:46:55 am

[Bill Davis] "Because it's what a small sub-section of the small sub-section of professional editors want, but not what Apple feels it needs."

But Apple themselves have said otherwise. Apple says they want to make a product for the TV and Film industry. So, Bill, are you saying that Apple is actively lying to us? Is that your position?

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 12:14:48 am

Bill, I agree with many of your assessments, but to me they argue in favor of 7 and not X.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 3:44:37 am

[Chris Harlan] "Bill, I agree with many of your assessments, but to me they argue in favor of 7 and not X."

As they will to anyone who's in the class of "fully developed large, relatively complex and relatively expensive monolithic editing software" buyers.

Apple didn't see that as the most important market of the future. But that doesn't mean they think it's un-important. Merely, IMO, that they think that if they "reinvent" the tool with a more modern focus - then let it grow and develop over time into something that builds on top of that "universality" with constant broadening and speciality use increases, then they get the best of both worlds. Software that is broad, modern and targeted.

Editing was increasingly becoming something done by massive swaths of people in the same way that word processing moved from the secretarial pool into the relm of "general purpose" software that is as attractive to the casual letter writer, as it is to an admin cranking out business correspondence for a "boss."

I think the new FCP-X is a better tool for modern general purpose editing than Legacy was.

We'll see if it also becomes a superior "special purpose" editing tool on top of that.

Only time will tell.

"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

John Chay
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 3:40:39 am

Our television station just had a major television network come in and check out our Avid system. They were using FCP 7. No way in hell did they even think about moving to FCPX. It's not a pro app. Period.




http://www.john-chay.com

Editor/Videographer


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 24, 2011 at 7:36:53 pm

Shane, what does he mean here?

"The Magnetic Timeline. Because of the way that the program works, you are now limited to editing decisions that are based on a relationship to the first frame of your project. The whole idea of being non linear is things can go where you want them go, and stay there. I can easily work on the end, go back to the beginning, then the middle, etc. That is virtually impossible with FCPX. "

Isn't that what place holders and gaps are for?

I feel totally free to just toss stuff down on that line because it's so easy to slide stuff around.


I agree with him about students though, I would teach them Avid and let them pick up X at home. Then they would know both ways.


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 24, 2011 at 11:55:45 pm

Perhaps the one hour session on Saturday. February 4th will answer some of these questions, as Steve Bayes of Apple, a pro editor himself, takes attendees through an in-depth session.

http://www.editorsretreat.com/schedule.htm

Michael

Michael Phillips


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 4:50:00 am

I wonder how well attended this session will be:

"20 Best Cutting Edge FCP Tips In 60min"


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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 4:59:04 am

Ok. It's Christmas/Chanukah. Let stop the bickering for a few days.

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


Return to posts index

Kevin Patrick
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 1:08:50 pm

Didn't you start this thread?


Return to posts index

Mark Morache
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 2:02:44 am

Hmmmm...

Do I feel like I have a lack of control with Final Cut Pro X? Not a lot. There are many clunky things that I need to do now to make my edits happen, but I expect these are things that will go away as new versions come out.

I have 7 and X on my computer, and I keep coming back to X.

Art: Having FCPX on your resume is not getting you into any post house, network TV, or feature film set anytime soon.

I don't believe this. What will get you a job is a great reel. If a post house sees a well edited reel from an applicant their first question may be "what did you edit this on" and when they say FCPX, I think the answer will be "You did THIS on THAT? You're a better editor than I thought." It's not about the interface, it's about the talent in orchestrating pictures, sound and emotion in a real time experience. If you can do that in iMovie, who really cares.

And if your only experience has been on FCX, then you've only been editing since June 23, 2011. That more than anything will keep you from getting hired.

Apple has a history of making the interaction between the user and the instrument a magically intuitive one. Remember the first time you picked up an iPod? That's what FCX feels like for me. I can very easily sort and label and find things. I can edit nearly as fast as I think, and that's a wonderful thing.

For me, that's why I keep going back to it, even when the little details to finish the edits are taking me longer. Even though there are bugs in it. Even though it crashes more frequently than FCP7.

I trust they will keep working on it.

Yes, I have difficulty trusting Apple. They can fix that any time they want to, by simply communicating with us openly about where they are going. Are they silent because they are hiding the truth from us or because it's just their way of doing things and they aren't about to change that now. I don't know, but I'm going to stay on the ride, because I'm excited about the future.

I hope they can change the universe with their $299 application, by giving me an awesome application that lets me have my creative way with my project, with as much finishing and polish as I care to put into it.

---------
FCX. She tempts me, abuses me, beats me up, makes me feel worthless, then in the end she comes around, helps me get my work done, gives me hope and I can't stop thinking about her.

Mark Morache
Avid/Xpri/FCP7/FCX
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
http://fcpx.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 3:16:01 am

[Mark Morache] "Yes, I have difficulty trusting Apple. They can fix that any time they want to, by simply communicating with us openly about where they are going. Are they silent because they are hiding the truth from us or because it's just their way of doing things and they aren't about to change that now. I don't know, but I'm going to stay on the ride, because I'm excited about the future. "

I think Apple has been communicating to the extent that there's no competitive advantage in keeping something secret. They promised and began to implement XML support, promised multicam and broadcast monitoring. These don't give FCPX any particular advantage. They're "catchup" features. They wont want to reveal features, or even product direction more generally, that can influence competitors (and apparently Apple does consider Avid and Adobe competitors in the NLE space).

When a business chooses to communicate, or not, as the case may be, some tend to ascribe these as "personality traits" as we anthropomorphize businesses. They choose how to communicate as part of a business model which they believe will give them an advantage in the market place.

Certainly Apple's business model creates problems for some, angst for other, but if Apple feels it works to their advantage in the market, they will continue to do so.

Some debate that it doesn't communicate its roadmap has and will hurt Apple as business. I'd certainly guess that a bunch of suits in Apple talk about their public face and continue to do this because they still see an advantage the end user may not.



Return to posts index

John Heagy
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 4:14:02 am

My big trust issue with Apple is the way they launched an incomplete backward incompatible replacement for FCP 7 and at the same time killed FCP 7. In what universe does this make sense?

Three scenarios, and none are good.

1) Apple's Pro Apps team actually believed FCPX was a valid replacement and that people don't need to open old, even days old, projects.

2) Apple Pro Apps team knew that FCPX would be a nightmare for current FCP 7 users with any kind of collaborative workflows and simply didn't care.

3) Apple Pro Apps team knew that FCPX would be a nightmare for current FCP 7users with any kind of collaborative workflows and wanted to keep selling FCP 7 and take the time to make FCPX backward compatible but were prevented by management.

I suppose #3 is the best scenario and maybe the huge backlash translated into a big "I told you so" from Pro Apps. If it was # 1 or #2 then I'll let Bill Paxten sum it up...







Return to posts index

Al Bergstein
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 5:32:59 pm

Apple's FCP conversion is not the way that companies that court the business market operate. All major vendors, from MSFT's Business software group (SQL Server, Windows Server, etc) along with Oracle, HP, Adobe and others, go to great lengths not to do what Apple did with FCP. They hold non disclosure months, even years in advance, and they also hold developers conferences where they really disclose required information to have significant 3rd parties on board at launch. This most certainly did *not* happen with the X launch. And I can bet I know why.

I consider what happened as an internal battle at Apple between the FCP group and the iMovie group, with the outcome being that the conversion to 64 bit was the killing point and that, given the economy back then, the iMovie group won out. The decision to move the company to a consumer only model is also shown in the lack of high end servers, workstations and the like. It's all of a piece.

But this is all water under the bridge. I stumbled on this thread in the Canon forum, why I don't know (Shane this really should go under the FCP/FCPx forums). I'm on beyond FCP now, getting to love Premiere, and really like a company like Adobe where I can actually get their dev teams and other knowledgeable folks on the forums answering questions. Adobe is doing a really wonderful job of trying to become the next leader in this field. AVID certainly seems to have the Hollywood production teams sewn up to a great degree. Apple never seemed interested in actually participating in the community, except at once a year events, it seemed to me. But Adobe is hands down doing the best job to win my business in my mind. I hope my business and others like it keep them profitable!

Al


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 6:25:52 pm

[Al Bergstein] "I stumbled on this thread in the Canon forum, why I don't know"

It's a function of the cow. Uncheck those boxes at the top of the Canon forum to hide posts that might contain canon keywords from other forums.

Apple has never courted many people. They did give NDA sneak peeks of fcpx to a select few. Apple never has focus groups, very rarely asks for outside advice. That's the way they have always been, it shouldn't be a shocker.

And I agree with you, Adobe is completely different. They are striving to be as open as possible.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Al Bergstein
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 11:43:23 pm

Thanks Jeremy. I've been using the COW now since I think 2009,and never have noticed those check boxes. I wonder if they are a relatively new feature?

Anyway, as a small business owner who has invested thousands of dollars in Apple and bought into the 'future' of FCP as a professional tool, I won't reward the behavior that Apple pulled this year any longer. Adobe is willing to treat me as a business customer, and I've already started investing in their future vision of editing.

While I am only a small player, I know I'm not the only one, and many of my video friends here in the Pacific NW have or already are moving away. And I'm sharing my learning as I go. I think Apple's Guy Kawasaki called this "Technical Evangelism". Maybe someday down the road Apple may catch up to where they were (are) prior to X, but for me and many others, it will likely be too late.

I always remember, these are only tools. Not religious artifacts like the Shroud of Turin. (even though it may have Steve J's holographic image embedded in the screen - grin)

Happy New Year to all of you.

Over and out.

Al


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 30, 2011 at 2:07:40 pm

[Al Bergstein] "Thanks Jeremy. I've been using the COW now since I think 2009,and never have noticed those check boxes. I wonder if they are a relatively new feature? "

I think so.

[Al Bergstein] "I always remember, these are only tools. Not religious artifacts like the Shroud of Turin. (even though it may have Steve J's holographic image embedded in the screen - grin) "

Absolutely. With video gear, you buy for what you need to make money today as in the future, things will be different.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Mark Morache
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 5:10:58 am

[Craig Seeman] "some tend to ascribe these as "personality traits" as we anthropomorphize businesses"

We never had to work to anthropomorphize Apple. Apple had a face, and usually walked around barefoot in need of a bath.

I think there is more than a little fear that Apple without Steve Jobs may be the end of it for the pro market.

I'm halfway through the biography, and when Jobs returned to Apple, he drew vertical and horizontal lines on a white board, indicating desktops for the pros and consumer markets, and portables for the pro and consumer markets. Obviously the consumer side has thrown this model out of balance. If anyone can afford to keep it's pro market fed, even if it's not as profitable as the consumer side, it would be Apple.

I hope they continue do just that.

---------
FCX. She tempts me, abuses me, beats me up, makes me feel worthless, then in the end she comes around, helps me get my work done, gives me hope and I can't stop thinking about her.

Mark Morache
Avid/Xpri/FCP7/FCX
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
http://fcpx.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Kevin Patrick
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 1:15:15 pm

[Mark Morache] "I'm halfway through the biography, and when Jobs returned to Apple, he drew vertical and horizontal lines on a white board, indicating desktops for the pros and consumer markets, and portables for the pro and consumer markets."

I read the bio as well. To me, the question was what did Jobs consider to be necessary for Pros. From the very beginning of Apple through his return, Jobs was pretty adamant about producing closed systems. As in, you can't open them up and expand them. From the first Apple computer (which he did not want expandable) to the first Mac to the first iMac. So did he push for a Mac Pro, or did he reluctantly agree? As he occasional did on other issues.

He was also extremely focused on simplicity, in everything Apple did. I can see where his desire for simplicity might have directly, or indirectly driven the FCS team to create a simpler Final Cut.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 5:04:51 pm

[Mark Morache] "I think there is more than a little fear that Apple without Steve Jobs may be the end of it for the pro market."

[Mark Morache] "Obviously the consumer side has thrown this model out of balance. If anyone can afford to keep it's pro market fed, even if it's not as profitable as the consumer side, it would be Apple. "

Actually the consumer side will result in a re-balance IMHO. Apple is learning what works and will apply that to their entire product line. That's why I've brought up commodification (not the same as consumerization). It may well mean Jobs' desire for simplicity will have "won." We see it in FCPX and we will see it in what replaces the MacPro. Devices and CPUs, and the software they use to sell them, will be "self contained" hubs that can be expanded externally.

BTW if you've seen the rumors about Gannett buying thousands of iPhones and iPads for journalists, might give you an indicator as to where some "Pro" markets are heading.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 5:43:35 pm

[Craig Seeman] "BTW if you've seen the rumors about Gannett buying thousands of iPhones and iPads for journalists, might give you an indicator as to where some "Pro" markets are heading."

Huh?


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 6:46:14 pm

[Craig Seeman] "BTW if you've seen the rumors about Gannett buying thousands of iPhones and iPads for journalists, might give you an indicator as to where some "Pro" markets are heading.""

[Chris Harlan] "Huh?"

Read this. Interesting if true.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/12/22/leak_shows_gannett_stockpilin...

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 7:08:30 pm

From the Gannett blog (which watches Gannett specifically of course).
http://gannettblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/memo-gci-buys-thousands-of-iphones....

I'd not that Gannett has also been one of the investors in Livestream.com (formerly Mogulus). Livestream is the only widely used service I know have that allows one to cut between smartphones sources (which must be brought in through Qik).

If true, Gannett may be expanding live news coverage with iOS devices. One interesting response I read was showing how different this is than to CNN's firing of editors to depend on iReporters. Gannett approach is to equip trained journalists with the technology rather than depend a large "amateur" pool.

If true, it does indicate where the use of this technology is going. That's why "consumer" when describing iPhone and iPad doesn't quite explain where the market is going. That iPhones and iPads are low cost commodities makes them potentially attractive to one portion of the "pro" market (if true).

One might wonder what they'll be editing on when not streaming live. Will they be using iMovie for iPhone/iPad? Well they then be importing such edits into an NLE than can import from . . . well you see where I'm headed.

Obviously just rumor at this point but if you "forward think" where things may be headed.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 4:58:22 pm

I wouldn't not expect this. Makes total sense to me. But my "huh?" was actually directed at Craig's assertion that this was somehow redefining what "pro" is in the light of what the argument on this blog is. If Gannet, which has a huge investment in Avid equipment, suddenly installs 1000 FCPX stations, I'll pay attention. But otherwise, I still say "huh?"


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 5:11:48 pm

The point is that people keep saying Apple is a "consumer" company and yet iPhones and iPads are being used in "Pro" environments including "online broadcast." Those same journalists may be cutting packages in the field using iMovie or such field rough cuts may even be imported into FCPX for finishing.

It was at a recent trade show in a forum about future industry directions where I saw someone from Future Media Concepts (a training facility) show an iPad kitted out for field shooting and post production. They mentioned they were developing pieced of the kit. Now a few months later I see the info about Gannett.

In fact Gannett's response is in many ways the antithesis of CNN, which laid off people to depend more heavily on CNN iReport. Gannett, on the other hand, is using the same tools (iPhones and iPads) in the hands of trained journalists. Both are dealing with economies of scale (and it is business economics). For every journalist in a truck with a "broadcast" camera kit, they'll be scores more with iPhones and iPads able to get to a location and deliver, live if needed, faster.

Apple and FCPX may well lead in this market . . . and this market is going to grow a lot faster that episodic TV and feature films . . . and it is Broadcast (even if online) and it is Professional.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 5:46:03 pm

[Craig Seeman] "The point is that people keep saying Apple is a "consumer" company and yet iPhones and iPads are being used in "Pro" environments including "online broadcast.""

Clothespins are used in studio lighting, that still doesn't make my local supermarket a studio lighting company.

[Craig Seeman] "For every journalist in a truck with a "broadcast" camera kit, they'll be scores more with iPhones and iPads able to get to a location and deliver, live if needed, faster. Apple and FCPX may well lead in this market . . . and this market is going to grow a lot faster that episodic TV and feature films . . . and it is Broadcast (even if online) and it is Professional."

When they shoot the next Brian Williams standup with an Iphone, then I'll consider the Iphone a broadcast tool. Telephone calls with ID slides make it to broadcast air, what standard are we talking about - if the content is strong enough they will air VHS originated material on a news show, does that make VHS a pro broadcast standard?

Your playing semantical games, Chris's point is correct.

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 6:39:33 pm

[Craig Seeman] "The point is that people keep saying Apple is a "consumer" company and yet iPhones and iPads are being used in "Pro" environments including "online broadcast." "

I think you are far too sensitive about this. Much of this argument comes from the way Steve Jobs reinvigorated Apple by creating a distinct pro niche with his little four-square box. These are divisions that Apple projected on itself, and then actively promoted. Most people look at a PC, for instance, and don't really worry about whether someone is going to use it in an office or at home. Telephones started as a purely business device, than entered homes, then became so useful that no one worries whether a telephone is pro or not. Even trying to think that argument is a silly one. It is equally silly to wonder if cell phones and tablets are pro or not. If they are useful in business, they will be used in business. In any way that they can be used. Right?

[Craig Seeman] "Apple and FCPX may well lead in this market . . . and this market is going to grow a lot faster that episodic TV and feature films . . . and it is Broadcast (even if online) and it is Professional.
"


They might. Let's see if they do. All kinds of factors in play. All kinds of people competing. The argument "If iPhone, then FCP X" is not a valid one.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 7:01:54 pm

[Chris Harlan] "It is equally silly to wonder if cell phones and tablets are pro or not. If they are useful in business, they will be used in business. In any way that they can be used. Right?"

Thank you very much for arguing my point. There are MANY here who keep saying Apple has become a "consumer" company. That's absolutely false IMHO. I believe Jobs also said they would simply make the best product and the end users would use.

[Chris Harlan] "The argument "If iPhone, then FCP X" is not a valid one."

It certainly is valid. Look at all the folks on this forum who rant "iMovie Pro" meanwhile iPhones and iPads may be moving into field production editing on . . . what? And if iMovie is inadequate, what NLE imports iMovie projects?

Seriously, think this thing through. Apple is about ecosystems. Apple is not a consumer company. Apple has become a "commodity" company with a different and more profitable business model in commodification.

Before analyzing anything, look at Apple's business model, please.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 7:20:01 pm

[Chris Harlan] "It is equally silly to wonder if cell phones and tablets are pro or not. If they are useful in business, they will be used in business. In any way that they can be used. Right?"

[Craig Seeman] "Thank you very much for arguing my point. There are MANY here who keep saying Apple has become a "consumer" company. That's absolutely false IMHO. I believe Jobs also said they would simply make the best product and the end users would use."

And yet there are still feature sets that differentiate "professional" phones from "consumer" phones, because they serve different groups with different needs.

Most consumers wouldn't buy a phone for Exchange support or remote wipe. Most professionals wouldn't buy a phone for a "Share on Facebook" button or Beats audio.

Is there some overlap? Sure. Does that change the validity of segmenting the market based on their needs and expected use for a product? Not at all.


[Craig Seeman] "Seriously, think this thing through. Apple is about ecosystems. Apple is not a consumer company. Apple has become a "commodity" company with a different and more profitable business model in commodification."

I think Apple would resist your commodity characterization very strongly.

Commodity lies on one end of the spectrum for goods, opposite differentiable product. I think Apple would consider their products to be highly differentiated, and unless you think the iPhone is just another cell phone, you'd have to agree.

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 7:47:21 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I think Apple would resist your commodity characterization very strongly. "

They wouldn't like the characterization but I can't think another business model to analyze them under. They seem to be looking for higher volume, lower component cost model.
They aren't sacrificing quality for the sake of price per se but every step they take, especially when you look at supply chain purchasing (and Tim Cooke's specialty is supposedly in supply chain management), that seems to be the direction.



[Walter Soyka] "unless you think the iPhone is just another cell phone, you'd have to agree."

iPhone 3GS free with 2 year account from ATT, iPhone 4 $99, 4S is certainly price competitive with Android. Again, it's NOT that Apple looks to make the cheapest phone. They look for high volume and controls over components that drive down cost. That direction is "commodification" in my book.

While they're not going to make a Kindle Fire but if you look at iPad pricing against anything close to feature competitive you can see how Apple's price compares well against the competitors. Apple is moving beyond the days of "overpriced" IMHO.

MacBook Airs are also a sales leader in the category. Again, they're not looking to make the cheapest but when you compare price performance and volume sales, this is not a high priced niche product.

While iPhone isn't "just another phone," iPad "just another tablet." MacBook Air "just another netbook" they are high volume sellers and rather than increase costs with "kitchen sink" (kitchen sync?") every possible hardware addition, they've trimmed the hardware and negotiate high volume component purchases and, in some cases, invest in component manufacturing.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 8:09:10 pm

[Craig Seeman] "They wouldn't like the characterization [of commodification] but I can't think another business model to analyze them under. They seem to be looking for higher volume, lower component cost model."

Selling high volumes at low cost doesn't make an item a commodity. You're misusing a technical term. Just because Apple has been more successful at moving their highly-differentiated products into the market doesn't mean they're giving up differentiation and moving toward commodification.

Commodity items are fungible, which means that they can be freely substituted for one another. It doesn't matter if you put Mobil, Shell, Hess, or BP products in your car; they're all gasoline, and there's very little room for differentiation.

The iPhone, on the other hand, is highly differentiated from other phones: it's got the carefully curated Apple user experience and it's got the Apple ecosystem. It cannot be simply substituted with another product.

The products that Apple integrates (screens, ICs, etc.) are commodities (and have been for decades), but they products that Apple sells (iPhones, iPads, Macs, etc.) are not.

I agree with your point that Apple is moving toward higher volume sales, but their core philosophy is unchanged: make good, highly-differentiated products that aren't necessarily based on current user needs or product pre-conceptions.

FCP Classic and the Pro Apps of the early 2000s were the aberration, in that they were products built specifically for the current needs of an existing set of users.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 7:46:25 pm

[Craig Seeman] "[Chris Harlan] "It is equally silly to wonder if cell phones and tablets are pro or not. If they are useful in business, they will be used in business. In any way that they can be used. Right?"

Thank you very much for arguing my point. There are MANY here who keep saying Apple has become a "consumer" company. That's absolutely false IMHO. I believe Jobs also said they would simply make the best product and the end users would use."


Yes, I'm arguing your point. But I'm also saying you don't have a point to argue. You are hung up on semantics. Are pens consumer or professional devices? Who cares?

[Craig Seeman] "[Chris Harlan] "The argument "If iPhone, then FCP X" is not a valid one."

It certainly is valid."


No. It is not. It might be true, but the argument itself is not. By the rules of logic, it just isn't.
It might work out that way, but it is just a possibility. Maybe people are going to edit on their phones. Maybe they are going to find it a hassle. Maybe the Google pad will eclipse the iPad in the next couple of years. Maybe all kinds of things. What you put forward is a possibility that can be disrupted by many other possibilities.

[Craig Seeman] "Seriously, think this thing through. Apple is about ecosystems. Apple is not a consumer company. Apple has become a "commodity" company with a different and more profitable business model in commodification.

Before analyzing anything, look at Apple's business model, please.
"


Damn, you can be condescending. I value your point of view, Craig. Very much. But you also often talk in the type of grand absolutes that I find more than a bit illusory. There is a sharp difference between possible and inevitable.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 8:23:25 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Are pens consumer or professional devices? Who cares? "

Then I can say the same for the future of FCPX. It's not a "consumer" product. It will be used by those who find it useful. I expect that to be Professionals. I expect its market share to improve as its features improve and as the OS integrates features that improve Server and SAN use and meta data flexibility.

If Consumer vs Pro is moot then it is moot. Thank You. I'm glad you don't care. You've shattered many of the arguments on this forum. Thank you.

[Chris Harlan] "Maybe the Google pad will eclipse the iPad in the next couple of years."

Currently Gannett seems to be purchasing iPhones and iPads and one would expect a compatible facile workflow. Facility (ease of use) is the point of using iPhones and iPads. It's certainly not that their quality competes with professional shoulder mount ENG cameras.

[Chris Harlan] "There is a sharp difference between possible and inevitable."

But when possible actually starts to happen, whether it be purchasing iPhones for ENG use or the expansion of online episodic television, the next steps become a bit clearer in the short term at least. Certain trends are quantifiable. Next steps after that involve prediction. If you think there's any truth to 'I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been" analogy Apple is either trying to predict or control (a combination of both actually) so Apple certainly considers that a viable business model. Again that's why I say follow Apple's business model. They are trying to predict (and control) the future and I'm speculating on what they are involved in. If Apple just sold thousands of iPhones and iPads to Gannett, then they certainly have the puck. It doesn't mean they've won the game nor even determine the value of this particular score . . . but it's an indicator. I examine indicators.

Granted the sale is rumor but we'll know soon enough but:
Gannett, a major journalism publishing company . . . who also provided venture capital to Mogulus/Livestream.com is now buying Apple iPhones and iPads for journalists . . . may well have been the kind of think Apple was anticipating.

When I see companies like Vizrt doing this:
http://www.vizrt.com/products/viz_reporter/

There's changes taking place in ENG as well as live news. Again it's not going to replace the shoulder mount camera. It's just that it expands journalistic accessibility to fast and live reporting.

Just maybe Apple sees high volume sales of FCPX based systems to people editing the increasing volume of iOS created content . . . from professional journalists.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 8:32:05 pm

Hey. Its all possible.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 8:56:25 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Hey. Its all possible."

I'm just trying to connect the dots in guessing why Apple is doing what it's doing. I have no idea if they'll hit their mark. Sometimes when skating where the puck will be, you end up out of position due to an unanticipated event.

I'd guess Apple sees more pieces to the evolving puzzle than I do think they saw a direction and they're trying to get their first. Then again please raise your digital digits if you've used Ping regularly or even a few times. If you ask what Ping is . . . there's certainly no guarantee Apple is sending the puck in the right direction.

I do find where ENG seems to going/expanding given CNN's moves regarding iReport and apparently this now from Gannett, very interesting.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 4:04:37 am

[Mark Morache] "Yes, I have difficulty trusting Apple. They can fix that any time they want to, by simply communicating with us openly about where they are going. Are they silent because they are hiding the truth from us or because it's just their way of doing things and they aren't about to change that now. I don't know, but I'm going to stay on the ride, because I'm excited about the future. "

The "silence" thing is interesting to me.

What are the potential downsides of such silence? Pretty much limited to "insecurity" on the part of upper echelon editors.

On the other hand, what are the potential upsides?

Let's see. Off the top of my head some might be...

Keep competitive secrets more secure.
Keep the market guessing - which for Apple, has a history of building excitement for product launches and updates.
Maybe suppress "forward looking statement" hassles in financial markets.
And keep the coding team on task without having to deal with constant "explain where you're going" meetings and presentations.

Sounds like a fair trade 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

Mark Morache
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 5:02:46 am

[Bill Davis] "Keep competitive secrets more secure.
Keep the market guessing - which for Apple, has a history of building excitement for product launches and updates.
Maybe suppress "forward looking statement" hassles in financial markets.
And keep the coding team on task without having to deal with constant "explain where you're going" meetings and presentations.

Sounds like a fair trade to me."


Is Apple worried about a competitor coming up with it's own magnetic timeline? I doubt it. I think at this point it's less of keeping their plans secret, and a lot more of communicating to people who depend on these tools for their livelihood, that Apple is trying to prepare a wonderful future for them.

Pulling legacy Final Cut sounded like a strong message that they were abandoning the pro market. If that's not the message they wanted to send, they need to make sure they tell us. Yet here we are continuing to divine what Apple is thinking.

My world hasn't been turned upside down, and I'm intrigued by the new stuff, so I'm willing to ride it out.

As for their launches, when they come out with an ipod or ipad, people can't wait to get them. FCX was snuck out without a lot of hoopla, and people clamored for their money back, and people rushed to Avid and Adobe. Apple backpedaled, and sort of put it back.

Yeah, when they're doing things right, we all happily get in line behind them. I'd love to get our daily show production on FCX. It's hard to give my managers an answer when they say "is Apple going to keep with this, or abandon it like Xsan, Smoke, Color and legacy FCP?"

I'd love to shoot a fly-on-the-wall documentary with the team in Cupertino.

---------
FCX. She tempts me, abuses me, beats me up, makes me feel worthless, then in the end she comes around, helps me get my work done, gives me hope and I can't stop thinking about her.

Mark Morache
Avid/Xpri/FCP7/FCX
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
http://fcpx.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

stephen sarsfield
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 25, 2011 at 11:32:11 pm

i wish apple would give those of us who have invested in their edit product over the years a token discount on X!


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 26, 2011 at 6:06:31 am

[stephen sarsfield] "i wish apple would give those of us who have invested in their edit product over the years a token discount on X!"

After you convince them to do that, could I hire you to convince all the book publishers that I've given $16-25 bucks a copy for the 400-500 hardback books in my library to let me trade them in on a nice discount on downloading the iBooks versions of what I already own??? Now THAT would be truly sweet gift!

"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

Mark Morache
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 26, 2011 at 5:49:23 pm

[stephen sarsfield] "i wish apple would give those of us who have invested in their edit product over the years a token discount on X!
"


Really? $299 is the cheapest upgrade I've ever purchased.

I wish they would give away Final Cut Studio 3 for free to people who purchase the new FCX. I think this would be a fantastic value, keep more people in the Apple camp, and help send the message that Studio 3 is still awesome, and that while FCX isn't quite a complete replacement Final Cut Pro yet (I still need FCP7 for many many things), it's headed that way.



and do I need to divulge that this isn't a genuine ad?

---------
FCX. She tempts me, abuses me, beats me up, makes me feel worthless, then in the end she comes around, helps me get my work done, gives me hope and I can't stop thinking about her.

Mark Morache
Avid/Xpri/FCP7/FCX
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
http://fcpx.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 26, 2011 at 6:19:01 pm

[Mark Morache] "Really? $299 is the cheapest upgrade I've ever purchased."

Upgrade? X isn't even a cross-grade or a down-grade much less an upgrade.

However, I will agree that Stephen's idea for a discount does seem a trifle over the top.

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

Mark Morache
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 26, 2011 at 6:27:59 pm

I stand corrected.

I should have said "It's cheaper than any upgrade I've ever purchased."

Non-linear editing software upgrade that is.

---------
FCX. She tempts me, abuses me, beats me up, makes me feel worthless, then in the end she comes around, helps me get my work done, gives me hope and I can't stop thinking about her.

Mark Morache
Avid/Xpri/FCP7/FCX
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
http://fcpx.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 26, 2011 at 12:19:29 am

When did Apple abandon Xsan? They are giving it away in Lion.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

David Chai
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 26, 2011 at 1:20:19 am

This is an amusing thread, I guess people are bored on Christmas day...

I think the reason AVID have a hard time being profitable is that the High End POST business is dying, Technicolor and Deluxe have merged their lab operations, Postworks merged with Technicolor in NY. That's after a whole bunch of LA facilities were bought out by Indian post houses. There's a plethora of old AVID systems out there from a decade ago, that are still in use. Why? Because it's an offline system, and if that's all you need, well, your needs were covered 10 years ago. Broadcasters are also slashing budgets, especially in news.

Any medium, high budget TV series or film is going to be finished on DS or Smoke, so there really is no need for finishing for the TV episodic and film markets. Paying for a software upgrade once in a while is also not going to give you much revenue. AVID unity was great when it first came out, but expensive, and now with tons of competition at much cheaper prices, that market must be really shrinking.

Apple have obviously decided to go for the 99% and not the 1% of high end users that need edgecode or audio Timecode reading from the audio track. FCP X is a bold new direction, probably about a year ahead of it's time, as the death of tape was given a big helping hand with the Japan tsunami.

I wish (apart from the multicam and video out) there was a non-linked mode and a track mode. I think that 99% of the 1% would pretty much be satisfied with that for FCP X.

As much as I like AVID MC for it's high end film features, it sucks for finishing. The effects stack is braindead compared to every other editor on the market. This is 2011, not 1998. Straight conforms, static titles and a bit of primary color correction are not good enough anymore. You need full color, secondaries, vignettes, you need full motion graphics and better quality transitions. Apple delivers that for $299. Plus it's super easy for a new user to pick up and start editing, you don't need a two week steep learning curve like you do for AVID.

I honestly believe that if apple had actually scaled up the workspace for Motion, they could have taken on photoshop, because the effects stack is so much better than photoshops stupid history, and duplicating layers to try out effects. It already had a much better paint tool than After Effects, despite it's being on the market for over 15 years.

I find that I can cut on FCP X much faster than I could with FCP 7, but am also frustrated with some of the annoying things of a version one product, but It'll get sorted out. They would lose too much reputation to kill the product off now.

-----------------
David Chai
Writer . Director
http://www.davidchai.com
dc@davidchai.com
212 363 0159


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 26, 2011 at 3:49:18 am

[David Chai] "I wish (apart from the multicam and video out) there was a non-linked mode and a track mode. I think that 99% of the 1% would pretty much be satisfied with that for FCP X."

But then they would have called it FCP8 and we wouldn't have this forum.

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


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 26, 2011 at 7:00:49 pm

"I honestly believe that if apple had actually scaled up the workspace for Motion, they could have taken on photoshop..."

I'm not following here, how would a motion graphics application compete with Photoshop?

"It already had a much better paint tool than After Effects, despite it's being on the market for over 15 years."

I've never used Motion, what makes it better for painting tasks than AE?

Shawn



Return to posts index

David Chai
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 3:33:31 am

To answer the question, how could Motion compete with Photoshop. Well photoshop was invented in the 90's and at the time didn't have a huge undo buffer, it only had one undo, so in order to make effects, they were applied destructively. So if you wanted to quickly undo the effect, you actually had to make a duplicate layer, in case you changed your mind about the applied effect later, and wanted to revert to your clean layer.

As computers got more memory, In order to solve this problem, they added a history palette, so you can now step back in time and undo way back in history. But this is a silly paradigm, given how effects have evolved, and with most current tools (including Adobe After Effects), you can turn effects on and off, and also reorder them in the stack. FCP 7 works like this. Incidentally After Effects allows you set a composition at 30,000 x 30,000 pixels precisely because some designers prefer to apply effects on photos in After Effects due to the precise control you have over effects.

In Motion, you have the layer order, which is very similar to Photoshop, but the effects stack can be applied non-destructively and updates in real-time as you adjust it, and all paint and brush tools are vector based. Actually they did apply some of this technology into Aperture, but Aperture does not have any typography tools, layer tools or the amount of sophisticated masking tools in Motion. Motion also allows for 3rd party plugins to give looks and enhancements not possible with Aperture.

So if Aperture, like After Effects, allowed for a Canvas of 30,000 x 30,000 pixels, it could be a serious competitor to photoshop. As for the paint tools, they are all vector, and can be resized, rescaled, changed, tweaked, turned into a path, all after the fact. A pen is supported not only for pressure sensitivity, but also gestures could control the GUI, obviously derived from the programmers background on Discreet Combustion. (All Discreet stuff is pen based) Incidentally Combustion had a good vector paint tool... I'm sure they just took it from that. See how they animate drawings with varying stroke widths in Motion, it's quite awesome. After Effects actually added paint and write on tools after Motion came out in CS3 I believe, but Motion paint tool can replace any of the brushes for any other object at any time, making it still more flexible.

Don't get me wrong, I think After Effects is an awesome piece of software, and has it's place in any motion graphic designer's arsenal, but Motion is $50?!?! Anyway, I just like it because it's super fast to try out ideas, and you can pretty much just hit play and see it instantly. Sometimes when you need more control of actual 3D and not the 2.5D they use in Motion, then After Effects is it. I think they complement each other rather than compete, but making animated text templates for use in FCP X is truly killer, and I used that feature a lot in FCP 7. But it was slow and prone to crashing. In FCP X it is much faster and less buggy in this area, as it better be as it's now the primary CG.

David :D

-----------------
David Chai
Writer . Director
http://www.davidchai.com
dc@davidchai.com
212 363 0159


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 5:53:34 pm

"So if Aperture, like After Effects, allowed for a Canvas of 30,000 x 30,000 pixels, it could be a serious competitor to photoshop."

I'm sorry David, I still don't understand your point. Apeture is a tool for oganizing and manipulating photos, and Motion is designed for motion graphics work... neither have (or claim to have) the kind of advanced graphics editing/compositing/creation capabilities of Photoshop, so I'm not sure how either could act as a PS replacement. Do you have a use case?

"As for the paint tools, they are all vector, and can be resized, rescaled, changed, tweaked, turned into a path, all after the fact."

AE's paint engine is also vector based, so all stroke options can be changed after the fact. If additional functionality is required, a shape layer can be used.

"After Effects actually added paint and write on tools after Motion came out in CS3 I believe..."

AE has had vector paint tools since v 5.0(about 2001).

Shawn



Return to posts index

al ellis
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 2:51:49 am

'I honestly believe that if apple had actually scaled up the workspace for Motion, they could have taken on photoshop, because the effects stack is so much better than photoshops stupid history, and duplicating layers to try out effects. It already had a much better paint tool than After Effects, despite it's being on the market for over 15 years'

If i were being generous, I'm guessing you dont use these products much or maybe its just that you dont know how to use these products.


Return to posts index

Nelson Torres
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 28, 2011 at 1:45:49 am

If a post house sees a well edited reel from an applicant their first question may be "what did you edit this on" and when they say FCPX, I think the answer will be "You did THIS on THAT? You're a better editor than I thought." It's not about the interface, it's about the talent in orchestrating pictures, sound and emotion in a real time experience.

If you were applying for a job at a post house or broadcast/theatrical job they sure as hell care what you did it on because they're all Avid. If it takes you nine days to cut the first scene of a show because you don't know the software your job security will be in serious jeopardy.

FCP7 had a chance of changing things. It was headed for total dominance. 'Psych' was cut on FCP7. Movie & TV editors were starting to embrace the software. But FCPX squashed all that. It's buggy, missing important features, and hampered by presets.

Boy, now I'm really depressed...

Every frame has its own unique place in space and time.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 28, 2011 at 4:04:15 pm

[Nelson Torres] " It was headed for total dominance. 'Psych' was cut on FCP7. Movie & TV editors were starting to embrace the software"

Not sure that's correct, FCP only had a tiny fraction of the Feature and the larger broadcasters market. Perhaps that's why Apple moved in a different direction?

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


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 28, 2011 at 4:29:51 pm

A number of independent producers and production companies were using FCP 7 and while it seemed to have a bit more of a foothold on the east coast, institutionally you are quite correct. The FCP presence there was (and is) minimal.

Tim


Return to posts index

Nelson Torres
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 28, 2011 at 6:11:44 pm

As a matter of fact local 700 the motion picture editors union out here in LA held both tutorial classes in FCP 7 & AVID. Many top films were cut on FCP 7. ABC, Showtime(east coast) had in house facilities that were dominated by FCP 7. Now all going back to Avid. They've dumbed down the software too much and makes it hard or even impossible to accomplish some of the simplest tasks or convolutes industry standard methodologies that were based on decades of practical development. It's kind of like reinventing the automobile with concrete square tires and calling that an innovation.

FCP X will do well being a finishing tool for iMovie, but that's about it. Kids learning FCP X will have a harder time learning Avid if they ever get an opportunity to work in Broadcast & Theatrical.

Every frame has its own unique place in space and time.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 28, 2011 at 4:50:08 pm

[Steve Connor] "Not sure that's correct, FCP only had a tiny fraction of the Feature and the larger broadcasters market. Perhaps that's why Apple moved in a different direction?
"


Much smaller, yes. Tiny, no. At least here in LA. In fact, it was just passing the point where you could drop the "much" off of "much smaller" when FCP X arrived.


Return to posts index

Adam White
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 4:14:55 am

A good post.

At this stage it feels to me as though FCP is finished as a professional NLE.

I say that for 2 reasons - firstly, there is now absoloutley NO reason for any Editor to trust Apple. As the article says, trust is an absoloutey vital element to consider when choosing the software vendor that you base your livelihood on. From the freelancer right through to the post production house, this year Apple have shown they are utterly untrustworthy. I'm not sure they can do anthing to resolve that; the damage done this year has just been too severe and from the conversations I've had with people the biterness and frustration hasn't really abated since the Summer. Those that are most 'zen' about the situation are so because they have already moved to another platform or have already made the decision to.

Secondly - whatever add-ons or bug fixes come along, Apple are locked into some fundamental design decisions that the vast majority of professionals find simply abhorrent. We all know what these are, and I fail to see how the most deeply ingrained of these can ever be made to work in a professional environment. Call me shortsighted in this regard, but I still cannot for the life of me figure out how trashing a century's worth of practices, paradigms, terminology and established workflows was ever anything more than hubris in the extreme. The only way this thing can survive is if it becomes the NLE of choice for a new generation, but speaking as a young (24) editor I know that the priority when your starting out HAS to be to understand, respect and conform to the standards of the industry you want to be a part of. Playing by those rules, FCPX is a total non-starter. I'm sure some geat storyellers will be able to do good work with this, but its an ISLAND and if it doesnt fit in to the rest of the industry why on earth would you consider using it if you aspire to work as an editor in any professional capacity?

This whole debate seems kind of pointless now doesn't it? Hasn't the dye already been cast? I'm not even sure what I'm doing here, just still trying to keep learning, processing and trying to make the soundest decisions I can for my career I guess.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 9:56:54 am

[Adam White] " there is now absoloutley NO reason for any Editor to trust Apple. As the article says, trust is an absoloutey vital element to consider when choosing the software vendor that you base your livelihood on. "

The launch of FCPX was a PR disaster, it's created a huge amount of ill will amongst the edit community and they have lost customers that they will likely never get back. But my guess is that as FCPX starts to add in some of the missing features it might start to gain some traction in the market again, perhaps not led by editors and post houses but possibly from Production Companies and large Corporate clients.



[Adam White] "Apple are locked into some fundamental design decisions that the vast majority of professionals find simply abhorrent. We all know what these are, and I fail to see how the most deeply ingrained of these can ever be made to work in a professional environment. Call me shortsighted in this regard, but I still cannot for the life of me figure out how trashing a century's worth of practices, paradigms, terminology and established workflows was ever anything more than hubris in the extreme."

True, but editors are a conservative bunch to say the least, look at the furore generated by Avid simply adding another toolbar a while ago. Also look at the fact the "new" Avid interface is pretty much exactly the same as the interface from some of the earliest versions of Avid from years ago. As for the software, once it has broadcast output and a bit more extensibility then it's perfectly usable in a professional environment. I've been using it for some time now and once you get used to how it works, you can still achieve the same things as you can in other NLE's.


[Adam White] "if it doesnt fit in to the rest of the industry why on earth would you consider using it if you aspire to work as an editor in any professional capacity? "

Because a smart Freelance Editor always keeps their options open.

[Adam White] "This whole debate seems kind of pointless now doesn't it? Hasn't the dye already been cast?"

Not in the slightest, FCPX has shaken the editing industry up, mostly for the wrong reasons, but it has generated lots of hugely interesting debate about the fundamental craft and business of editing.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 4:30:35 pm

Any business that's thinking with their emotions is risky, Anybody he only doesn't "trust" Apple probably hasn't been in the business long enough to experience what Avid did a little over 10 years ago, or were using Discreet Edit or Combustion or any other moderately popular programs that were EOLd.

Given the ROI costs of buying an NLE now compared to 1999, the cost of moving is much less, granted there is certainly some cost and some learning curve.

If Apple presents a good value proposition entry into post production for professional startups, for example, its use will expand. If a facility can put together 10 seats of FCPX, networked with asset management allowing facilities to turn around product faster and for less money, you'll see growth, There's no guarantee that will happen of course, but I'm sure that's what Apple has in mind.

If you look at where the expansion in production will be over the next few years, as I think Apple is, there will be growth in direct to web episodic content, for example. This is compared to broadcast/cablecast, feature film market.



Return to posts index

Adam White
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 28, 2011 at 10:21:22 pm

Hi Steve,

I agree with some of your points there. When I say that I think FCPX is over as a professional NLE I should be clearer in that I dont think its going to be taken up by editors in the middle and top end of the market as the previous versions of FCP were. I fully expect it to be used by large corporations who need non-editors or unskilled people to turn around video content that doesnt need to conform to any real quality standards (i.e we need this video to fill a whole on the website, and we need it quick). For that reason it will almost certainly become a factor in a more professinal editors day to day work eventually, but only in a perennial sense. At least thats what my little crystal ball here tells me - no disclaimers offered on that though obviously! :)

And yes, with some more functionality Im sure X COULD be used in a professional environment, and as I said in initial post doubtless some people will do great work with it. BUT I still think those key design decisions will continue to be roundly rejected by the majority of editors because I dont think they enhance or improve the editing process, in fact in many respects I think they are a step backwards. And in terms of the next generation of storytellers, the best of them will not want to be tied to an app seen by the industry leaders as amateurish and unreliable and I am now really struggling to see how FCPX is ever going to rid itself of its currently atrocious reputation. We will see - I may be eating my words and wizzing around a magnetic timeline in a few short years!


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 28, 2011 at 10:51:37 pm

[Adam White] "I am now really struggling to see how FCPX is ever going to rid itself of its currently atrocious reputation"

Presumably when some more people actually are forced by choice or circumstance to learn how to use it correctly and discover it's not the devils spawn that many are making it out to be :)

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 5:01:13 pm

[Adam White] "I say that for 2 reasons - firstly, there is now absoloutley NO reason for any Editor to trust Apple. As the article says, trust is an absoloutey vital element to consider when choosing the software vendor that you base your livelihood on. From the freelancer right through to the post production house, this year Apple have shown they are utterly untrustworthy. I'm not sure they can do anthing to resolve that; the damage done this year has just been too severe and from the conversations I've had with people the biterness and frustration hasn't really abated since the Summer. Those that are most 'zen' about the situation are so because they have already moved to another platform or have already made the decision to."

There's no question that Apple left no popcorn trial for legacy users, and it's tough to not now immediately where to go. If you stick around in this business long enough, you'll find this is how it works. It happens when good clients move elsewhere or take the business in house, it happens when they stop manufacturing your particular camera, it happens when you can't find the right gear in your area to rent, it happens when companies make business decisions about their own future without asking their customers what they want. If you trust a giant company to make the hard decisions for you, or if you think everything including software technology lasts forever, then what you are witnessing now is a good lesson for you. Nothing lasts forever, and things change, so you have to stay sharp, and count on tomorrow being different from today. I'm not making excuses for Apple, and luckily there's a few good NLE alternatives out there. Once you start looking around, you'll see why fcp needed an overhaul as it is hardly the pinnacle of modern technology. We can't use FCPX for everyday work, but maybe some day. In the meantime it's mostly fcp7 while we test other NLEs.

[Adam White] "Secondly - whatever add-ons or bug fixes come along, Apple are locked into some fundamental design decisions that the vast majority of professionals find simply abhorrent. We all know what these are, and I fail to see how the most deeply ingrained of these can ever be made to work in a professional environment. Call me shortsighted in this regard, but I still cannot for the life of me figure out how trashing a century's worth of practices, paradigms, terminology and established workflows was ever anything more than hubris in the extreme."

if fcpx had interchange and video monitoring on day1, my bet is that these statements wouldn't be so definitive. Arguments have been made that the fcpx interface actually goes further back to the roots of flatbed based editing. Also, I'm not sure what a bin of film had to do with a giant pile of data. The last 100 years of film technology HAS changed a bunch. Fcpx still allows a cut and dissolve. Where it has changed is treating the modern tapeless architecture as data. Moving forward, it is the right move, in my opinion.

[Adam White] "The only way this thing can survive is if it becomes the NLE of choice for a new generation, but speaking as a young (24) editor I know that the priority when your starting out HAS to be to understand, respect and conform to the standards of the industry you want to be a part of. Playing by those rules, FCPX is a total non-starter. I'm sure some geat storyellers will be able to do good work with this, but its an ISLAND and if it doesnt fit in to the rest of the industry why on earth would you consider using it if you aspire to work as an editor in any professional capacity? "

Over a decade ago, these same exact things were said about Final Cut Pro v1, and look what happened.

I do agree, you have to use the tools that will get you a job. That, of course, only makes sense. If fcpx doesn't get adopted, then of course it won't survive in multiseat post houses for very long. It will survive in the hands of many individuals though, just like its predecessor. It will give many people opportunities, just like its predecessor. Of course, it's not there yet, but neither was final cut pro v1. It took a minute to get there, and so will X.

Timeline aside, there are many extremely powerful features in X (and I don't mind the timeline) that other NLE companies should note. In my opinion, there are a lot of things about an NLE that deserve to change to keep up with today's times, even though it might rustle a few feathers. I am glad someone had the balls to do it. Red and others are doing the same thing for cameras, and it's been a bumpy road. Why shouldn't the post tools keep up with production?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 27, 2011 at 6:42:52 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "If you stick around in this business long enough, you'll find this is how it works. It happens when good clients move elsewhere or take the business in house, it happens when they stop manufacturing your particular camera, it happens when you can't find the right gear in your area to rent, it happens when companies make business decisions about their own future without asking their customers what they want. If you trust a giant company to make the hard decisions for you, or if you think everything including software technology lasts forever, then what you are witnessing now is a good lesson for you. Nothing lasts forever, and things change, so you have to stay sharp, and count on tomorrow being different from today. I'm not making excuses for Apple, and luckily there's a few good NLE alternatives out there. Once you start looking around, you'll see why fcp needed an overhaul as it is hardly the pinnacle of modern technology. We can't use FCPX for everyday work, but maybe some day. In the meantime it's mostly fcp7 while we test other NLEs. "

Well said.


Return to posts index

Adam White
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 28, 2011 at 10:02:46 pm

Hi Jeremy - a good point on not being too reliant on one tool for yor work. Whilst it was never the case that I picked FCP as my primary platform for anything other than positive reasons (i.e. Being very strong choice for short form content, which I specialise in, excellent multicam, being quick for simple VFX work + extensive library of 3rd party plugins + being most adopted NLE among companies I did/would be working for) what the whole FCPX issue has made clear to me is that I was becoming too reliant on one tool, no matter how good it was/is. Its not a mistake I'll be repeating, believe me.

In terms of FCPv1 being a questionable choice for editors at the time, whilst I'm sure that is true its not quite the same as FCPX because the former didnt try to reinvent the whole editing paradigm. Although different, it didnt require the user to change their entire way of working to such a degree as X does and it wasnt nearly as polarising. My point was that I do worry younger editors learning X at college/film school/whatever are going to find that their whole way of thinking and working is going to be totally at odds with whats happening in the "real" world because X shares virtually nothing with any other software (other than iMovie). There will be a whole lot to relearn and rethink, much more so than when going from FCP to Avid.

And whilst I totally agree that our NLEs do need to change periodically and keep up with changes going on throughout the industry, my issue with X is that VERY few of these changes appear to have anything at all to do with the editing process. Who was arguing that a source monitor was no longer needed or that tracks on a timeline were archaic? In the end I'm not at all adverse to change, but only when its actually enabling greater creative control and efficiency - I'm still totally unconvinced that the major and deeply divisive overhaul of FCP was worth it, by any measure.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 28, 2011 at 11:29:24 pm

[Adam White] "In terms of FCPv1 being a questionable choice for editors at the time, whilst I'm sure that is true its not quite the same as FCPX because the former didnt try to reinvent the whole editing paradigm"

I would invite you to go back and read about the kinds of problems people were having with FCP v1. It was certainly a disruption. Here's some really old posts: http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/21677



[Adam White] "My point was that I do worry younger editors learning X at college/film school/whatever are going to find that their whole way of thinking and working is going to be totally at odds with whats happening in the "real" world because X shares virtually nothing with any other software (other than iMovie). There will be a whole lot to relearn and rethink, much more so than when going from FCP to Avid."

Like what, for example? And how is its different, from say, learning Smoke? They are all different. Smoke was a single viewer application for a really long time (it now recently adopted source/record model). You can still cut, you can still dissolve, you can still add text, graphics, multi channel audio in fcpx. The control is a bit different, and fcpx needs a bit more control, but if you can look beyond its shortcomings, you mightl find that if Apple chooses to keep developing (and it's a big if) that the level of control will be pretty great.

I have likened fcpx to DSLRs. DSLRs removed a ton of control from shooting. No timecode, no audio control, no real time exposure feedback, no full resolution monitoring. In order to make it a shooting package, a ton of bits and bobs needed to be added on to make it more like the cameras the people were used to shooting with. There's now a generation of video people that ONLY know DSLRs, for better or for worse.

Time will tell if it gets adopted by an industry, not necessarily the film industry, but the greater video editing industry. Fcpx presents a different interface to speak the language of visual communication. That's OK. Theres not a lot to rethink, so much as there is to learn, but it's not necessarily relearning. Iit's adding to what you already know as a visual communication language, and it also presents new ways of thinking about footage as data. It's furthering education, and trying to sort the absolutely massive amount of data that gets thrown around these days. People say fcpx is too simple (and when it comes to ineterchange, it is) but when diving in, it's not super simple.

Stability of the program, is a major concern. It fcpx doesn't stabilize, then it's not going to be a contender. That's simple math.

[Adam White] "And whilst I totally agree that our NLEs do need to change periodically and keep up with changes going on throughout the industry, my issue with X is that VERY few of these changes appear to have anything at all to do with the editing process. Who was arguing that a source monitor was no longer needed or that tracks on a timeline were archaic? In the end I'm not at all adverse to change, but only when its actually enabling greater creative control and efficiency - I'm still totally unconvinced that the major and deeply divisive overhaul of FCP was worth it, by any measure."

I think these changes do have to do with the editing process, especially sorting all of the media. Fcpx is not feature rich at the moment, but there have been announcements about new features that are coming. The lack of a source side monitor might be a major people for some, and with feedback, Apple could very well change the way it works, currently. A big function that is missing from the lack of the source/record model is matching edits (which is big, don't let me undermine it). But the trimming, clip collision and effects work make the process go much faster for MOST operations. I would say for everything but heading towards the finish, fcpx is fast. If Roles get a bit more visual organization and user control, they could really be a suitable replacement for tracks, and yes it might take a bit of learning from us to learn to control the efficiency. It's already much easier to deliver a multitrack export in fcpx, and I welcome that. Easier is OK with me.

No one knows if it's going to be completely worth it. It's up to Apple to keep developing. There are plenty of working professionals who seem to like it, or seem to like what it might be someday. In the meantime, there's the old FCP and a small number of NLEs that are more mature and stable. If Avid is still king in Hollywood, then it will probably remain there, for the rest of 98% of the vast editing community, there's choice. In my opinion, no matter what this will be a good thing. For those who don't like fcpx, they will adopt a better NLE from a different company who is interested in listening to their customers and this will be the kick in the ass they've needed to rethink their operations and move to more powerful solutions, for those who choose to remain with fcpx, then they will have a new platform that suits them and their needs.

Constant learning and improvement is a major part of this business. Fcp v1 was not seen as an improvement as first, and for some, fcpx is not seen as an improvement either. In my opinion there are things about that are much improved, and some things that need major work. It is six months old, there's a lot of new technology on the horizon and fcpx is probably going to fit in there somewhere even though it's hard to see at the moment.

If not, then we all get a kick in the pants to move along with our lives.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 3:38:57 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I would invite you to go back and read about the kinds of problems people were having with FCP v1. It was certainly a disruption."

Jeremy - respectfully I would like to say that there is often as big a danger from learning the wrong lessons from history as from ignoring the past all together.

Comparing FCP v.1 to FCPX is often totally irrelevant.

Yes, FCPv1 like FCPX was buggy and lacked features and it grew and improved over time. If Apple had released theirr new editor as Icut Pro the analogy would hold. But that is not the case here, and to ignore the difference between Apple then and now is more than a little disingenuous.

[Jeremy Garchow] "how is its different, from say, learning Smoke? They are all different. Smoke was a single viewer application for a really long time (it now recently adopted source/record model)."

Which is one of the many reasons why Smoke was never considered an editor, it was a finishing tool with editing capabilities. Not too many films cut totally on a Smoke.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I have likened fcpx to DSLRs. DSLRs removed a ton of control from shooting. No timecode, no audio control, no real time exposure feedback, no full resolution monitoring. In order to make it a shooting package, a ton of bits and bobs needed to be added on to make it more like the cameras the people were used to shooting with. There's now a generation of video people that ONLY know DSLRs, for better or for worse."

And if Panasonic or Sony had EOL'd their entire pro camera line to come out with a new super DSLR people would have thought them insane.

[Jeremy Garchow] " For those who don't like fcpx, they will adopt a better NLE from a different company who is interested in listening to their customers and this will be the kick in the ass they've needed to rethink their operations and move to more powerful solutions, for those who choose to remain with fcpx, then they will have a new platform that suits them and their needs."

With the added frustration of knowing that the ideal program for them was FCP 8. If there was a better editing solution for my workflow I would have quit FCP before this. For all it's faults, the FCP feature set was the closest match to the way I preferred to work. All of my other options, at least at this point, require more compromises than I would like.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 3:53:09 pm

[Herb Sevush] "All of my other options, at least at this point, require more compromises than I would like."

Even Premiere Pro? To me this seems the closest match to a theoretical FCP8 at the moment

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 4:01:35 pm

[Steve Connor] "Even Premiere Pro? To me this seems the closest match to a theoretical FCP8 at the moment
"


At the moment PPro has a limit of 4 cameras for MultiCam. This is insufficient for me. I have heard strong rumors that the MultiCam feature is going to be enhanced in the next upgrade, which is why I qualified my statement with a "at the moment." There are still a number of other issues with PPro that make it less than ideal, but I'm waiting till NAB to make a decision. Right now, FCP8 was/is still my best choice.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 4:07:34 pm

Fair point, CS6 must have a better multicam if they are serious about the broadcast market. What they have works well, I used it a couple of weeks ago on a quick conference edit, but the 4 camera limit is ridiculous.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 4:02:22 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I would invite you to go back and read about the kinds of problems people were having with FCP v1. It was certainly a disruption."

[Herb Sevush] "Jeremy - respectfully I would like to say that there is often as big a danger from learning the wrong lessons from history as from ignoring the past all together. Comparing FCP v.1 to FCPX is often totally irrelevant. Yes, FCPv1 like FCPX was buggy and lacked features and it grew and improved over time. If Apple had released theirr new editor as Icut Pro the analogy would hold. But that is not the case here, and to ignore the difference between Apple then and now is more than a little disingenuous."


I've actually got Jeremy's back on this one. I think there are two alternate interpretations of the FCP v1 vs. FCPX comparison that is so frequently made here.

The first -- and the more naive of the two -- is that everyone laughed at FCP v1, but then it took over the world. This suggests that FCP v1 was a reasonable contender, but that the "industry" just didn't get it until it was too late.

The second -- and the one that I think Jeremy is espousing here -- is that FCP v1 truly wasn't fit for production, but that Apple developed it into a worthy contender over time.

I discussed this a couple weeks ago [link] with Craig: anyone who looked at FCP v1 and thought it was the future was right. Anyone who looked at FCP v1 and thought it was totally inadequate for professional post production was also right.

Jeremy's right to suggest we shouldn't pass permanent judgment on FCPX based solely on its first six months, or even its first year. If Apple gives editors enough compelling reasons to use FCPX, then I think FCPX could creep back into the industry over time the same way that FCP Classic did.

The problem is that Apple themselves have also given us many compelling reasons not to use FCPX.

The questions are whether Apple will develop FCPX to the point where the reasons to use it outweigh the reasons not to, or if either through Apple's action or the industry's action, the reasons not to use it fade away.

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

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 4:14:03 pm

[Walter Soyka] "The second -- and the one that I think Jeremy is espousing here -- is that FCP v1 truly wasn't fit for production, but that Apple developed it into a worthy contender over time."

I'm not disagreeing with this interpretation for what happened then, I'm disputing it's relevance to what is happening now.

[Walter Soyka] "Jeremy's right to suggest we shouldn't pass permanent judgment on FCPX based solely on its first six months, or even its first year. If Apple gives editors enough compelling reasons to use FCPX, then I think FCPX could creep back into the industry over time the same way that FCP Classic did.

The problem is that Apple themselves have also given us many compelling reasons not to use FCPX.
"


FCP 1 had a clear and revolutionary advantage - price. FCPX "might" have a subtle advantage - speed in organizing data. This difference plus the difference of Apple then as a computer company vs Apple now as a consumer electronics company plus the "many compelling reasons not to use FCPX" makes me think the comparison between then and now is somewhat moot.

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 4:51:34 pm

[Walter Soyka] "The second -- and the one that I think Jeremy is espousing here -- is that FCP v1 truly wasn't fit for production, but that Apple developed it into a worthy contender over time."

[Herb Sevush] "I'm not disagreeing with this interpretation for what happened then, I'm disputing it's relevance to what is happening now."

Do you think it's impossible that FCPX would ever be developed to the point where it'd be usable?

Once Apple adds multicam and broadcast monitoring with the next release, what more would you need?

If they can fix their situation with third-party developers, that will open all kinds of doors for FCPX, too.

I think interchange will always be an issue (because the FCPX timeline's structure requires more data than is available from a traditional timeline's structure), but better third-party support could enable new workflows, or even direct finishing in FCPX.


[Herb Sevush] "FCP 1 had a clear and revolutionary advantage - price. FCPX "might" have a subtle advantage - speed in organizing data."

While they are not entirely new, I don't think the organizational and speed advantages that FCPX offers are that subtle for the right projects.

I think that with FCPX, Apple is bringing asset management to the masses -- exactly the same way they brought color correction to the masses by bundling Color. Many people never even launched it (or quit it immediately after being confronted with the un-Apple interface), but some who would never have bought Final Touch for $25,000 suddenly had a very powerful new tool available to them.

If I were posting a documentary today, for example, I'd have to think long and hard about FCPX. X27 might make FCPX into a very nice offline editor. It'd be a workflow worth testing, because I do think that the organizational tools might be worth the convoluted finishing workflow.


[Herb Sevush] "This difference plus the difference of Apple then as a computer company vs Apple now as a consumer electronics company plus the "many compelling reasons not to use FCPX" makes me think the comparison between then and now is somewhat moot."

Why should a computer company be any better at producing an NLE than a consumer electronics company? It's pretty far outside the traditional reach of either one.

For me, the significant difference between then and now is the 2 million Final Cut licenses Apple claimed at the SuperMeet. I'd put "no upgrade path" or even "abandonment" on my list of compelling reasons not to use FCPX. Personally, I'm concerned that Apple isn't interested in me or my needs anymore, so I'm evaluating my other options. Many others are doing the same.

I don't think anyone will be confiscating my hater/whiner/Luddite card any time soon, but I do think it'd be foolish to count FCPX out now -- and isn't that the main point behind the FCPv1/FCPX comparison?

I think Oliver Peters nailed it [link]:
I do believe I'm starting to see a divide in where the NLEs are going based on a lot of things I've seen posted here and in other places over the past 6 months. I think that in general, film editors, broadcast TV stations and post facilities will likely trend back to either Avid or maybe over to Premiere Pro. I think companies with in-house "creative" post operations (like ad agencies, media marketing companies - the sort of model typified by @Radical Media) may very well trend over to FCP X.

I realize a number of folks here have posted about cutting docs and TV shows on FCP X, but I really believe that's an extreme exception for this kind of work. There may be some producer/director/shooter-types doing it, but I simply can't envision too many experienced editors working in these genres adopting FCP X for this type of work. There's just too much missing and the application is way too unstable at this point in time.


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

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 5:17:37 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Do you think it's impossible that FCPX would ever be developed to the point where it'd be usable?"

Not at all, that's why I'm still here. (that and also waiting for Aindreas's next fussilade.)

[Walter Soyka] "Once Apple adds multicam and broadcast monitoring with the next release, what more would you need?"

Those are my main sticking points. When they deliver the upgrade I will download and try. After that, may the best (for me) NLE win.

[Walter Soyka] "If I were posting a documentary today, for example, I'd have to think long and hard about FCPX. X27 might make FCPX into a very nice offline editor. It'd be a workflow worth testing, because I do think that the organizational tools might be worth the convoluted finishing workflow."

Not today, not for me. I find the work we do complicated enough -- using multiple Apps where I don't have to seems like asking for problems.

[Walter Soyka] "Why should a computer company be any better at producing an NLE than a consumer electronics company? It's pretty far outside the traditional reach of either one."

Computer software isn't a reach for a computer company; it is for an electronics company. A Pro NLE isn't out of the reach for a company with a Pro Apps division. A company that makes workstations seems more likely to invest in a high end editing Ap than one that makes cell phones. Some may be happy shooting on an Iphone and cutting on an Ipad - that doesn't work for me.

[Walter Soyka] "Personally, I'm concerned that Apple isn't interested in me or my needs anymore, so I'm evaluating my other options. Many others are doing the same. "

Another reason why the analogy to FCP v.1 breaks down. This is the polar opposite of 10 years ago when Apple's computer mystique was built by pandering to creative's. Now they seem to be quite happy pissing on Walter Murch so that Randy can edit his home movies more easily.

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 5:35:40 pm

[Herb Sevush] "A company that makes workstations seems more likely to invest in a high end editing Ap than one that makes cell phones. Some may be happy shooting on an Iphone and cutting on an Ipad - that doesn't work for me... Another reason why the analogy to FCP v.1 breaks down. This is the polar opposite of 10 years ago when Apple's computer mystique was built by pandering to creative's."

Agreed. Apple is most definitely not in the same position now as they were when they introduced FCP v1, and FCP is simply not strategically important to Apple anymore. (Among my list of "compelling reasons not 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

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 6:06:22 pm

[Walter Soyka] "[Herb Sevush] "This difference plus the difference of Apple then as a computer company vs Apple now as a consumer electronics company plus the "many compelling reasons not to use FCPX" makes me think the comparison between then and now is somewhat moot."

Why should a computer company be any better at producing an NLE than a consumer electronics company? It's pretty far outside the traditional reach of either one."


I read Herb's point as being that when Apple primarily sold computers, there was strong incentive for them to continue to develop for the high end. Now that their primary income is based on phone sales, that incentive is no longer there.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 6:08:42 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I read Herb's point as being that when Apple primarily sold computers, there was strong incentive for them to continue to develop for the high end. Now that their primary income is based on phone sales, that incentive is no longer there."

You said it better than me, and in English too.

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 6:44:26 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I read Herb's point as being that when Apple primarily sold computers, there was strong incentive for them to continue to develop for the high end. Now that their primary income is based on phone sales, that incentive is no longer there."

I understood Herb's point, but consider Apple in the context of companies like Adobe or Avid. Adobe sells software solutions for creative professionals. Avid sells software and hardware solutions for editors and sound designers.

As Craig Seeman keeps reminding us, Apple has always had a broader mass-market focus than that.

Yes, back when Apple was Apple Computer, they could use FCP to sell high-end PowerMacs and Mac Pros -- but if what they really wanted to do was move high-end computers, there was nothing tying them specifically to marketing software to creative professionals.

If Apple wanted to sell hardware through compelling software profitably in a niche, they could have dropped FCP and invested instead in developing software for advanced research or simulation. In fact, now that a consumer-class computer can easily handle HD editorial, focusing on something like climate simulation that would always need high-end computing power would have been the better move for a hardware company.

But Apple is not and never has been just a hardware company. They exist to make people's lives better by making technology more accessible.

With FCPX, they took FCP and ultimately pushed it away from high-end hardware and demanding professional users toward consumer-class machines and casual users.

That has always been Apple's -- and Steve Job's -- modus operandi: take complicated technologies that only specialists use and package them for mass consumption. FCP was an aberration.

After Jobs bought Pixar, he thought that their 3D renderer would ultimately be useful for regular people. From David A. Price's The Pixar Touch:
Jobs's optimism for the new product [RenderMan] soared high... "He thought that RenderMan was going to help everyday people make photorealistic images on their computers," Kerwin recalled. "He thought that RenderMan was going to be a 3-D version of PostScript and that these 3-D pictures would be flying out of people's printers."

In announcing the Intel version of the software [in 1989], the company asserted, "Photorealistic three-dimensional images will soon be an essential form of communicating information in product design and development, marketing, animation, consumer product selection, and business communications."

The world, however, was not clamoring for photorealistic rendering. PhotoRealistic RenderMan was a brilliant technical success and was well received by the computer animation community and by special-effects operations such as ILM, but it remained a niche product.


This is another of my "compelling reasons not to." I don't understand Apple's plans.

FCPX, even as it is today, still doesn't really fit the Apple mold. Apple is pushing it toward the mass market, but they have still included features that the mass market will never need. Will FCPX ever become an everyday tool for everyday people? (For that matter, will it ever become and everyday tool for professional editors?)

What's the end game for this product?

That's where I agree with Jeremy -- like with FCPv1, it's too early to call.

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

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 7:52:44 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Yes, back when Apple was Apple Computer, they could use FCP to sell high-end PowerMacs and Mac Pros -- but if what they really wanted to do was move high-end computers, there was nothing tying them specifically to marketing software to creative professionals. "

The buzz from being in the media world is essential to Apple's identity. In every Hollywood movie the laptop on the executive's desk is a Mac, that doesn't happen by chance. You don't get that kind of marketing presence selling weather simulators. Now that they have that iconic presence they no longer need to serve that market.

[Walter Soyka] "Jobs's optimism for the new product [RenderMan] soared high... "He thought that RenderMan was going to help everyday people make photorealistic images on their computers ...
The world, however, was not clamoring for photorealistic rendering."


FCPX is the new RenderMan, the revolutionary answer to a problem most people weren't having, for a market that might not exist.

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


Return to posts index

John Heagy
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 7:57:09 pm

[Walter Soyka] "FCPX, even as it is today, still doesn't really fit the Apple mold. Apple is pushing it toward the mass market, but they have still included features that the mass market will never need. Will FCPX ever become an everyday tool for everyday people? (For that matter, will it ever become and everyday tool for professional editors?) "

This is the "two headed" Apple conundrum that I need clarified by Apple.

Apple's FCPX presentation at NAB started off with an image of the Alexa, arguably the best feature "film" camera, yet it can't open a FCP 7 project but does an iMovie? Apple needs to balance that equation!

Apple's assertion that it can't figure out a way of importing a FCP7 project into FCPX is BS! Taking a series of clips spread out over time and moving it into FCPX, with some limitations ala Duck, is completely doable. Apple's decision not to do this is un-comprehendable to me.

It's unfathomable decisions like these, including FCP7 EOL, that are the most concerning to me. Anybody remotely familiar with how video production is done could have predicted the current backlash. Why was Apple ok with that?

Who was the emperor and who was telling him he had clothes? If Randy was the emperor, then the Pro Apps team didn't have guts to tell him. The only one who could crown Randy emperor was Steve.

Assuming any truth... Does Tim have the interest or knowledge to rectify this and pick a course?

John Heagy


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 6:49:23 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Now that their primary income is based on phone sales, that incentive is no longer there."

There was a time when Avid primarily sold turnkey expensive Media Composer systems. Now that they've become a company that primarily sells hardware such as Unity and Isis systems, etc, would one say they no longer have incentive to sell Media Composer software?

Apple is a hardware company. Maybe you feel they have little interesting in selling computers but the "incentive" behind FCPX is to sell such computers. If they stopped selling computers they wouldn't have any incentive with FCPX but that's not the case. Might it be that Apple wants to remain diverse rather than "dependent" on phone sales?

Do you think Adobe's primary income is from Premier Pro?



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 7:08:10 pm

[Craig Seeman] "[Chris Harlan] "Now that their primary income is based on phone sales, that incentive is no longer there."

There was a time when Avid primarily sold turnkey expensive Media Composer systems. Now that they've become a company that primarily sells hardware such as Unity and Isis systems, etc, would one say they no longer have incentive to sell Media Composer software?

Apple is a hardware company. Maybe you feel they have little interesting in selling computers but the "incentive" behind FCPX is to sell such computers. If they stopped selling computers they wouldn't have any incentive with FCPX but that's not the case. Might it be that Apple wants to remain diverse rather than "dependent" on phone sales?

Do you think Adobe's primary income is from Premier Pro?"


Good God, Craig. The regularity with which you take things out of context and than get heated about them is stunning.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 7:33:19 pm

It's in context as far as I'm concerned. None of the "A" companies are primarily NLE companies, including Avid. Each has a reason for staying in the NLE business though.

The question is whether the NLE serves the company's business model. Whether or not FCPX succeeds in selling hardware is certainly open to debate but that would seem to be their aim.

Adobe is a content creation company whether Flash, Desktop publishing, Video, so Premiere Pro is a key component even though it might not be its main component.

I'm honestly not sure where Media Composer fits with Avid anymore. It doesn't seem to compel hardware sales and, unlike Apple, I'm not sure where or how it fits in their business model.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 7:40:38 pm

[Craig Seeman] "None of the "A" companies are primarily NLE companies, including Avid. "

But 2 of the companies make their living from the media content world and are responsive to that market. Let's guess which one isn't.

[Craig Seeman] "I'm honestly not sure where Media Composer fits with Avid anymore. It doesn't seem to compel hardware sales and, unlike Apple, I'm not sure where or how it fits in their business model."

I think you have it backward. The question for Avid is where does Unity and Isis fit into their business model going forward.

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 8:50:32 pm

[Herb Sevush] "But 2 of the companies make their living from the media content world and are responsive to that market. Let's guess which one isn't."

But one of those companies isn't getting a very good market response at least as profits go. The other is a diversified software based content creation company. They are responsive for sure.

Apple is a different beast that's also for sure. That there business model is based on anticipating than responding to the market has certainly worked well for them. I don't know if it'll work in the case for FCPX but personally I think they're anticipating the market a couple years out given some of the things I'm seeing. I'm not sure if the "traditional" broadcast or feature film market are growing, certainly not compared to other professional video post markets.

So you have Avid targeting a niche that's not growing, Adobe certainly seems to be able to cover all ends as a software company, Apple success in post will depend on whether they anticipated correctly. An unknown though is not a failure, despite current circumstances.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 8:53:54 pm

[Craig Seeman] "An unknown though is not a failure, despite current circumstances."

Which can be equally applied to Avid's future as well.

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 9:10:28 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Which can be equally applied to Avid's future as well."

Although one difference is that Avid will have to make changes. They aren't sustainable currently. Apple has a lot more flexibility even if a single product doesn't produce the desired result for a time.

I've mentioned before in my own "arm chair" market analysis, FCPX, as much as I like it fails. If it's goal is to sell hardware if failed to get me to replace my MacPro which had an incompatible GPU. FCPX does not sell MacPros. If Apple wants to do that (and I honestly don't know if they do) they'll have to replace (or significantly modify) the MacPro. FCPX might move some people who are editing on Core2Duo MacBook Pros to i7 Quad Cores with better GPUs as well though but that is ONLY if FCPX is compelling enough to cause one to buy a new computer for it.

Personally I'm more optimistic about Apple make changes so that FCPX or CPUs meets its business model goals than I am about Avid. We'll have a better idea in the near future when Apple upgrades FCPX and does something one way or another with the MacPro. I don't think we'll know as quickly with Avid. We can talk about Apple's secretiveness regarding its products but I also think there's some "secretiveness" about any changes in Avid's business model beyond layoffs and belt tightening. I (and from what I read, various financial analysts) don't see selling more Media Composers as a solution to their problems.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 9:21:34 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Personally I'm more optimistic about Apple make changes so that FCPX or CPUs meets its business model goals than I am about Avid."

I think the difference in our approach comes from the fact that I'm concerned with Avid and/or Apple only so far as they help me with my work. To that end I don't care about Avid as a business per se, I believe that MC software will continue to survive no matter what else happens to Avid. In that same vein I don't care if Apple makes another fortune if it entails them replacing the hardware and software I need to do my work. It means nothing to me if they find 2 million FCPX users to sell Imacs to, if in the process they make software that limits my workflow. I'm only in this for me and I don't play the stock market.

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 9:41:26 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I believe that MC software will continue to survive no matter what else happens to Avid."

One would hope so. One would hope either Avid turns around keeping MC or they sell it off to a company who will also continue motivated support.

[Herb Sevush] "It means nothing to me if they find 2 million FCPX users to sell Imacs to, if in the process they make software that limits my workflow. "

Obviously it depends on one's workflow. FCPX is not ready for episodic broadcast . . . but I think it may be eventually. My work is corporate and local cable spots and FCPX is much closer to meeting the needs in that market.

If an NLE doesn't meet one's needs that doesn't mean the NLE itself has failed. It means you need to look for an NLE that does meet your needs. I think too many people present "FCPX fails for me therefore it is a failure." To me that reasoning doesn't work. I think it should stop at "FCPX fails for me." FCXP may well succeed for many professionals not in narrative broadcast or feature film markets in the near future.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 8:15:02 pm

Dude, all I was doing was interpreting something Herb had said because I incorrectly thought that Walter had misunderstood it. Then, you are all over me with your peculiar brand of angry anti-Avid sauce and condescending rhetorical questions.

I do agree with what Herb is saying, btw. But it is just a general point about the value something is given in relation to the return it provides. When the Pro Apps were introduced, they and the equipment sold with them, were a central pillar of Apple's survival. Now, they are holding up part of the back porch. That doesn't mean Apple won't pay attention to them. But, they don't need to. Before, they needed to. What this basic fact has to do with any of the odd questions or comparisons you threw my way, I don't know.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 9:01:26 pm

You made a comment which I think is a flaw in your argument.

[Chris Harlan] "But, they don't need to. Before, they needed to."

This is true and had you said that, I wouldn't disagree. My point being that neither Avid nor Adobe sells NLEs as a primary source of income. By pointing out that Apple doesn't leaves out facts by exclusion.

In fact it says something about the market in general that none of these companies develop NLEs as a primary source of income says something about their business models as well as the market. They each take a different approach in using the NLE as part of their "ecosystem" though. Adobe is software content creation, Avid is post production hardware, Apple is more generally hardware.

When I hear things like Gannett buying thousands of iPhones and iPads for professional production we might get a glimpse into what Apple might be anticipating with FCPX. That doesn't mean FCPX will be the tool for episodic broadcast or feature films but it may indicate which part of the market may be growing and why Apple is anticipating it.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 7:35:36 pm

[Craig Seeman] "There was a time when Avid primarily sold turnkey expensive Media Composer systems. Now that they've become a company that primarily sells hardware such as Unity and Isis systems, etc, would one say they no longer have incentive to sell Media Composer software?"

Avid is a company that sells editorial solutions to the broadcast and entertainment industry. Hardware, software, anyware. Their target audience defines them; that's never changed. The same cannot be said for the hanging fruit.


[Craig Seeman] "Apple is a hardware company. Maybe you feel they have little interesting in selling computers but the "incentive" behind FCPX is to sell such computers."

That's your analysis, it might be so, it might be that Job's wanted a better Ap to cut his home movies with.

The computers Apple wants to sell have changed however, and maybe Apple was looking for a product that could help sell their new computers as they get out of the workstation market. Yes they are still a computer company, but those computers are increasingly aimed at the broad consumer market and away from complex business needs.

[Craig Seeman] "Do you think Adobe's primary income is from Premier Pro?"

I bet it's not with cell phones or electronics.

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 8:43:32 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Avid is a company that sells editorial solutions to the broadcast and entertainment industry. Hardware, software, anyware. Their target audience defines them; that's never changed."

Certainly their profitability has changed. For an unprofitable company five years running, they're going to have to make changes. Media Composer isn't selling hardware, which is where they attempt to make their money. I don't know what the answer to their problems are (we can all speculate) but MC doesn't seem integral (as of yet) for putting them above water. They will change, sink or be sold.

They certainly aren't the company that once made the bulk of their money selling hardware tied Media Composer systems to the professional post market.

[Herb Sevush] "The computers Apple wants to sell have changed however, and maybe Apple was looking for a product that could help sell their new computers as they get out of the workstation market. Yes they are still a computer company, but those computers are increasingly aimed at the broad consumer market and away from complex business needs."

We'll have to see about what replaces the MacPro. I wouldn't call their computers "consumer" just because they aren't "workstations." Many professionals do work on MBP and even iMacs these days. Thunderbolt is not really a "consumer" connection in my opinion. Whether they make a computer that uses Xeon processors certainly is unknown though but even many broadcast professionals don't need Xeons (and yes some certainly do).



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 30, 2011 at 2:46:21 pm

[Craig Seeman] "There was a time when Avid primarily sold turnkey expensive Media Composer systems. Now that they've become a company that primarily sells hardware such as Unity and Isis systems, etc, would one say they no longer have incentive to sell Media Composer software?"

Craig, I'm not sure I follow.

Apple sells computers that do many things other than editorial. FCPX needs a Mac, but Macs don't need FCPX. Why would anyone buy ISIS storage if not to support multiple MC clients?

Chris and Herb have been arguing that FCPX is of relatively low strategic importance to Apple. Are you seriously suggesting that Media Composer is of comparably low strategic importance to Avid?

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 30, 2011 at 3:47:11 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Apple sells computers that do many things other than editorial. FCPX needs a Mac, but Macs don't need FCPX. "

But Apple's goal is that FCPX would be one compelling reason to get a Mac or for Mac owners to upgrade to a new Mac. I posted elsewhere that even though I like FCPX I think it's failing in that regard so far. In my case I just upgraded the GPU of my MacPro. FCPX is NOT compelling in its current state. I think that will change. Apple has an objective with FCPX. There's a business plan behind it.

[Walter Soyka] "Why would anyone buy ISIS storage if not to support multiple MC clients?"

At one time when one bought MC one had to use a complete turnkey solution which required Avid certified hard drives and proprietary boards and video I/O. Many if not most people buying MC today, especially those crossgrading from FCP7, are not compelled to buy Unity and/or Isis. In other words Avid too is a company using software to sell hardware but there's no compelling reason to buy the hardware . . . unless you're a facility that needs it. Sales indicate that's not often the case and it's at least part of the reason Avid is having financial issues for five years running.

If (only if) Apple achieves its goal, you must buy a Mac or upgrade a Mac to use FCPX.
I don't know how Avid can achieve a goal with MC that one must buy any Avid hardware. I would suspect that they hope that facilities who move from FCP7 to MC would now consider Unity and Isis but I am less confident that will be achieved since I think most crossgraders are otherwise sticking with their non Avid hardware. This is why one analyst I read said that the crossgrade pricing didn't really help them. Those crossgrading on price incentive are less likely to be the potential customers who are going to purchase Unity or Isis solutions.

Basically as hardware companies both Apple and Avid are failing at the moment but I think Apple's target is much easier to hit . . . if FCPX becomes a compelling purchasing. Ideally FCPX should move people from older GPUs and Core2Duos into i7 (or Xeon specific) assuming Apple continues that Macs.

This really points to the issue with MacPros. As I've stated before, Apple has "learned" that a shorter upgrade cycle as happens with iPhone and iPad users who want to upgrade every year, that the shorter upgrade cycle is obviously profitable (duh!). MacPro users tend to upgrade less frequently (get a new GPU like me instead) and that, in addition to the low sales, really makes its profitability small. I think Apple would like to use FCPX to hasten the upgrade path throughout the line. They haven't succeeded with that . . . yet. But that's the motivation behind FCPX. That's why I think we'll not only see frequent upgrades with FCPX but upgrades may well demand more system resources. Of course that ONLY works if FCPX is compelling. That's Apple's motivation.

I don't see Avid developing a clear motivation with MC yet. It too may or may not happen. I'm not sure how they're going to do it. With Apple I see a method (make FCPX compelling).

I'm not sure how else to put this. It's seems self evident to me. What's the confusing part?

[Walter Soyka] "Chris and Herb have been arguing that FCPX is of relatively low strategic importance to Apple"

I disagree. Apple wants people to upgrade their computers like they upgrade their iPhones (I believe). While it's certainly not a one to one comparison, Apple doesn't make money when people upgrade computers every 4 or 5 years. They would like FCPX to hasten the process. It hasn't succeeded yet, I think. It may not succeed. FCPX is one tool that they hope to use to make their computer "division" more profitable.

[Walter Soyka] "Are you seriously suggesting that Media Composer is of comparably low strategic importance to Avid?"

MC doesn't seem to have a business plan behind it. It doesn't make that much money for Avid (my guess) and it doesn't compel Unity and/or Isis purchases. At one time it compelled sales of Avid proprietary (or marked up) hardware but it doesn't do that anymore. This is part of the reason why Avid is having issues.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 30, 2011 at 4:31:46 pm

[Craig Seeman] "But Apple's goal is that FCPX would be one compelling reason to get a Mac or for Mac owners to upgrade to a new Mac. I posted elsewhere that even though I like FCPX I think it's failing in that regard so far. In my case I just upgraded the GPU of my MacPro. FCPX is NOT compelling in its current state. I think that will change. Apple has an objective with FCPX. There's a business plan behind it."

You keep saying that Apple is a hardware company. I agree that Apple measures sales units in hardware, but I think they know their value proposition is not in hardware alone. Apple sells hardware, but they have always promised a simpler, richer, more human-centric computing experience.

Ten years ago, this meant selling you a computer. Today, it means selling you a desktop, a laptop, an iPhone and an iPad.

You say FCPX is a success only if it directly and immediately sells Macs. I disagree -- I think Apple thinks bigger than that.

I think the purpose of FCPX (like all Apple software) is to make Apple's platform more compelling (and at least in theory, it makes money on its own). I doubt that Apple really cares if FCPX encourages you to buy one computer; I think they want you to buy into their platform across as many devices as possible.

Apple is trying to wrap their customers in one big iCloud of love, where all their Apple devices work together like poetry in software. If FCPX helps to get you or keep you on the Apple platform, you'll keep buying Macs and iPhones and iPads.



[Craig Seeman] "MC doesn't seem to have a business plan behind it. It doesn't make that much money for Avid (my guess) and it doesn't compel Unity and/or Isis purchases. At one time it compelled sales of Avid proprietary (or marked up) hardware but it doesn't do that anymore. This is part of the reason why Avid is having issues."

You're making it sound like ISIS is carrying the company and unrelated Media Composer sales are a drop in the bucket. That's not true. From Avid's 10-K: "Sales of video storage and workflow products accounted for approximately 18%, 16% and 16% of our consolidated net revenues in 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively."

That does outsell MC in terms of dollars (though certainly not units): "Sales of professional video-editing products accounted for approximately 13%, 13% and 14% of our consolidated net revenues for 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively." (Just to round it out, 40.9% of revenues come from the audio division, and 17.% of revenues come from services. Video products together account for 41.6% of revenue.)

However, who exactly is buying ISIS? Facilities with multiple seats of Media Composer who need their editors to work collaboratively. ISIS would be overpriced storage hardware if not for its compelling value proposition of allowing collaborative editorial on Media Composer.

You think Avid has no business plan for Media Composer? I think Media Composer is the cornerstone of Avid's video strategy: sell a good NLE to editors and facilities who need its feature set, and create the opportunity to upsell shared storage systems and broadcast automation systems.

Just because FCPX may be a better value for you as an individual, or just because Avid is losing money (perhaps because of the wrong strategy, or perhaps because of poor execution) doesn't mean that Avid has no strategy whatsoever.

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 30, 2011 at 6:41:33 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I think the purpose of FCPX (like all Apple software) is to make Apple's platform more compelling (and at least in theory, it makes money on its own). I doubt that Apple really cares if FCPX encourages you to buy one computer; I think they want you to buy into their platform across as many devices as possible."

OK, I think that's a good analysis. It's mindful of the Apple ecosystem as their business model. One might say FCPX further connects through the ecosystem with iMovie import. This is why the Gannett purchaser (sorry if this seems like a tangent) is interesting. Might it be that an iPhone or iPad iMovie edit be importable into FCPX for finishing. Obviously the H.264 file can be imported but I'd think that the project itself might be at some point as well.

Of course the issue, I think, is does FCPX succeed in doing that yet. Even I'm not sure of that. Although I do think that's the goal.

[Walter Soyka] " I think Media Composer is the cornerstone of Avid's video strategy: sell a good NLE to editors and facilities who need its feature set, and create the opportunity to upsell shared storage systems and broadcast automation systems. "

But apparently the upsell isn't happening enough. What's Avid's solution to that? Sell more MCs? Honestly I don't know how the solve this and, five years running, it seems they don't know either.

[Walter Soyka] "You think Avid has no business plan for Media Composer?"

Not one that's working for them. That's my point. They need to change their business model. Most of what I've seen from them is layoffs to cut operating costs. That's not an ongoing survivable business model.

I can certainly speculate on how Avid might turn things around but I don't pretend to know the answer. What I can say is that Media Composer isn't generating enough sales by itself and isn't generating enough motivated hardware sales to bring them into the black.

There's no way that Avid after losing money for 5 straight years can keep going this way without either making a significant shift. Either they have a new compelling product, they reorganize, sell off parts or fold and sell off the company. Do you have a turnaround strategy in mind? I haven't seen much of an attempt from them.

Personally I don't think there's enough growth the broadcast/feature film niche to sustain them.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 30, 2011 at 9:29:34 pm

I don't understand why you keep harping on Avid financials, post after post after post. Certainly, it is important information, but it is not--by any means--the only factor. And many people do not agree with your stark assessment. I know of no stock analyst recommending "sell." All I have seen are recommendations of "Hold." As far as layoffs, its tough times right now. A lot of companies are downsizing. And, I would remind you that a decade ago, Apple was downsizing too.

But hey--let's look at it this way:

Here in LA, if Avid shut down tomorrow, and no one bought them, and no one bought Media Composer to resell, learning to use Media Composer would still be extremely valuable. I'm pretty certain that the infrastructure exists to support five more years of strong Avid use without any further development of the product. I'm guessing it is the same in New York and London. At this point--half a year after Final Cut X's release--I have no idea if X will EVER be useful to most of this town, let alone within the next five years.

Why Avid's potential failure has become a mantra for you, I can only guess. But frankly, it is getting to be a little much.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Jan 1, 2012 at 5:31:17 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Why Avid's potential failure has become a mantra for you, I can only guess. But frankly, it is getting to be a little much."

People keep talking about Apple the company so we should examine all the NLE companies. Apple has the resources to improve FCPX, market FCPX, better integrate the OS and hardware with FCPX. Of course I don't claim having resources means they will succeed, but that's a factor, just as Avid's lack of resources is a factor. Let's not exclude some factors but not others.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Jan 1, 2012 at 7:08:02 pm

[Craig Seeman] "[Chris Harlan] "Why Avid's potential failure has become a mantra for you, I can only guess. But frankly, it is getting to be a little much."

People keep talking about Apple the company so we should examine all the NLE companies. Apple has the resources to improve FCPX, market FCPX, better integrate the OS and hardware with FCPX. Of course I don't claim having resources means they will succeed, but that's a factor, just as Avid's lack of resources is a factor. Let's not exclude some factors but not others.
"


I agree. But you are selectively responding to my post, and once again, making it sound like I'm saying something that I'm not. Since my previous post--taken in whole--is pretty much a direct response to what you are saying here, I'll just use it again:

I don't understand why you keep harping on Avid financials, post after post after post. Certainly, it is important information, but it is not--by any means--the only factor. And many people do not agree with your stark assessment. I know of no stock analyst recommending "sell." All I have seen are recommendations of "Hold." As far as layoffs, its tough times right now. A lot of companies are downsizing. And, I would remind you that a decade ago, Apple was downsizing too.

But hey--let's look at it this way:

Here in LA, if Avid shut down tomorrow, and no one bought them, and no one bought Media Composer to resell, learning to use Media Composer would still be extremely valuable. I'm pretty certain that the infrastructure exists to support five more years of strong Avid use without any further development of the product. I'm guessing it is the same in New York and London. At this point--half a year after Final Cut X's release--I have no idea if X will EVER be useful to most of this town, let alone within the next five years.

Why Avid's potential failure has become a mantra for you, I can only guess. But frankly, it is getting to be a little much.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Jan 2, 2012 at 4:55:45 pm

[Craig Seeman] "There's no way that Avid after losing money for 5 straight years can keep going this way without either making a significant shift. Either they have a new compelling product, they reorganize, sell off parts or fold and sell off the company. Do you have a turnaround strategy in mind? I haven't seen much of an attempt from them."

Craig, you might be interested in this Avid press release [link].

I'm not suggesting Avid's numbers are great (either absolutely, or YoY), but they might not be as bad as you've been suggesting, and this may indicate that they are headed in a good direction after all. The emphasis is mine:
The GAAP net loss for the third quarter of 2011 and 2010 included amortization of intangible assets, stock-based compensation, gain on asset sales, legal settlements and acquisition-related costs, restructuring charges, and related tax adjustments collectively totaling $8.4 million and $11.6 million, respectively. Excluding these items, the non-GAAP net income for the third quarter of 2011 was $385 thousand, or $0.01 per share, compared to non-GAAP net income of $1.6 million, or $0.04 per share, for the third quarter of 2010.


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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 4:07:49 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Jeremy - respectfully I would like to say that there is often as big a danger from learning the wrong lessons from history as from ignoring the past all together.

Comparing FCP v.1 to FCPX is often totally irrelevant."


People keep saying this, and respectfully I disagree. It's not irrelevant.

This is entirely new code. I don't care if it's still named final cut, it is all brand new. A new model year with all new parts, new door panels, new dashboard. None of those karts are compatible with its predecessor.

Using another silly car analogy, the 1990 Thunderbird and the 2009 Thunderbird are completely different, yet share the same name. Same goes for this software. It has started over and been not only rewritten, but redesigned. I am not ignoring the past.

It is has been mentioned that Apple is a technology company and they act like it. That has not changed. Sure, they could have left a better upgrade path, but they didn't so here we are. I think that NOT calling FCP X v1 software is disingenuous, but that's me. In two years, none of this will matter anymore.

[Herb Sevush] "Which is one of the many reasons why Smoke was never considered an editor, it was a finishing tool with editing capabilities. Not too many films cut totally on a Smoke."

Here we are back to films. Do you think that if you added up all of the editing in the world, that films account for most of it? There are/were plenty of projects that are cut entirely on Smoke, sure it might not be film, but TV/spots certainly. The point of that was to illustrate that learning a new interface is part of the gig.

[Herb Sevush] "With the added frustration of knowing that the ideal program for them was FCP 8. If there was a better editing solution for my workflow I would have quit FCP before this. For all it's faults, the FCP feature set was the closest match to the way I preferred to work. All of my other options, at least at this point, require more compromises than I would like."

There is no fcp8, and maybe there never could have been. No one believes or wants to believe that. It was time to start over. Again, there's no fcp8, why lament over it? And by the way, have you looked at PPro CS 5.5? It's the closest you're going to get to fcp8 with many enhancements. Be sure to use the FCP keyboard shortcuts, it's pretty easy, despite a few interface differences.

As far as FCP working the way you prefer to work, people have said that about interfaces for years. M100 users said that forever. Maybe it is, but if all of these paradigms and whatever's are so similar to each other, you should have no problem picking up another NLE, right? That's kind of a half joke.

Yes, moving to a new system is going to be hard. In our office, I'm sure I will be the one that gets asked all the "how do I do this?" questions. It will be for the best, no matter what NLE packages we end up with. That, I believe. FCP as we know it is certainly EOL.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 4:38:29 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Comparing FCP v.1 to FCPX is often totally irrelevant."

People keep saying this, and respectfully I disagree. It's not irrelevant. "


My answer to this is in my response to Walter's post:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/23389

Yes X is version 1 software just like FCP 1, with all that entails, but the changes in the market and in Apple make the comparison beside the point.

[Jeremy Garchow] "There are/were plenty of projects that are cut entirely on Smoke, sure it might not be film, but TV/spots certainly. The point of that was to illustrate that learning a new interface is part of the gig. "

No, the point you were trying to make is that a single viewer approach to editing isn't so weird. The problem is you had to go to an application not generally considered an editor to make it. Yes, people cut spots on a Smoke all the time, that's what it's built for, but it would be a chore to cut anything longer on it.

[Jeremy Garchow] "There is no fcp8, and maybe there never could have been. No one believes or wants to believe that."

Because it's an illogical statement.

[Jeremy Garchow] " It was time to start over. Again, there's no fcp8, why lament over it?"

I lament many things that never were but should have been; it's what lamentation is good for.

[Jeremy Garchow] "And by the way, have you looked at PPro CS 5.5? It's the closest you're going to get to fcp8 with many enhancements. Be sure to use the FCP keyboard shortcuts, it's pretty easy, despite a few interface differences. "

I've used PPro over the years and I'm acitvely considering it now. Again, if I liked it better I would have switched before. Also, I never remap a new ap to old keyboard shortcuts. When it's time to chnage; change. It's like asking a new girl to dress like your ex-wife - it doesn't work in the long run. (that's a movie reference - Vertigo.)

[Jeremy Garchow] " It will be for the best, no matter what NLE packages we end up with. That, I believe. FCP as we know it is certainly EOL. "

In this, the best of all possible worlds, yes it will be for the best.

Now I will go back and cry in my beer.

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 5:48:52 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Yes X is version 1 software just like FCP 1, with all that entails, but the changes in the market and in Apple make the comparison beside the point."

Say what? The changes in the market are moot? Dude. You lost me here. What do you think they rolled out FCP for? A stagnant market or a changing one?

[Herb Sevush] "No, the point you were trying to make is that a single viewer approach to editing isn't so weird. The problem is you had to go to an application not generally considered an editor to make it. Yes, people cut spots on a Smoke all the time, that's what it's built for, but it would be a chore to cut anything longer on it."

No, the point was trying to make, if you go back and read, is how FCPX isn't different from learning something new, like, say, SMoke. They all have different interfaces, I'd encourage you to read Adam's first post, then my response. Smoke was used as one example of a single viewer editor and plenty was cut on it, for a very long time.

[Herb Sevush] "Again, if I liked it better I would have switched before."

Would you have really, though? If PPro had a 85 camera multicam, would have really completely changed your setup? We wouldn't have. FCP was working just fine. Now, we have to and that's they way it is.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 6:08:17 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Say what? The changes in the market are moot? Dude. You lost me here. "

The point I was trying to make is that looking at FCPX now and saying that it's at the same developmental place as FCP 1 then, a statement I agree with, does not mean that it will grow as FCP1 did - the reasons being that both the entire NLE marketplace and Apple as a company are totally different then till now. Looking at the growth of FCP 1 and extrapolating to FCPX is a false analogy; it might happen in a similar fashion, but there are just as many reasons to believe that it won't. The analogy was moot, not the market.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Would you have really, though? If PPro had a 85 camera multicam, would have really completely changed your setup?"

When I made the change from *edit PPro had just come out. My choice was going to be PPro or FCP. I tested them both, over a few months, with paying jobs. Overall, FCP was better, although there were many individual features that were better in PPro. Over the years I've kept watching to see how PPro was doing. If I had ever thought it would be better for my needs I would have switched, no problem. I never thought it was. There are still a lot of problem areas with it for my workflow, but if they improve multicam I will give it a shot.

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 29, 2011 at 10:57:00 pm

[Herb Sevush] "There are still a lot of problem areas with it for my workflow"

Besides multicam, what else?


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 30, 2011 at 2:42:38 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Herb Sevush] "There are still a lot of problem areas with it for my workflow"
Besides multicam, what else?"


The more I explore PPro 5.5 I've come to realize they have fixed many of the serious problems I had with it, most of which had to do with the crazy way they handled sound - i.e. the expectation that all audio comes in as a stereo pair. Now I realize that there are settings to make the audio mono on import and also settings to make the audio tracks on the timeline mono as well. A huge improvement since last time I worked with PPro.

However I do hear repeated complaints about using BM cards with PPro and issues with a ProRes workflow that seem troubling. Bellow is a thread from the Cow's PPro forum. As usual some of the complaining is based on bad work habits but complaints about compressing and re-compressing ProRes files seem worrisome.

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/3/919131#919131

I will have to evaluate these issues on both Mac and Windows platforms before making any decisions. It will be a busy spring.

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: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 30, 2011 at 4:03:28 pm

[Herb Sevush] "However I do hear repeated complaints about using BM cards with PPro and issues with a ProRes workflow that seem troubling. Bellow is a thread from the Cow's PPro forum. As usual some of the complaining is based on bad work habits but complaints about compressing and re-compressing ProRes files seem worrisome.

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/3/919131#919131

I will have to evaluate these issues on both Mac and Windows platforms before making any decisions. It will be a busy spring."


Kinda tough to evaluate what's going on from one post and zero screenshots/examples.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X Six Months Later - Blog Post
on Dec 30, 2011 at 4:31:48 pm

It wasn't just the initial posting, there were more interesting comments deeper in that thread, and that thread was just one of many I have seen with repeated postings about problems with stability, especially with BM cards, and issues about quality and rendering times with ProRes work flows.

The card issue seems to be about drivers and I expect that to clear up soon. Even if I have to switch to AJA or Matrox, it's not a big deal, as long as there is a way to get stable I/O.

The idea that working in ProRes could cause quality issues because of multiple compress and re-compress cycles is more troubling.

PPro is similar to X in that I'm waiting to see what the next revision does for multi-cam before I start testing it heavily. Avid is sort of like my Mitt Romney of NLEs, it's always there but I keep hoping for someone else to woo me away.

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


Return to posts index

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