FORUMS: list search recent posts

Could it be...?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Rich Rubasch
Could it be...?
on Mar 2, 2012 at 1:32:29 am

A bit off topic, but has anyone heard any kind of rumor that Apple might be rolling out Final Cut Pro 8 and sending X to the ranks of iMovie?

Anyone hear any whispers out there? I heard thru a fragile grapevine that I would find out at NAB. Guy seemed pretty confident.

Too good to be true? I've read nothing of the sort.

Rich Rubasch
Tilt Media Inc.
Video Production, Post, Studio Sound Stage
Founder/President/Editor/Designer/Animator
http://www.tiltmedia.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 2, 2012 at 2:02:08 am

Not gonna happen.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 2, 2012 at 2:19:08 am

More likely would be another noteworthy update to X.



Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 2, 2012 at 2:38:07 am

[Rich Rubasch] "has anyone heard any kind of rumor that Apple might be rolling out Final Cut Pro 8 and sending X to the ranks of iMovie?"

It's only Thursday nite and someone's already been hittin' the wacky weed.

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


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 2, 2012 at 3:32:06 am

Plenty of confident "guys" have told me things that are utter nonsense, so I wouldn't put any stock in it. The description of what Apple is supposedly doing is such poor business that it doesn't even pass an initial "smell test".


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 2, 2012 at 7:26:45 am

This is clearly a mixture of the bird many people like to eat on thanksgiving or Christmas and what you need to do with a clockwork toy.


Return to posts index


David Roth Weiss
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 2, 2012 at 7:25:19 am

I heard the same rumor from one of my clients Rich. I'm guessing it's something thats spread from one or another of the rumor mills, and always couched as a leak from an Apple insider. I would love to believe it, but give it a 1% chance, if that.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 2, 2012 at 7:33:46 am

They're also finally wrapping OSX into iOS and releasing a new version of OS9 for desktops

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Phil Hoppes
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 2, 2012 at 12:45:51 pm

Reminds me of the old "yoke" that Microsoft was going to release a new OS based on Windows CE, Windows ME and NT.

It was to be called Windows Cement.........


Return to posts index


Jerry Hofmann
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 3, 2012 at 10:24:16 pm

I'll bet this started when a certain trainer claimed he knew that Apple had ported FCP 7 to a 64 bit version then scrapped it. Nonsense.

Jerry

Apple Certified Trainer, Producer, Writer, Director Editor, Gun for Hire and other things. I ski. My Blog: http://blogs.creativecow.net/Jerry-Hofmann

Current DVD:
http://store.creativecow.net/p/81/jerry_hofmanns_final_cut_system_setup

8-Core 3.0 Intel Mac Pro, Dual 2 gig G5, AJA Kona SD, AJA Kona 2, Huge Systems Array UL3D, AJA Io HD, 17" MBP, Matrox MXO2 with MAX - Cinema Displays I have a 22" that I paid 4k for still working. G4 with Kona SD card, and SCSI card.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 2, 2012 at 11:30:42 pm

I wish.

Still. who knows right?

you could argue that the fate of this incarnation of FCP depends on Apple's basic strategic inclination in editing.

Apple may honestly be supremely relaxed at the fact that they have an editing product with the general professional impact say of motion, or maybe aperture type stuff. It will derive profit, but its mission would be to provide a vernacular extension of editing as understood by a mac audience.

Not a bloke screaming for OMF export.

If Apple's primary goal here is to serve and enrich the methodology first expressed in iMovie (I am not denigrating it) then the mountain will simply not move.

No one will ever see independent tracks, the viewer, customisable GUI, mutable tracks, etc etc.

however, if Apple still think of their editing platform as what was in truth a four quadrant mover in cinema parlance - one that could cement Hardware and software across the entertainment industries, while enticing masses of new industry entrants (FCP was really easy - seriously) then it is not **entirely** inconceivable that they might consider a partial reset.

It boils down to this: if they care about the position held by 7, then they might re-tool, because (and let the hordes dump down) there is no, repeat, no, not an iota, of FCPX anywhere in the world that occupies industry leader movement.

this simple fact doesn't get stated enough.

In London FCP is essentially mortally wounded.

in: the BBC dead-ish. CNN dead. Discovery dead (I think). And then there's a bunch of massive commercial places that won't say what they'll do with stuff like FCP server because they're lumped with it.

Also its virtually dodo in all doco production houses over here - (quote from mate who cuts for C4 and Discovery "last year 30-40% FCP - last six months None.") She meant it and she was irritated - she deeply prefers the FCP.

Like it or not, (and laud the recent updates as one might, plus I utterly adore the CC power windows) - it is a simple fact that as it stands, the industry of editing has literally zero chance of adopting FCPX in any timescale reasonable for FCP's professional survival in its current form.

Apple's reaction to this fact will be dictated by what we don't know: what they actually intended this software to do for them.


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


Return to posts index

Bob Woodhead
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 2, 2012 at 11:48:49 pm

Damn fine post, Aindreas.

"Constituo, ergo sum"

Bob Woodhead / Atlanta
Quantel-Avid-FCP-Premiere-3D-AFX-Crayola
Panasonic HPX500/AF100


Return to posts index


David Lawrence
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 3, 2012 at 12:25:17 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Apple's reaction to this fact will be dictated by what we don't know: what they actually intended this software to do for them."

Agreed. Spot on analysis, Aindreas.

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


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 3, 2012 at 12:46:21 am

David,

You've really got to go back and listen to Pt-3 of the podcast you and I did seven months ago. It's creepily and eerily prophetic.

And, the rest of you should take a listen too... It really is kind of strange to hear just how right-on Mr. Lawrence was about X, right out of the gate.

http://podcasts.creativecow.net/creative-cow-podcast/apples-final-cut-pro-x...

David Roth Weiss
ProMax Systems
Burbank
DRW@ProMax.com
http://www.ProMax.com

Sales | Integration | Support


David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 3, 2012 at 12:56:13 am

LOL, that seems like ages ago! Totally forgot about that, all I remember was some crazy rambling! ;)

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


Return to posts index


David Roth Weiss
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 3, 2012 at 1:05:58 am

[David Lawrence] "LOL, that seems like ages ago! Totally forgot about that, all I remember was some crazy rambling! ;)
"


It's really a good listen... Someday, hundreds of years from now, someone will unearth a copy, and they'll really wonder just what Apple was really thinking, or smoking?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 3, 2012 at 1:05:44 am

Let's all not bear in mind that the "industry of editing" also exists outside of the areas we all work in. I'm sure that Aindreas is right about the lack of FCPX adoption in the mainstream broadcast environment, but that doesn't mean the death of FCPX. How many people use Vegas or Edius in a broadcast environment?, yet they continue to survive and continue to be developed. Premiere survived for years without any substantial broadcast adoption.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 3, 2012 at 1:08:00 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Apple's reaction to this fact will be dictated by what we don't know: what they actually intended this software to do for them."

That's the current debate in a nutshell. Was it a miss or was it a hit. Only Apple knows what they were shooting at. Of course there is also the notion that the internal gravitational powers of iThings was just so great that it mutated the product into something that is neither here or there. That's pretty much what I, in my total ignorance of actual facts, subscribe to.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 3, 2012 at 1:16:45 am

[Chris Harlan] "Of course there is also the notion that the internal gravitational powers of iThings was just so great that it mutated the product into something that is neither here or there. That's pretty much what I, in my total ignorance of actual facts, subscribe to."

I almost agree with you Chris. Except, I think they just mutated the product into something that's neither here nor there by sheer arrogance alone. I don't think X is iWorthy of influence by any iThings.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 3, 2012 at 1:24:51 am

[David Roth Weiss] "[Chris Harlan] "Of course there is also the notion that the internal gravitational powers of iThings was just so great that it mutated the product into something that is neither here or there. That's pretty much what I, in my total ignorance of actual facts, subscribe to."

I almost agree with you Chris. Except, I think they just mutated the product into something that's neither here nor there by sheer arrogance alone. I don't think X is iWorthy of influence by any iThings."


Oh, I agree. My scenario is not arrogance-free. I'm just guessing that the internal power shift was so dynamic that it totally re-arranged who got to say what about FCP, mid-development. That would explain the buried artifacts and the rather bizarre inconsistencies in FCP X's power and limitations.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 3, 2012 at 2:01:33 am

[Chris Harlan] "I'm just guessing that the internal power shift was so dynamic that it totally re-arranged who got to say what about FCP, mid-development. That would explain the buried artifacts and the rather bizarre inconsistencies in FCP X's power and limitations."

I think you nailed it. There clearly was a major fork in development at some point mid-stream. Sequence.icns (still in 10.0.3) is proof. I'm also convinced the timing corresponds to AppleInsider's article a year before release about the layoffs in Pro Apps. I know Apple PR claims these were all "support" people but the evidence of the release suggests otherwise.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Cardonna
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 3, 2012 at 2:45:40 am

It has been said that apple had an fcp8 but canned it. Maybe they are taking another look at.

rc


Return to posts index

Bob Cole
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 3, 2012 at 3:06:40 am

This would be such a massive climb-down for Apple. It is hard to envision the company culture allowing for it.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 3, 2012 at 4:10:52 am

[Bob Cole] "This would be such a massive climb-down for Apple. It is hard to envision the company culture allowing for it.

"


True, that. It would be even harder than admitting that there might be a valid reason for a mouse having more than one button.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 3, 2012 at 3:02:27 am

[David Lawrence] "'m also convinced the timing corresponds to AppleInsider's article a year before release about the layoffs in Pro Apps. I know Apple PR claims these were all "support" people but the evidence of the release suggests otherwise."

Oh yeah. There's plenty of other evidence as well. Pete Warden, who spent years on the FCP team, and knew most of the people who were laid off, blogged and tweeted about it at the time. He made and still makes the claim that it was a chunk of the development team that was laid off. I tend to believe him over what Steve Jobs had to say later.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000083-264.html

http://twitter.com/#!/petewarden/status/9014940274

http://www.macnn.com/articles/10/02/19/affects.signature.apple.pro.level.so...


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 3, 2012 at 4:43:33 am

[David Lawrence] "There clearly was a major fork in development at some point mid-stream."

That fork was at WWDC 2007 when Apple suddenly nixed the 64-bit Carbon API plan. This is likely why FCP7 was so underwhelming compared to FCP6 and FCP5- FCP7 was going to be 64-bit, but the FCP team had the same rug pulled out from under them as Adobe and any other developers of apps that dated back to the OS 9 era. Mid-2007, Pro Apps all of a sudden had to punt on their plans for FCP7 and simultaneously start a ground-up re-write of FCP.

Adobe made it to 64-bit a year ahead of Apple because they rolled their own playback engine while Pro Apps waited for the full gestation of the AVFoundation APIs that were slated for 10.7 in 2010 but wouldn't be in the hands of consumers till 2011 (they wound up getting added as private APIs in 10.6.7).

[David Lawrence] "Sequence.icns (still in 10.0.3) is proof."

It could also be proof they had an evolving idea of how they would implement their goal of eliminating clip collisions and maintaining audio sync for video+audio clips versus just audio. Looking at that image, I see an attempt to do it with something resembling tracks, but with zones for different kinds of media. I don't think that was necessarily a fully baked idea that got abandoned. I find it more likely that it is a step on the path that got us here, especially given its continued presence in the .app bundle.

[David Lawrence] "I'm also convinced the timing corresponds to AppleInsider's article a year before release about the layoffs in Pro Apps."

There was another very significant development disruption confounding FCP development following the death of 64-bit Carbon, and that was the false start of 64-bit QuickTime with QTKit and the development of QuickTime's ultimate successor in AVFoundation and CoreMedia. As that shift took place from 2008-2010, the burden of handling much of the pro video codecs and processing was being shifted from the Pro Apps team to the CoreOS team. That doesn't explain away the 40 layoffs, but it is reasonable based on what we now know about the APIs that FCPX calls to imagine a redundancy arising between the dev team on FCP and the dev team on OS X and iOS that was taking over responsibility for dealing with that significant component of what FCP does.

You could be right, I could be wrong, but I think my scenario is at least as plausible as yours.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Floris van Eck
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 4, 2012 at 9:51:14 am

Stop being so sour!

FCP is dead. Over. Fini. Killed. Murdered. Transformed. Changed gender. Call it whatever you want to call it.

FCP X is one of the best applications I ever used. So much attention to the details. To me, it makes Premiere and Avid look like a toy. I am getting really tired by the old editing crew that wants editing to stay like it was in 1930 and doesn't accept change. Some of you where the guys that adopted digital editing while the then old crew was still cursing it. The attitude towards FCP X has changed dramatically since 10.0.0 which I consider a beta that lasted till 10.0.2. I think with 10.0.3, we have the first release that is worthy of a non-beta tag, broadcast support excluded.

Times change. The world changes. The Internet changes. Broadcast is changing. Everything changes.

Embrace the change or don't change but stop the complaining. And don't waste your time hoping that Apple will ever launch FCP 8. Apple is not such a company. I think that even a viewer and switch for the magnetic timeline aren't likely to be included by Apple. There is a vision behind the product and I think it is the right one, if you want a viewer and tracks... just use Avid or Premiere. Apparently, most people that are dissatisfied with FCP X still want FCP 8 very badly so Premiere and Avid aren't perfect either. Neither was FCP.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 4, 2012 at 4:08:02 pm

[Floris van Eck] "Stop being so sour!"

I would suggest that you stop telling others what to do or feel. You can control your own actions, trying to control others is a bit presumptuous.

[Floris van Eck] "To me, it makes Premiere and Avid look like a toy."

Hyperbolic overstatement.

[Floris van Eck] " am getting really tired by the old editing crew that wants editing to stay like it was"

And I am getting tired of your getting tired. Try a nap.

[Floris van Eck] "Embrace the change or don't change but stop the complaining."

Or stop complaining about the complaints. Or stop reading the complaints. Or don't, it's a free forum.

[Floris van Eck] "Apparently, most people that are dissatisfied with FCP X still want FCP 8 very badly "

Apparently many see X as unusable in their workflow. They are not necessarily ludites, they will embrace change when they find that it works for them.

The earth's atmosphere is changing, if you can believe those crazy scientists, but it's not changing for the better for me. Does that make me someone who hates change, or just someone who has a house by the shore?

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: Could it be...?
on Mar 4, 2012 at 5:22:44 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The earth's atmosphere is changing, if you can believe those crazy scientists, but it's not changing for the better for me. Does that make me someone who hates change, or just someone who has a house by the shore?
"


What a marvelous line.


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 4, 2012 at 8:10:47 pm

[Herb Sevush] "[Floris van Eck] "To me, it makes Premiere and Avid look like a toy."

Hyperbolic overstatement."


I hate to say it, Herb, but yours is a hyperbolic understatement. He, she, it, is obviously as clueless as they come. And I don't mean that as a personal attack, merely as a statement of fact.

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 4, 2012 at 8:26:14 pm

[David Cherniack] "I hate to say it, Herb, but yours is a hyperbolic understatement. He, she, it, is obviously as clueless as they come. And I don't mean that as a personal attack, merely as a statement of fact."

Sounds a bit like a personal attack though?

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 4, 2012 at 8:45:20 pm

[Steve Connor] "Sounds a bit like a personal attack though?"

True, enough, but the point is that in the face of such a massively inflamatory and ignorant statement, a little bit of a calling a spade a spade is justified. If I've offended anyone I'll re-phrase:

"What an ignorant, inflammatory statement. I bet that person either doesn't know what they're talking about or is a troll."

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 4, 2012 at 8:50:24 pm

[David Cherniack] "True, enough, but the point is that in the face of such a massively inflamatory and ignorant statement, a little bit of a calling a spade a spade is justified. If I've offended anyone I'll re-phrase:

"What an ignorant, inflammatory statement. I bet that person either doesn't know what they're talking about or is a troll.""


I wasn't offended, just pointing it out!

Fortunately the type of post Floris made is now increasingly rare here.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 4, 2012 at 5:10:51 pm

Floris,

I just read through this thread again and I don't see a sour note in it. I see people speculating on what happened and why, and then coming to the conclusion that nobody should hold their breath for the triumphant return of the old FCP. Who's being sour? And afraid of change? Really? I don't think a single person who posted on this thread is afraid of change. Considerate and careful in making decisions than affect their business, to be sure. Afraid? No.

Tim


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 4, 2012 at 5:18:48 pm

[Floris van Eck] "FCP X is one of the best applications I ever used. So much attention to the details. To me, it makes Premiere and Avid look like a toy. "

Wow. Then you need a new pair of glasses, Floris. You aren't by any chance named after the Dutch TV show, are you?


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 4, 2012 at 6:17:41 pm

[Floris van Eck] "FCP X is one of the best applications I ever used."

Editing in solitary confinement may be great for you Floris, but if you don't fully understand why many of us can't embrace that model, you're hardly the right person to tell us how and what we should be thinking.


Return to posts index

Bob Woodhead
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 4, 2012 at 7:38:18 pm

Noob. (@Floris)


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 5, 2012 at 6:27:32 pm

Any professional working with FCPX knows that it's not just an incomplete program, but an incomplete concept.

Accepting an incomplete program as a step ahead of the competition is counter productive.
Companies need reasonable and firm response from users in order to implement critical changes and fixes.

Contrary to some companies philosophies, no one knows what needs to be in a toolset better than the people using the tools.

Campuses and teams are great, but the real work happens in the field and that's where the real innovations are born.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 6, 2012 at 2:20:50 am

[Jim Giberti] "Contrary to some companies philosophies, no one knows what needs to be in a toolset better than the people using the tools.

Campuses and teams are great, but the real work happens in the field and that's where the real innovations are born."


Right on the money as always Jim.

David Roth Weiss
ProMax Systems
Burbank
DRW@ProMax.com
http://www.ProMax.com
Sales | Integration | Support


David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 6, 2012 at 11:39:34 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "Right on the money as always Jim.
"


Thanks David. I like David L's idea of the vestigial tail. Looking at that icon it's obvious that there was a different stage of development for fcpx than where it ended up. It means there were serious people putting serious thought into what many of us expected and are asking for.

How's this for another philosophical conundrum: I was wrestling with some complex audio in the timeline last weekend and wanted to see if there was another way of organizing my edit in real time in the timeline, as I would normally do - without using Compound Clips.

Here's what occurred to me. I had a dozen blade edits from a long clip of VO takes. I pulled all my selects there against my footage and deleted all the rest ready to nudge.

So when I selected the first clip in what was a horizontal array of edits and then clicked the last in that
"linear row"...well, it selected all the clips in between - that's not supposed to exist in X theory.
In other words I could have done any number of things that would have moved any of those clips out of linear relationship with each other...they would have descended/ascended to the nearest gap toward the Primary.

But for now, the clips were all in the linear row that I want much of my work to be, and when I did the traditional front/back click, X treated them demonstrably as elements in a horizontal linear relationship.

I can't believe that Apple couldn't bring back the advantages of, at least, an analogous track concept with both linear and parent child relationships a la Motion. They clearly had the idea in development and maybe that is what was actually meant in the rumor that they developed and ditched a FCP8 64 bit approach.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 6, 2012 at 2:01:58 am

[Andrew Richards] "That fork was at WWDC 2007 when Apple suddenly nixed the 64-bit Carbon API plan. This is likely why FCP7 was so underwhelming compared to FCP6 and FCP5- FCP7 was going to be 64-bit, but the FCP team had the same rug pulled out from under them as Adobe and any other developers of apps that dated back to the OS 9 era. Mid-2007, Pro Apps all of a sudden had to punt on their plans for FCP7 and simultaneously start a ground-up re-write of FCP."

Agreed. There's no question the switch away from Carbon was totally disruptive and caused a reboot. But as Avid and Adobe clearly demonstrate, there's no reason a 64-bit rebuild requires a radical UI redesign.

The AppleInsider article was spot on about target market changes in FCPX. Given how rushed and incomplete the initial release was, I think they got the corresponding management changes and timing right as well. Totally believable that Ubillos came back in sometime in 2010 with an order to simplify and build on his iMovie work. To me, this scenario makes the most sense and explains the baffling nature of the release. This implies the fork was sometime in 2010.

[Andrew Richards] "It could also be proof they had an evolving idea of how they would implement their goal of eliminating clip collisions and maintaining audio sync for video+audio clips versus just audio. Looking at that image, I see an attempt to do it with something resembling tracks, but with zones for different kinds of media. I don't think that was necessarily a fully baked idea that got abandoned. I find it more likely that it is a step on the path that got us here, especially given its continued presence in the .app bundle."



I see it a bit differently. First, the name - Sequence.icns. That says a lot right there. Seems obvious this is a sequence icon. With tracks. Clearly they're thinking about better organization schemes. Stereo(?) audio is grouped into single clips. This is something Logic Pro and Soundtrack Pro have done for years so it's not surprising. Audio is below video with variably sized tracks and dividers. Synced clips are shown in the darkened region.

I don't see anything that indicates clip collision avoidance is even on the radar. I think that and the magnetic timeline came when Ubillos was brought back in.

Also, the Cocoa-flavored graphics suggest a very different direction for FCPX building on Cocoa.

Curious, what's your take on why this mysterious icon is still in the package after two updates?

[Andrew Richards] "There was another very significant development disruption confounding FCP development following the death of 64-bit Carbon, and that was the false start of 64-bit QuickTime with QTKit and the development of QuickTime's ultimate successor in AVFoundation and CoreMedia. As that shift took place from 2008-2010, the burden of handling much of the pro video codecs and processing was being shifted from the Pro Apps team to the CoreOS team. That doesn't explain away the 40 layoffs, but it is reasonable based on what we now know about the APIs that FCPX calls to imagine a redundancy arising between the dev team on FCP and the dev team on OS X and iOS that was taking over responsibility for dealing with that significant component of what FCP does.

You could be right, I could be wrong, but I think my scenario is at least as plausible as yours."


Absolutely, we're both reading tea-leaves and speculating on hieroglyphics. It's a fun sport. ;)

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 6, 2012 at 2:22:10 am

[David Lawrence] "Curious, what's your take on why this mysterious icon is still in the package after two updates?"

I doubt anyone in Pro Apps is attuned to our Show Package Contents augury. My inner Occam's Razor tells me it is the software equivalent of a drywaller's coffee cup sealed in the wall and forgotten about. That is why I came to the conclusion it is part of an evolution, that they didn't start over with a new codebase, they carried forward an existing one with different UI concepts sketched out.

Or maybe it is an easter egg put there by an insubordinate developer who disagrees with the direction they ultimately went. It is certainly a puzzling artifact.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 6, 2012 at 2:31:34 am

[Andrew Richards] "My inner Occam's Razor tells me it is the software equivalent of a drywaller's coffee cup sealed in the wall and forgotten about. That is why I came to the conclusion it is part of an evolution, that they didn't start over with a new codebase, they carried forward an existing one with different UI concepts sketched out."

I think of it as FCPX's vestigial tail so maybe you're right about it being part of an evolution. But holy cow, that was one hell of a mutation!!! ;)

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


Return to posts index

Joseph Owens
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 6, 2012 at 7:17:28 pm

[David Lawrence] "I think of it as FCPX's vestigial tail"

Yeah, or the whale's hip-bones. Quite frankly, when the "QA" people were let go, there were a number of opinions shared, and especially knowing the quality and real artisan-al skills of a few of those meant that some kind of internal power struggle had occurred and it did not bode well for the status quo. With so many changes to the OS, it would not be surprising that someone made a decision that it was a maybe-maybe-not within a reasonable business/deadline model to make the FCP7 structure work again, and so they went with something that was partially functional and built it out a bit -- just to make the shipping date. Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth. Obviously, I didn't make that one up so feel free to contest it.

Outside of any arguments that users might have, though, even more troubling for those who would rather have seen the continued evolution of FCP7 (as damaged and failing as it had come to be), is the reaction of the third-party and hardware manufacturers that supply this market. Quite obviously, their actuaries have run the numbers and decided not to play bingo with Apple anymore.

Guessing-games as to where the "new" editing "paradigm" might land (for better or worse, who knows?) is a game of blindfold-pin-the-lawn-dart-on-the-donkey-next-door, and money people hate this. New Mac Pros? maybe, maybe not. Support for their peripherals? maybe, maybe not. In a business climate where *one* is too many maybe-maybe-nots. Pull the plug. The people over at Windows are all over that scenario -- already Blackmagic Design has rolled out a Windows version of Resolve, that, yes, is faster. It has a larger equipment/peripheral support list, even with new nVidia participation through updated drivers (with the proviso that you also move up the OS versions). You'd be surprised at the number of people who don't actually find that to be wildly appealing. Because you have to buy new(?) MacPros, but are still ham-strung with limited buss structures. Or fork out even more money for extended chassis. Wait'll your accountants and creditors get a load of that one.

The other major editing applications have options for both platforms, but which do you think will eventually be favoured and have the advantage because there is a road map that you can plan around?

discuss.

jPo

You mean "Old Ben"? Ben Kenobi?


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 6, 2012 at 7:38:35 pm

Developers are diversifying but I don't see massive Mac or FCPX abandonment.
Blackmagic, Matrox, AJA are all supporting Thunderbolt (which may also be supported by Acer, Asus, Lenovo soon but nothing from HP or Dell). For these companies Thunderbolt has broadened their market opportunities.

Genarts, NoiseIndustries, RedGiant are supporting FCPX. BorisFX still says they have things on the way.
Twixtor just came out with their FCPX plugin, just to name a few.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 6, 2012 at 7:45:05 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Genarts, NoiseIndustries, RedGiant are supporting FCPX. BorisFX still says they have things on the way.
Twixtor just came out with their FCPX plugin, just to name a few."


It will be interesting to see if the market for a $299 editor will support plugins that cost as much or more than the app they work with.

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: Could it be...?
on Mar 6, 2012 at 7:58:38 pm

[Herb Sevush] "It will be interesting to see if the market for a $299 editor will support plugins that cost as much or more than the app they work with.
"


Why should it make a difference, if FCPX had been the same price as FCS3 the plugins would have been the same price.

If anything because of the low cost then companies may have more to spend on plugins

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 6, 2012 at 9:43:51 pm

[Steve Connor] "If anything because of the low cost then companies may have more to spend on plugins"

that would be true if the market for X plugins resembled the market for FCP7 plugins - a large number of whom are experienced pros and facilities. But if you accept the notion that X is marketed at a new generation of I-users, who are used to prices at the app store, with motion as a $50 plugin the idea of spending $200 - S400 for a set of transition or grading filters might not sit so well.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 6, 2012 at 6:20:51 pm

[David Lawrence] "Totally believable that Ubillos came back in sometime in 2010 with an order to simplify and build on his iMovie work. To me, this scenario makes the most sense and explains the baffling nature of the release. This implies the fork was sometime in 2010."

It does seem as though this answers some of the questions but there is one piece of evidence that doesn't fit:

http://sachin.posterous.com/why-apple-built-final-cut-pro-x

Sachin Agarwal claims here that he:

"worked on Final Cut Pro from 2002 to 2008. It was an amazing experience. The Final Cut Pro X project was just getting started when I left Apple."

In other words it's been in gestation since around 2007 ...

And that timing I think supports the hypothesis that iMovie 08 (and beyond) was always meant to be the "proof of concept" for FCPX.

At least that's my version.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 6, 2012 at 6:39:48 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "And that timing I think supports the hypothesis that iMovie 08 (and beyond) was always meant to be the "proof of concept" for FCPX."

Which also fits with Randy Ubilos' desire to name the new iMovie "First Cut"



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 6, 2012 at 8:24:39 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Sachin Agarwal claims here that he:

"worked on Final Cut Pro from 2002 to 2008. It was an amazing experience. The Final Cut Pro X project was just getting started when I left Apple."

In other words it's been in gestation since around 2007 ..."


I read the blurb you linked to, and this fellow has a poor grasp of NLE history. I'm guessing that that's because he was sitting inside Apple looking out, and that he was far more interested in code than in editing, and like many Apple folk was truly clueless to what was happening in the PC world. He places the competition to FCP much, much later than it actually was, and claims that FCP was the first software-only NLE. His observations strike me as shallow--though to be fair, it wasn't really meant to be more that a congratulatory blurb, so perhaps shallow was what was called for. I'm not sure I'd buy he had deep, detailed knowledge of the inner machinations behind the fate of the Pro suites, though I tend to agree with his assessment.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 6, 2012 at 8:53:30 pm

[Chris Harlan] "His observations strike me as shallow"

I wasn't actually suggesting that his was the most in-depth knowledge that could be had. I just think his comments are a relevant pointer to the to me obvious fact that FCPX began to take shape around the time of iMovie 08 - and hence the plausible conclusion that iMovie 08 was the "proof of concept" for FCPX.

So many people still gloss over this, mostly through complete ignorance of iMovie and it history, but also because it doesn't fit the notion that FCPX is something uniquely special (one way or another, either for good or ill).

At some point, someone at Apple (let's for the sake of argument call him "Steve") said: let's not waste our time rebuilding the old Final Cut, let's instead build a new "pro app" out of this really cool consumer app that we've built to replace the old iMovie.

Yes, there are complications to that story, not least the inevitable demise of QuickTime and the rise of AV Foundation, but I find it hard to believe that any other story is remotely as plausible.

One of the other key indicators is that iMovie 08 (onwards) was way, way too sophisticated in fundamental conception for its target market at the time.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 6, 2012 at 9:22:20 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "[Chris Harlan] "His observations strike me as shallow"

I wasn't actually suggesting that his was the most in-depth knowledge that could be had. I just think his comments are a relevant pointer to the to me obvious fact that FCPX began to take shape around the time of iMovie 08 - and hence the plausible conclusion that iMovie 08 was the "proof of concept" for FCPX.

So many people still gloss over this, mostly through complete ignorance of iMovie and it history, but also because it doesn't fit the notion that FCPX is something uniquely special (one way or another, either for good or ill).

At some point, someone at Apple (let's for the sake of argument call him "Steve") said: let's not waste our time rebuilding the old Final Cut, let's instead build a new "pro app" out of this really cool consumer app that we've built to replace the old iMovie.

Yes, there are complications to that story, not least the inevitable demise of QuickTime and the rise of AV Foundation, but I find it hard to believe that any other story is remotely as plausible.

One of the other key indicators is that iMovie 08 (onwards) was way, way too sophisticated in fundamental conception for its target market at the time.
"


I agree with everything you are saying. I meant my comments as more of an aside than anything else. The only thing I would add is that we all tend to see Corporate behavior as highly premeditated, when in fact a number of warring impulses can all be firing at the same time and in different directions. The current example floating around here is the head of Dell's IT department announcing to an IT customer that Dell is now an IT company. Could it represent what's going on at Dell? Maybe. Could it also be a very skewed message that many in Dell do not agree with? Maybe. In fact, probably.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 6, 2012 at 9:27:08 pm

[Chris Harlan] "The only thing I would add is that we all tend to see Corporate behavior as highly premeditated, when in fact a number of warring impulses can all be firing at the same time and in different directions."

Agreed. I think what we've been seeing here is more than anything a glimpse of Apple in "headless chicken" mode rather than executing some co-ordinated evil plan.

Somehow, the "evil plan" theory feels a bit less alarming than the lack of one - at least there would be a plan of some kind ...

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Could it be...?
on Mar 7, 2012 at 2:39:38 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "One of the other key indicators is that iMovie 08 (onwards) was way, way too sophisticated in fundamental conception for its target market at the time."

this.

So we're inclined to think that a demonstration was given to Jobs by Ubillos for the guts of what was to be the iMovie 08 we know now. Ubillos, (who I insulted relentlessly post launch - true apologies) was demoing what he understood to be in his mind the equivalent to pre-stage footage organisation workflow. First cut. Almost a kind of aperture pre-stage.

your mind salivates at our lost future 32 bit float workflow within a hypothetical skimming aperture/first cut pre-stage for footage categorisation and meta data handling, bin categorisation and rough cuts. A deeply integrated launchpad to an unadulterated joined editing system. (A full track independent FCPX open for all DSLR comers? Why wouldn't photographers like clean multiple tracks? how is that not their first post of call? ribbons of footage overlaid?)

Instead -

we have the entire separate hypothetical First cut app pre-data organisation digital asset management system wedged into the top left corner of FCPX. And it has literally knocked out our editing system viewer. That is how mad the chain of events is.

Lovely Mess.

As I get it, Jobs called that Ubillos demo to be a functional going forward consumer video architecture, and decreed it to be the basis of future editing carry on, in the form of iMovie 08. (although the skimmer action and a bunch of event terminology had been knocking around in iphoto well prior to '08...)

Still: we all remember how crazy the reaction to imovie 08 was.

and we only had to wait another few years for our own special professional reaction.

It's hard not to find layered unintended consequences everywhere here.

the one thing that struck me in the Jobs biog was the primacy of the critical demo: an incredibly flat management structure fashioned to produce clear thumbs up or down on many software initiatives.


If possible, given the massive industry confusion, you would near literally beg Timothy Cook to spare a properly considered glance at this situation.


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


Return to posts index

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