FORUMS: list search recent posts

With Great Sadness......

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Don Walker
With Great Sadness......
on Mar 12, 2012 at 3:07:28 pm

As I write this post, FCP X is busy converting a multi clip camera angle into a ProRes File for me. When it is done with that, it will convert 2 more 110 minute angles. After that is all done I will reboot my computer to my Snow Leopard partition (Thanks DRW) and resurrect my project on FCP 7. The past two nights, 2 different bugs have kept me up way past my bedtime. Last night I lost 2 hours worth of work because of the "Undo" bug. And Saturday night as I proofing a DVD that was going to played at a church (a client), i discovered that the " Phantom Audio" bug had come to visit, causing me 90 minutes worth of troubleshooting and work arounds.

After reading the FCP X Techniques forums, I have come to 2 conclusions:
1. I really should spend a lot more time on the "techniques" forum, than watching the fireworks here.
2. FCPX really isn't ready for primetime!

If these bugs were in some new software by some 5 man startup in Toledo, I could understand. But this is Apple. The beta testers surely ran into both of these bugs (a lot!) Why would anybody release a upgrade that has these things in it.

This is a week of stress for me. The project that I'm working on is due in two days, my son's getting married on Saturday, (with all the relatives defending on Texas etc,) so I am just blowing off steam.

The thing is; I LOVE EDITING WITH X! It's perfect for the 1 man shop like mine.
There are just so many things that are incomplete. This is from a company whose whole culture revolves around designing things that are well designed with an eye towards perfection.

Am I abandoning X? No. Tomorrow I will edit a couple of projects I do every week, on X.
But with the big money projects under a deadline...... off to 7 I go!
With Great Sadness.....

don walker
texarkana, texas

John 3:16


Return to posts index

Don Walker
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 12, 2012 at 3:25:15 pm

Please forgive all the unproved typos in my post....

don walker
texarkana, texas

John 3:16


Return to posts index

Bobby Mosca
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 12, 2012 at 4:08:15 pm

You think you're bummed... I've got a bit of break this month, so after the last little bit is cleaned up, all new projects will begin in CS 5.5.


Return to posts index


Bernard Newnham
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 12, 2012 at 5:00:17 pm

...and mine in Edius

B


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 12, 2012 at 7:01:30 pm

[Don Walker] "After reading the FCP X Techniques forums, I have come to 2 conclusions:
1. I really should spend a lot more time on the "techniques" forum, than watching the fireworks here."


FCPX Techniques is the COW's #2 forum, and generates enough traffic all by itself to be the #1 site on the web for anything related to any version of FCP. (It happens that we have some other FCP stuff here, too.)

Fireworks can be fun, too...but yeah, when it comes time to get to work, FCPX Techniques is the place to go. You'll even find a lot of people who find that it's quite ready for their own prime time experience and who might be offer advice...as well as sympathy.

Speaking of which, everyone here at the COW extends their own sympathies. We were editors before we were involved with websites, and can imagine your pain....


Regards,
Tim

Tim Wilson
Associate Publisher, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW Magazine




Return to posts index

Juan Salvo
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 12, 2012 at 7:33:55 pm

Don,

I have to say I'm finding the same things. I had a highlights reel project come in last week. I've done these a thousand times before and can turn one out with my eyes closed. So I figured it would be good to try and do it in fcpx. It seems to me the "pedigree" of X denotes it's limitations. Logging and assembling was a true pleasure. Lightning fast. But as soon as I started polishing. Adding transitions making some l-cuts. It just became an unreliable mess.

Seems to me that this could have been a great stand alone product. If they had just stuck to what Randy Ubillos had envisioned... "First Cut Pro" would be a great editing tool.

Too bad.

Sorry to hear about your troubles... I'm right there with you.



Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 12, 2012 at 7:44:06 pm

[Don Walker] "After reading the FCP X Techniques forums, I have come to 2 conclusions:
1. I really should spend a lot more time on the "techniques" forum, than watching the fireworks here.
2. FCPX really isn't ready for primetime!
"


Version 1.03 software is still going to be buggy, no-one gets software right that quickly, despite what other manufacturers might say. How long did it take FCP to be usable for most people?

You have to accept that when you use the software at the moment, like it or not you are a beta tester.

Having said that, some of us are finding FCPX to be remarkably stable and usable considering how new it is, but many other users like you are having issues. Hopefully Apple are reading the crash reports and figuring out the issues and over the next year we will see constant improvement.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 12, 2012 at 8:40:59 pm

Ironically, 10.0.3 has been the most unreliable for me.

I really want to like this software, I really do, but I can't use it like this in a real world setting, so for now we wait and test other NLE's while making money on FCS3.

I'm sure it will get better.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 12, 2012 at 9:00:15 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Ironically, 10.0.3 has been the most unreliable for me.

I really want to like this software, I really do, but I can't use it like this in a real world setting, so for now we wait and test other NLE's while making money on FCS3."


I wonder if anyone's checked in with Evan Schectman lately? ;)

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


Return to posts index


Lance Bachelder
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 12, 2012 at 9:04:15 pm

Version 1.03 software is still going to be buggy, no-one gets software right that quickly, despite what other manufacturers might say. How long did it take FCP to be usable for most people?

Yeah we need to stop this whole "it's version 1, give Apple a break" argument. Apple named it version 10! They've had a lot of years to work on this and get it right. If they want to be revolutionary then X should have been better in EVERY way than previous versions! This has been there M.O. for every product line they have, new versions are better, faster etc. than previous just like the new iPad.

No more free lunch Apple...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 12, 2012 at 9:19:25 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "Yeah we need to stop this whole "it's version 1, give Apple a break" argument. Apple named it version 10! They've had a lot of years to work on this and get it right. If they want to be revolutionary then X should have been better in EVERY way than previous versions! This has been there M.O. for every product line they have, new versions are better, faster etc. than previous just like the new iPa"

I'm not saying give Apple a break at all,I'm just saying that as a professional I know that any software that is 100% new code is not going to be reliable straight out of the gate, whether it's Apple or any other Developer, seen it before, will see it again.

Personally I think it's a very good job for a new piece of software, in some ways it IS faster and better than FCP7 and if Apple hadn't crapped on all the FCS3 users by dropping it so quickly, so would more people.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 12, 2012 at 9:54:25 pm

[Steve Connor] "I'm not saying give Apple a break at all,I'm just saying that as a professional I know that any software that is 100% new code is not going to be reliable straight out of the gate, whether it's Apple or any other Developer, "

Except, to Lance's point, they called it version 10.

I hadn't thought it before Lance brought it up, but when Premiere Pro rebooted from Premiere, they called it version 1. The previous version of Premiere was 6.5. It took another 11 years to get BACK to the soon-arriving version 6.

When Avid rebooted Media Composer with Adrenaline, that's what they called it. The previous version of Media Composer was 11. The current version of the new code is, coincidentally enough v.6, ten years AFTER version 11.

This is how "any other developer" handles it -- if it's brand new, they call it brand new. Why shouldn't they? New stuff is good news, right?

So if you want the consideration that should quite reasonably be given to version 1.0 software, name it 1.0. Otherwise, you set up a quite reasonably higher expectation. But Apple doesn't want you to think of it like 1.0. Move the decimal place. They want you to think of it as 10. Says so in plain sight.

Another example of a problem Apple created for themselves. If they had spent as much time talking about it as we just have here, they could have avoided it.

Tim Wilson
Associate Publisher, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW Magazine




Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 12, 2012 at 10:01:42 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Except, to Lance's point, they called it version 10. "

They called Quicktime X, version 10, too, and look where that got us, in that case, at least they left version 7 behind and kept updating it. (Weird little tangental there).

[Tim Wilson] "This is how "any other developer" handles it -- if it's brand new, they call it brand new. Why shouldn't they? New stuff is good news, right?"

I agree. Back on June 21st many of us thought it shouldn't be called Final Cut Pro, but something new entirely. It does fit in to their OSX scheme, though. I don't know.

It would be weird to have two final cut v1. At least Premiere changed to Premiere Pro.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 12, 2012 at 10:15:29 pm

[Tim Wilson] "So if you want the consideration that should quite reasonably be given to version 1.0 software, name it 1.0. Otherwise, you set up a quite reasonably higher expectation. But Apple doesn't want you to think of it like 1.0. Move the decimal place. They want you to think of it as 10. Says so in plain sight.

Another example of a problem Apple created for themselves. If they had spent as much time talking about it as we just have here, they could have avoided it."


Absolutely true, Apple's second biggest mistake after dumping FCS3 was calling it Final Cut Pro 10, but what I'm trying to say is that despite what the marketing schmucks decided to call it, the fact is that it's well known that it's a version 1.0 software then you are at best naive if you think that it would be anything but buggy in it's early stages of life. Especially so if you lived through the early years of FCP

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 1:31:44 am

[Steve Connor] "Absolutely true, Apple's second biggest mistake after dumping FCS3 was calling it Final Cut Pro 10, but what I'm trying to say is that despite what the marketing schmucks decided to call it, the fact is that it's well known that it's a version 1.0 software..."

Heaven knows I'm in emphatic agreement with you there. I get that it's already a great thing for a lot of people, and I like a lot about what I think it's trying to do, but goodness, there's only so hard you can bang your head against the wall before it stops being fun.

Although Bessie would like to thank every single one of you for keeping at it. LOL

But I feel like stopping support of FCS 3 was one of the very smartest things they did. They're committed to this new direction, so COMMIT. I'm a fan. If I were their business consultant (hah-freaking-hah), that would have been my one strongest bit of advice: all or nothing, boys. Do it or don't. As Martin Luther said, "Be a sinner, and sin boldly!"

Hey Jeremy, I agree that calling it Final Cut Pro 1 again, so close to the FIRST v.1 of Final Cut Pro, would have been weird. Would have been confusing. So, following the advice of thousands of other people in these forums, maybe they should have called it iMovie Pro v. 1! Hahahaha!


Return to posts index


David Roth Weiss
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 1:55:53 am

[Tim Wilson] "They're committed to this new direction, so COMMIT. I'm a fan. If I were their business consultant (hah-freaking-hah), that would have been my one strongest bit of advice: all or nothing, boys. Do it or don't. "

I totally agree Tim, and I want Apple to declare their hand.

Their laissez faire attitude and the "we're pro" - "no we're not" - "let's keep 'em guessing where we're going" attitude is both crazy and crazy-making.

The marketplace is so confused now that no one knows what to do, and Apple isn't helping anyone by being so non-committal.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 3:14:43 am

[Tim Wilson] "Hey Jeremy, I agree that calling it Final Cut Pro 1 again, so close to the FIRST v.1 of Final Cut Pro, would have been weird. Would have been confusing. So, following the advice of thousands of other people in these forums, maybe they should have called it iMovie Pro v. 1! Hahahaha!"

Good one. I laughed at that one.

--

What's in a name?

I agree that Apple was right to simply drop 7 and move on, if they are going to rewrite the app from zero and completely change the notion of fcp as we know it. 10.0.3 is a weird release. It enabled a bunch of functionality, but reduced performance. I haven't experienced the corruption Jim has, but when things started running as slow as they have in this latest release, I stopped using it. You can "feel" that something is wrong, and it's up to Apple to make it right.

Keeping the Final Cut Pro moniker indicates that they want to stick around in the pro space, in what capacity is kind of unclear, but that is Apple's m.o. Apple has no fears about letting the pro space go. They've done it before, they might do it again. It seems like if they wanted to drop fcp, they would have taken the opportunity to do so rather than create the fanfare that they did, starting at NAB.

The use of multicam, fcpxml, San locations and other "features" seem to signal that there's more to come, and certainly goes beyond iMovie. Of course if it simply doesn't work and is unusable due to deplorable performance, the name doesn't matter.

It's certainly a rough patch. Fcs3 still works well, even in lion. ;)

A more legit beta program would help, stop me if we've heard that one.

--

Jim, did you get that RAM situation fixed? Didn't all this start happening around then?


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 4:34:23 am

[Tim Wilson] "They're committed to this new direction, so COMMIT. I'm a fan. If I were their business consultant (hah-freaking-hah), that would have been my one strongest bit of advice: all or nothing, boys. Do it or don't. "

I strongly disagree with this sentiment. It is clear to me after eight months that FCPX is not an upgrade or replacement for FCS3. It is another NLE aimed squarely at a market that is different but has overlaps with FCS3. The EOL without notice and the haste with which they killed and attempted to bury the body has done irreparable damage to many people's confidence in Apple as a supplier of a reliable professional NLE.

The fact that we are still debating how this NLE can be useful and jokes about beta testing shows that Apple only committed to getting rid of FCS3 without a commitment to building a tool for their customers. All or nothing implies this software is somehow capable of being used professionally and is a worthy replacement. This is still crap after three updates with design paradigms that are hopelessly flawed.


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 4:49:50 am

[Michael Gissing] "The fact that we are still debating how this NLE can be useful and jokes about beta testing shows that Apple only committed to getting rid of FCS3 without a commitment to building a tool for their customers. All or nothing implies this software is somehow capable of being used professionally and is a worthy replacement. This is still crap after three updates with design paradigms that are hopelessly flawed."

I'm not sure who you're addressing specifically, but since I mentioned bera, I'm not joking about beta testing. This is a beta and it feels like it. This isn't a beta of the next version of a mature program, but rather a beta of a brand new one that was rushed out of the door. It's not even iMovie Pro as that is more mature and stabke than 10.0.3.

If it was stable, it would be usable for some people. There are no work arounds for instability.

I am curious as to how Lightworks for the Mac is going to be on the first pass.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 7:36:35 am

Lightworks??? Yikes, have you tried it? It's horrible! Don't know how it can be any better on Mac? I swear to use nothing but FCPX for the rest of my life before using that turd.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Frank Gothmann
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 12:27:05 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "Lightworks??? Yikes, have you tried it? It's horrible! Don't know how it can be any better on Mac? I swear to use nothing but FCPX for the rest of my life before using that turd."

Lance,
you are quick calling apps a turd (you also did with Avid). I think it is important to differentiate between the general concept and design of doing things and the stability and behavior of a program. If you dislike the way an app works and wants you to do things that's fine, you don't like it and move on, but that doesn't make it a turd in my book or rather it should be made clear that it's a personal preference. Obviously, enough people trust very high profile jobs to Lightworks and they swear by it. For me, a turd is an app that doesn't play nice even by its own standards - bugs, sluggishness, data corruption, features that don't work as advertised. I, too, believe that people tend to cut Apple too much slack because its a rewrite (Apple in general gets that treatment). Imagine certain medical or military software behaving this way.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 3:11:29 pm

I'll just say this about Lightworks - if Apple had released Lightworks as the new FCPX, 90% of the FCP 7 users would have sold every Apple product they owned and be working on Windows 7 machines right now. It's garbage, I don't care who is using it.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Frank Gothmann
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 3:21:30 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "I'll just say this about Lightworks - if Apple had released Lightworks as the new FCPX, 90% of the FCP 7 users would have sold every Apple product they owned and be working on Windows 7 machines right now. It's garbage, I don't care who is using it."

Would you care to elaborate why you think so? I am not using Lightworks, haven't tried it, but I am always interested in what's out there. While I usually prefer to make up my own mind and try things out, if I read someone's praise or slamming of an app it's helps to know why.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 3:48:11 pm

You need to try it for yourself - I was hopeful but thought it was a mess. Talk about buggy...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Renato Sanjuán
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 5:05:14 pm

FWIW, I spent a few months working on Lightworks/Heavyworks back in 1997/98. I came from a Media Composer background and it took a little getting used to, but it was in no way a turd. It was a superb tool to cut on and all the film editors I worked with preferred it to Avid. Which makes sense because it was designed precisely with film editors –who were still cutting on moviolas- in mind. Most of them didn't want to switch and Lightworks was very much like a digital flatbed.

Trimming and media management (two big things for my type of work) were every bit as good as Avid’s. And it was rock solid. It hardly ever crashed and if it did you didn’t loose a keystroke, everything was instantly saved.

I have no idea what went on in the company, but I always felt that Lightworks got eaten alive by Avid because of it’s abismal fx toolset.

Lightworks is currently a beta release and they’re in the process of going open source, so bugs are to be expected. They boast some pretty cool features on their web site but I haven’t installed it yet, so I can’t say what’s real and what’s not.

I don’t think it will ever appeal to folks who do a lot of fx & compositing because it's not built for that, but I’ll certainly be keeping an eye on it.

And if it takes off and the price goes down I might even get myself a Lightworks console and edit away, free as a bird… (now I’m fantasizing, but the console was waaay cool).


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 3:38:47 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "Lightworks??? Yikes, have you tried it? It's horrible! Don't know how it can be any better on Mac?"

No, but that was my point. Lightworks is going to be brand new Mac software. It's going to be a learning curve for a while. At least they mark their efforts as "beta" at this point, though.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 12, 2012 at 9:49:32 pm

Well Don, thanks a lot for writing my post for me - seriously.
Mine was going to be titled, "X eats it's own children"

When I got some sleep and recovered from my latest X disaster I was going to write what you did, almost verbatim - except "past my bedtime" actually meant almost 72 hours with no sleep.

Through it's endless stream of bugs and crashes (remember I went for about 4 months without X crashing once before 1.0.3.) I dreamed of FCP7...sh*t I was dreaming of a circa 1980, linear, cable access facility.

Anyway, for the second project in the last three weeks, the "X Factor" (my new expression for the consideration one must have before risking serious work in this program) corrupted my projects, media and drive.

I have a project that's been in edit for 4 months that is so corrupt that apparently anything associated with it is also wrecked.
It's almost impossible to imagine how often and how many things will crash this turd, and then the impossible things that it does to your work and files.

We got the film and two part TV campaign out through the worst professional/technical situation I've ever had to work through - and I've been in this business for a long time and could write a horror novel on just those types of stories.

I've never encountered, even in the earliest pioneer days of NLEs, the kind of bugs, corruption, lack of responsiveness of this mess of a program.
It literally chokes on simple titles over a properly resed photo. At times, it would take 15 minutes to render a 12 frame dissolve. And none of that begins to describe what it did to our work.

Randy would not have wanted to be at Imagination Farm this weekend.


Return to posts index

Michael Sanders
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 12, 2012 at 10:52:33 pm

[Jim Giberti] "Anyway, for the second project in the last three weeks, the "X Factor" (my new expression for the consideration one must have before risking serious work in this program) corrupted my projects, media and drive."

Blimey that's serious! Did it corrupt the backup's to?

Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 12, 2012 at 11:30:22 pm

[Michael Sanders] "Blimey that's serious! Did it corrupt the backup's to?
"


Well by the time I realized how bad it was I wasn't able to work with any version that had al of the graphics and CCing and mastered audio.

It was a mess. I'm just now, having seen the project make it to the airport and with some sleep, about to drag one of the versions of the film project back into the project folder and see if there's anything I can do with it.

Here's how bad it was.
Everything, the whole edit and all finishing was done in a lovely organized Primary and a few neatly organized Compound Clips.
All that needed to be done was to add a stack of names in order to customize the film for different dealers around the country.
The promotional film, TV campaign, radio campaign and magazine campaign were all going on branded thumb drives to be given out after the showing at the big dealer conference.

That was it - the last piece of months of work from our shop, all we needed was to output lot's of versions of a 2:30 second promotional film for their showrooms and websites. It was a dealer name and url on a PS graphic. Two freaking layers over Pro Res footage.

If I try and open any version of the project now, with just those 5 seconds of graphics at the back, it will open fine, but the moment you try and click anywhere in the "timeline" the program freezes and crashes.

Say what you will, but I've never experienced this level of damage or instability from any version of any program we've ever run.

If it were a drug, the FDA would pull it from the shelves.


Return to posts index

Paul Aspuria
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 12:21:11 am

Hey Jim Giberti I had a similar problem with a project. I discover it was a some type of corrupt graphic element at the end of the edit. So I simply removed it and recreate it and everything worked fine.

Here's one successful story out all the frustrating stories. A feature I'm working on that I transferred to X from 7. Just Won Best Feature Film at Uptown Film Festival. The crazy thing is I did a crazy reorder scene edits, scene trims, and some sound work 3 days before the screening. Moving scenes around like flash card. X with it's compound clips worked wonderfully. I don't think I would have completed that tasks of edits on 7 as fast. Of course, I needed to sleep afterwards.

Again I may have just been lucky on my FCPX journey so far. I'm sure I'll be back to bitch about X as soon as I run into a wall.

Happy editing all!


Return to posts index

Don Walker
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 12:25:05 am

Jim,

I am so sorry...... You were one of the most positive advocates for X just a few short months ago. I was very encouraged reading your posts about the program.

The bottom line is this..... and I will use a dreaded analogy. I want X to succeed. I like it; I want my daughter to learn to drive, and I am teaching her. She's not ready for Interstate 30, and X is not ready to be trusted to the big projects. I am looking forward to both the daughter driving and the software to fly.

(I am also waiting with baited breath to see what Premiere 6 looks like!)

don walker
texarkana, texas

John 3:16


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 12:43:47 am

[Don Walker] "You were one of the most positive advocates for X just a few short months ago. I was very encouraged reading your posts about the program."

When the program works it has some great features, but it's glaringly unrefined.

I'm actually stunned by how slow it is in almost every way since the "upgrade.
I can't open a project or move to the open program without the mandatory beachball greeting.

The program itself must be corrupt at this point because I'm not exaggerating when I say 15 minutes to render a 12 frame dissolve.

It was fun learning it but it's been a disaster professionally speaking.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 12:47:15 am

[Don Walker] "(I am also waiting with baited breath to see what Premiere 6 looks like!)
"


At this point they have my undivided attention.


And from a production standpoint, it couldn't possibly interface with Motion worse than fcpx, so nothing lost there.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 4:23:00 am

[Jim Giberti] "And from a production standpoint, it couldn't possibly interface with Motion worse than fcpx, so nothing lost there.
"


Definitely, Man. Where ever I end up, I want Motion along for the ride. Sorry about the trouble. Our work is hard enough without having those kind of technical nightmares.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 1:21:40 am

[Jim Giberti] "Say what you will, but I've never experienced this level of damage or instability from any version of any program we've ever run."

Sounds really scary, Jim. I hope after you've gotten caught up and rested you'll call Apple and talk to someone in product support. They need to hear from you directly, not thru the feedback form.

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


Return to posts index

andy lewis
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 3:23:16 am

I think those saying "It's version 1, remember how buggy the enigma machine was in 1942 etc.." are seriously misrepresenting just how flaky FCPX is.

Software has got steadily better and more reliable over the last 30 years and our standards have risen. It's still true for me though that FCPX is the buggiest software that I have ever used, by the standards of any era since 1983. That's pretty amazing.

Admittedly, I haven't used it since 10.02 but the latest update sounds worse if anything.

On my last job with FCPX, the software slowed to a crawl and had to be restarted every 5 minutes and the titles were all reformatted on every restart.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 3:32:29 am

[andy lewis] "I think those saying "It's version 1, remember how buggy the enigma machine was in 1942 etc.." are seriously misrepresenting just how flaky FCPX is. "

If there's a positive to this, this is what Beta testing brand new software is like.

Apple is showing the world what it means to beta test.

Color, before Apple bought it, was pretty damn buggy.

Your title bug was supposedly fixed in 10.0.3. Good luck? :)

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Mark Raudonis
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 5:41:03 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Color, before Apple bought it, was pretty damn buggy. "

We had several seats of "Final Touch" as "Color" was known pre Apple. Paid good money for it. Never regretted it! As I recall, it was quite stable. It was missing some features, but it was predictable.

can't say the same for "X".

Mark



Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 2:53:41 pm

[Mark Raudonis] "We had several seats of "Final Touch" as "Color" was known pre Apple. Paid good money for it. Never regretted it! As I recall, it was quite stable. It was missing some features, but it was predictable.

can't say the same for "X"."


Powerful statement there Mark. I hope Apple is listening...

BTW, the EOL of Color along with the real FCP is a real shame. It was so close to achieving perfection in so many ways.

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 3:15:48 am

[Mark Raudonis] "We had several seats of "Final Touch" as "Color" was known pre Apple. Paid good money for it. Never regretted it! As I recall, it was quite stable. It was missing some features, but it was predictable."

That's not the experience I had. The early days were pretty rugged, borderline madness. From XML to GUI issues, it was a major crash gets for a while there. It did stabilize nicely after a while.

I will miss Color the most, I'm glad there's other alternatives out there now with more in the pipeline.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 6:04:06 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "If there's a positive to this, this is what Beta testing brand new software is like.

Apple is showing the world what it means to beta test."


I think calling this beta software is overly generous. The data corruption described by Jim and others is simply unforgivable in professional commercial software. Imagine if Oracle launched a new version that randomly nuked the client's DB. No question it would be recalled immediately. These are alpha level bugs at best. It really seems like 10.0.3 is unfit for release.

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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 7:20:52 am

[David Lawrence] "I think calling this beta software is overly generous. The data corruption described by Jim and others is simply unforgivable in professional commercial software. Imagine if Oracle launched a new version that randomly nuked the client's DB. No question it would be recalled immediately. These are alpha level bugs at best. It really seems like 10.0.3 is unfit for release.
"


Exactly David.
We've had two important projects virtually ruined by 1.0.3, something I never imagined happening by simply running a software program in the 21st century.

The fact that it's not only an Apple program, but the supposed replacement for the actual Final Cut Pro is just mind numbing at this point. That these things happen during the simplest of tasks shows how desperately unrefined this software is.

I don't know what they did trying to rush out the beta monitoring and multicam but they broke FCPX.

WTFX


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 7:46:48 am

[Jim Giberti] "Exactly David.
We've had two important projects virtually ruined by 1.0.3, something I never imagined happening by simply running a software program in the 21st century.

The fact that it's not only an Apple program, but the supposed replacement for the actual Final Cut Pro is just mind numbing at this point. That these things happen during the simplest of tasks shows how desperately unrefined this software is.

I don't know what they did trying to rush out the beta monitoring and multicam but they broke FCPX."


What a horrible experience for you, It's been quite a few years since I've had an issue as serious as that with software (Premiere 5.0!) Total project corruption does not seem to be a regular issue, judging by this and other forums I look at, but it's very worrying to know this is a possibility.

As I've said in a couple of previous posts, FCPX is in effect beta software and I have a regular back up strategy in place for all the projects I work on with it.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 11:56:19 am

Out of curiosity, did you duplicate your project at any point and if so, could this be loaded without issue?

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 4:25:02 pm

[Michael Gissing] "[Tim Wilson] "They're committed to this new direction, so COMMIT. I'm a fan. If I were their business consultant (hah-freaking-hah), that would have been my one strongest bit of advice: all or nothing, boys. Do it or don't. "

I strongly disagree with this sentiment. It is clear to me after eight months that FCPX is not an upgrade or replacement for FCS3. It is another NLE aimed squarely at a market that is different but has overlaps with FCS3.



Michael, I'm not saying that Apple did the right thing with FCPX as a thing unto itself. I've been very vocal about what I think are their, ahem, miscalculations. I do think that they looked at where things were -- NOT at the the market and its needs, but the PRODUCT and its technology -- and decided that they wanted to blow it up and start over....

...and if you want to start over, you begin by starting over.

[Michael Gissing] The EOL without notice and the haste with which they killed and attempted to bury the body has done irreparable damage to many people's confidence in Apple as a supplier of a reliable professional NLE."

Good. It SHOULD irreparably damage people's confidence in Apple.

Apple has always been in this for Apple. If you liked it, fine - but you were collateral benefit, quite literally beside the point. They've been adamant from the beginning that they don't build products for markets. They just don't.

"[W]e didn't build Mac for anybody else. We built it for ourselves. We were the group of people who were going to judge whether it was great or not. We weren't going to go out and do market research."


There's an extent to which they started going down the market-specific route with FCP. I see FCPX as a course correction, nothing more or less. Certainly NOT a deviation, but a return to what they've done from the beginning: create products that attempted to CHANGE markets, not to SERVE markets. Steve openly mocked companies who focused on markets and tried to build products for them.

and, re: Apple blowing up a market-leading position with FCP to start over with FCPX, well, they did they same thing when they blew up Apple II for Mac: zero compatibility, because

"Compatibility with the past is too limiting. [W]e needed a technology that would make the thing radically easier to use and more powerful at the same time, so we had to make a break. We just had to do it."


Hmmm, torching a user base for something radically easier to use and more powerful. Where have I heard THAT before? Or, since Steve said the above in 1985, I should ask, where have I heard it AGAIN?

The thing is that Apple didn't "just do it" with Mac re: Apple II. They supported both for a while. They also supported OS 9 and X for a while, which, as Steve pointed out later, was a bad idea. It created two companies, and if 21st century Steve was anything, he was focused.

I'm now starting to repeat myself, but my bottom line is that I agree with your conclusion about FCPX, Michael. I truly do. I'm just saying that if this is the course Apple believes in, they should go all in.

Even if that means that you and others decide to go all out in response.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 10:50:54 pm

[Tim Wilson] "
There's an extent to which they started going down the market-specific route with FCP. I see FCPX as a course correction, nothing more or less. Certainly NOT a deviation, but a return to what they've done from the beginning: create products that attempted to CHANGE markets, not to SERVE markets. Steve openly mocked companies who focused on markets and tried to build products for them.
"


I'd leave myself entirely out of this rather sane, adult conversation, particularly given the seriousness of what happened to the client material quoted, but I've got an issue with the above.

Its like saying - yes, we got into editing/desktop publishing/accountancy/insurance actuarial databases / but... then we remembered that it is not our job to serve markets, it is to change markets


that is problematic. those markets, like our market, are not consumer software purchase markets, ripe for re-making ala ipad, where consumer leisure experience acknowledges the worth of the new paradigm and migrates.

our markets, our market that Apple grew to dominate, from a single shop to a state broadcaster , these are livelihood dependant markets. Continuously, and financially, livelihood dependent markets. Christ: editing is a touch to touch craft wage check. You can't just nuke the toolset for giggles.

to simply turn around a decade later, whip off the cloth and say : "TA-DAAA!!! damn slavish market adherence , have THIS!!" -

And to have it be quite crazy, and, on this reading, pretty spine chillingly buggy -

It's. just. not. good. enough.

It's not on. None of this is on.

I would throw my glove down on the lawn of cupertino at this point.


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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 11:18:27 pm

Would it have been better if Apple had just decided to quit the Edit Software business completely? I think there probably would have been much less outcry if they had done that.

I'm not surprised people who don't like FCPX are moving on, they should!

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 11:29:19 pm

[Steve Connor] "Would it have been better if Apple had just decided to quit the Edit Software business completely?"

i don't know. Just how crazy are Apple really? would it have been better if they had instantaneously destroyed all copies of FCP in existence, while simultaneously issuing a statement declaring an end to all editing? That it was over and we should all go away and think about it?

Apple are just nuts. To any sane professional, Apple look nuts at this point.


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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 11:24:48 am

Would it have been better if Apple had just decided to quit the Edit Software business completely? I think there probably would have been much less outcry if they had done that.

I'm not surprised people who don't like FCPX are moving on, they should! I'm just worried about Aindreas

[Aindreas Gallagher] "these are livelihood dependant markets. Continuously, and financially, livelihood dependent markets. Christ: editing is a touch to touch craft wage check. You can't just nuke the toolset for giggles.

to simply turn around a decade later, whip off the cloth and say : "TA-DAAA!!! damn slavish market adherence , have THIS!!" -

And to have it be quite crazy, and, on this reading, pretty spine chillingly buggy -

It's. just. not. good. enough.

It's not on. None of this is on.
"


Still upset with Apple then Aindreas?

Seriously, how are things going?

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 1:53:02 pm

thanks for asking, all good - are you ok yourself steve?


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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 2:37:43 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "thanks for asking, all good - are you ok yourself steve?
"


Good at the moment thanks, in the middle of cutting a whole bunch of Corporate films and just finished the first cut of a mid budget feature. However I'm now extremely spooked by Jim's experience.

Making sure I have backups of backups!

Are your clients moving on from FCP yet?

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 3:07:44 pm

[Steve Connor] "Are your clients moving on from FCP yet?"

One of the things I find truly scary in this whole transition is that many clients are enamored by the idea of X, but they aren't the ones actually doing the testing and editing. I am. When I tell them of my concerns and real-world issues they just look at me like I'm taking an anti-Apple attitude. Yet, I'm the one actually pushing real projects through it and not just slapping a few clips together to be impressed about how fast it is.

Of course, if they put it in and disregard prudence and then have Jim's experience, they have a complete lack-of-understanding as to how or why this could happen. The smarter clients at this point actually seem to be staying with FCP7/FCS until things continue to shake themselves out. My 2 cents, so far.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 4:18:03 pm

[Steve Connor] "I'm just worried about Aindreas"

I'd say on the latest evidence that Aindreas is turning out to have been the one calm voice of reason all along!!!!

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 5:11:58 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "calm"

I would say that's subjective! ;)


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 5:14:19 pm

its grand - when I get very critical and sarky, Steve always makes sure to turn around and ask after my health... he's very solicitous is our steve...


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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 5:24:04 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "its grand - when I get very critical and sarky, Steve always makes sure to turn around and ask after my health... he's very solicitous is our steve..."

I know sometimes the souls of poets can be a little more tortured than others

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 5:51:08 pm

ah jesus steve come on.. I write vaguely polemical invective baby, I haven't written a line of poetry in me life!


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


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 1:05:28 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "I'd say on the latest evidence that Aindreas is turning out to have been the one calm voice of reason all along!!!!"

The "one"???

Come now Simon, he's but one of many (okay of several). :)

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

Andy Field
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 4:41:56 pm

The brave souls using FCP X for paying work seem like Charlie Brown hoping Lucy won't yank the ball just before he kicks it and lands flat on his back. Lucy (Apple) yanked the ball last summer...and according to reports here...Lucy's still hoping poor Charlie (us) keeps trying to kick it again.

We all know it's not ready for reliable professional work and yet so many are willing to continue risking revenue by providing free beta testing on a program they actually paid for.

I beta test software for a few software companies...and they would be ashamed to release a product with this level of instability and call it version 10.


I'm still using FCP7...and migrating slowly to AVID although wish we didn't have to. (really FCP7 has so many advantages with a vast array of plugs in and round tripping to external programs)

And yes, we would love FCP X to work, play well with others, have reliable external monitoring, tracks etc.....but it doesn't and Apple isn't telling us if or when we can expect it other than to ...rely on "third party solutions"

That's not acceptable when the previous version of their software solved all those problems right in the program itself.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Bob Woodhead
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 6:06:32 pm

Where's Craig S, with his positiveX spin to put on these tales of misery & woe?


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 6:08:41 pm

And Bill D?

Tim


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 6:15:40 pm

[Steve Connor] "
As I've said in a couple of previous posts, FCPX is in effect beta software and I have a regular back up strategy in place for all the projects I work on with it."


Hey Steve,

Me too...back up strategy that is. The same we've always had that's always been effective.
But this is something else entirely...like a virus.
For instance it took a long time to isolate corrupted media trying to rescue this last project.
I'm talking about files so bad that FInder wouldn't allow me to mouse over them in the browser.
Something I've never even heard of let alone experienced in decades of Macs.

One problem is if you don't know there's a corruption and you put tons of work into something the best you can do is lose all that work.

But associated things also get corrupted with the corrupt media.

I'm glad you're not seeing this on a lot of boards but three people in this thread have had similar experiences, which is more than enough evidence that Apple isn't doing there job.

I can deal with new software that requires a little massaging, but I can't fathom software that destroys it's own efforts.

This is all since 1.0.3.
As I said, at this point the software is probably corrupt so I guess I have to lose more of my life talking to Apple and downloading another 1-1/2 TB and reinstalling.

I've got 4 or 5 other projects all in FCPX now.

Yikes, thanks Apple.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 6:19:38 pm

[Jim Giberti] "For instance it took a long time to isolate corrupted media trying to rescue this last project.
I'm talking about files so bad that FInder wouldn't allow me to mouse over them in the browser.
Something I've never even heard of let alone experienced in decades of Macs.
"


I hope now you've got the job out, you'll have time to work with Apple on this to try and find the issue.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 6:27:24 pm

Steve - if this was an Adobe product, Adobe would have it's software engineers chiming contacting the user to find out how they can fix their broken software.

Unfortunately, this is the new Apple software -- where there's never a peep from anyone on the development team on any of these boards.

Have you actually gotten anyone from Apple's Final Cut experts to help you on the phone? By Email? Acknowledge there's a problem with their software? That would be something.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 6:55:41 pm

Yes, this has always been a big problem. Goodness knows I have have had my problems with Avid in the past - as in having my system totally lock up and having to get a "remote blessing" at ten o'clock at night. But the thing is, as annoying as that experience was, they were there at ten o'clock on that night. And they fixed my problem. I don't have as much experience with Adobe but the experience that I do have tells me that they are similarly responsive. With Apple it has always been difficult to get them to even accept that the software in question even came from them. And if you were having problems with it then it was likely your own fault.

Tim


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 8:47:26 pm

[TImothy Auld] " With Apple it has always been difficult to get them to even accept that the software in question even came from them. And if you were having problems with it then it was likely your own fault.
"


Ain't that the truth. Their first level of support is stellar, but when you go beyond that it deteriorates rapidly. And I've always gotten the feeling that I'm talking to folks in totalitarian regimes that were terrified of saying anything not exactly party line.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 8:55:39 pm

Oh, yeah.

Tim


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 1:05:25 am

[Chris Harlan] "I've always gotten the feeling that I'm talking to folks in totalitarian regimes that were terrified of saying anything not exactly party line."

Absolutely! And, I can tell you that happens at the dealer level too. There's nothing a dealer rep. at Apple will tell you that we here don't already know.


Return to posts index

Don Walker
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 1:30:30 am

[David Roth Weiss] "Absolutely! And, I can tell you that happens at the dealer level too. There's nothing a dealer rep. at Apple will tell you that we here don't already know."

However in the trenches..... I talked to a retail employee (who I did not know) sometime after the FCPX launch, when the person found out I was in production..... they proceeded to give me a scathing review of FCPX.

don walker
texarkana, texas

John 3:16


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 6:58:35 pm

I think it's fair to use the "1.0 version" argument for lack of features. It isn't valid to excuse failure to perform as advertised in a reliable fashion. Apple has never had a deep beta tester pool from what I can tell. Also from what I understand, software is only tested in certified configuration, i.e. no third-party apps or plug-ins. As some of these posts show, their QA process is clearly flawed and doesn't reflect real world use.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 3:11:04 am

[Jim Giberti] "I'm talking about files so bad that FInder wouldn't allow me to mouse over them in the browser.
Something I've never even heard of let alone experienced in decades of Macs."


Just curious, Jim. Did you ever get this solved?:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/344/8643

Bad ram can cause things to go down in a hurry. Did you try reloading the system at any point?

10.0.3 has certainly brought some bad performance and there's no excuse to release something that hasn't been vetted, but if files in the Finder are corrupt, it could point to other more systemic issues.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 4:11:19 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Just curious, Jim. Did you ever get this solved?:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/344/8643

Bad ram can cause things to go down in a hurry. Did you try reloading the system at any point?

10.0.3 has certainly brought some bad performance and there's no excuse to release something that hasn't been vetted, but if files in the Finder are corrupt, it could point to other more systemic issues."


Hey Jeremy,

RAM is fine, all systems are fine and optimized and were at the times of the corruptions.
I had a chance to play a little catch up today and started with a long talk with Apple

There's no question that FCPX can be "sensitive" with content.
In essence this is what I'm sure of:

The simple graphic (in this instance was correctly formatted and a simple, flattened jpg out of PS) didn't corrupt the FCPX project, FCPX corrupted the file, which then apparently corrupted the project as well.

2nd time in two weeks both times using simple graphic files.

Here's what I think overall after spending several hours exploring all potential options/solution - FCPX is very high maintenance if you're doing work beyond simple edits and small projects. At least higher than other similar programs.

It's very sensitive to project size and I wouldn't be surprised if it's inane practice of bloating itself until it chokes is the fundamental cause of many of the problems people are having.

Here's an example of what I found. There was one project, a scratch pad that was used to try out some ideas and filters etc. I didn't even think of it till I decided to go through the program piece by piece.

it was 2 minutes long and had a few transitions. It was 54 GBs. When I deleted the unused render files it reduced the project to 2 GB.

My guess is there's a point at which any project becomes more susceptible to hanging, crashing and possibly corruption - based on it's relative project bloat.

Until Apple provides for the simple, logical, automatic deletion of any previous render files, they should make continuous file deletion a primary instruction for users in order to protect projects and media.

Why a project would accumulate every overwritten action in a project defies all logic, but if they fix this and provide a "Clear RAM" command, FCPX would have a functional memory approach.

Apple created a project that both gobbles RAM by the minute with no way to release it and simultaneously grows every project every moment it renders.

I'm not sure how they assess their priorities with updates, but I'm thinking these are first tier considerations.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 4:30:02 am

[Jim Giberti] "It's very sensitive to project size and I wouldn't be surprised if it's inane practice of bloating itself until it chokes is the fundamental cause of many of the problems people are having."

Absolutely, and a way to turn off the autosave. I've said this before, but using your project as an example and the FCPX manual:

FCPX saves everytime a "change is detected" or every 15 minutes, which ever comes first. So, having a 56 GB file and having FCPX "detect a change" is going to cause major performance slow downs. I mean imagine trying to save a legacy project after every click, edit, move, whatever, and that should point to what X is trying to do.

http://help.apple.com/finalcutpro/mac/10.0.3/#verb6acb2fb

They need to break off the detected changes from the saving of the database, or something, I'm not a programmer, just a lowly user.

It's not the size of the project that is the scary part, it's how that size is dealt with. Right now, everything seems to be centered around saving those huge files, constantly. You can watch it happen when FCPX makes an auto backup file. There's no wonder it moves slow when it's trying to perform an operation while waiting for 56GBs to backup.

Kinda nutty.

Thanks for your response, and I'm sorry that this happened. Like you said, anything but corruption...


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 4:37:38 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "FCPX saves everytime a "change is detected" or every 15 minutes, which ever comes first. So, having a 56 GB file and having FCPX "detect a change" is going to cause major performance slow downs. I mean imagine trying to save a legacy project after every click, edit, move, whatever, and that should point to what X is trying to do. "

That's another great point Jeremy.
It's actually the third crazy way that they don't manage memory, and they all create different levels of disfunction.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 6:26:05 am

[Jim Giberti] "[Jeremy Garchow] "FCPX saves everytime a "change is detected" or every 15 minutes, which ever comes first. So, having a 56 GB file and having FCPX "detect a change" is going to cause major performance slow downs. I mean imagine trying to save a legacy project after every click, edit, move, whatever, and that should point to what X is trying to do. "

That's another great point Jeremy.
It's actually the third crazy way that they don't manage memory, and they all create different levels of disfunction.
"


Jim, I'm sorry you are going through this. This bloat issue is one of the things that kept me from trying out a few promos with this new version. I know I've been critical of the program, but I would really like it to work. It depresses me that this is where things are.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 11:18:36 am

[Chris Harlan] "Jim, I'm sorry you are going through this. This bloat issue is one of the things that kept me from trying out a few promos with this new version. I know I've been critical of the program, but I would really like it to work. It depresses me that this is where things are.
"


Can I just mention once again that not everyone is having these issues? I've done over 30 projects with it over the last few months and I've just finished the first cut of a feature on it with no major problems. 10.03 is certainly not as responsive as 10.02, but for me it's not so bad that it's unusable.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 7:03:26 pm

[Steve Connor] "[Chris Harlan] "Jim, I'm sorry you are going through this. This bloat issue is one of the things that kept me from trying out a few promos with this new version. I know I've been critical of the program, but I would really like it to work. It depresses me that this is where things are.
"

Can I just mention once again that not everyone is having these issues? I've done over 30 projects with it over the last few months and I've just finished the first cut of a feature on it with no major problems. 10.03 is certainly not as responsive as 10.02, but for me it's not so bad that it's unusable.
"



Sure, Steve. I hear that. Given my kind of projects, and the need to make multiple versions, of each project, the bloat issues, alone, would have kept me away with or without Jim's reporting. I'm just sad he's going through what he's going through, and was once again expressing my hope that the program succeeds.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 3:17:50 am

[David Lawrence] "I think calling this beta software is overly generous. The data corruption described by Jim and others is simply unforgivable in professional commercial software. Imagine if Oracle launched a new version that randomly nuked the client's DB. No question it would be recalled immediately. These are alpha level bugs at best. It really seems like 10.0.3 is unfit for release."

I do agree that this is unforgivable, but I have worked with worse "betas".

This is the first time I've heard of corruption at this level.


Return to posts index

MIke Guidotti
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 12:51:20 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Apple is showing the world what it means to beta test."

Wrong. Beta software is free!


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 2:01:24 pm

[MIke Guidotti] "
Wrong. Beta software is free!"


I'm not saying this is a conventional "beta test". Not all betas are free.

But the state of this software is certainly beta.

That's all. Apple will improve it through feedback and crash reports, just like any other non public beta test. It is quite obvious their internal testing has been extremely limited.

I'm not talking about missing features and functionality, I am talking about reliability.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 2:02:29 pm

[MIke Guidotti] "Wrong. Beta software is free!"

Used to be perhaps, but it's getting to be the norm these days.

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

Michael Sanders
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 13, 2012 at 8:56:32 pm

[Jim Giberti] "Here's how bad it was.
Everything, the whole edit and all finishing was done in a lovely organized Primary and a few neatly organized Compound Clips.
All that needed to be done was to add a stack of names in order to customize the film for different dealers around the country.


As a matter of interest were your clips in the timeline all the same resolution and frame rate? I only ask because just today I got a phone call to add some subtitles to a video (as the audio was so poor!). I spent half an hour or so putting the first few subtitles in and it was terrible, beaching balling all the time etc.

The I remembered that the timeline is 1920 x 1080 25p, the clip I was subtitling was some weird MP4 (can't remember if its optimised or not) but on top of that some weird frame size and 29.97. And my subtitle FCP effect is 1920x1080 25p.

So I exported an un subtitled submaster to Prores 422 and loaded that into its own project sticking the subtitles over that

.... and with that FCP X was back to its usual snappy self.

Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor


Return to posts index

Michael Belanger
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 7:21:39 pm

TO be accurate... Apple has bungled a number of already done software LIKE Logic, Shake and Color. These were not apple software but were purchased by Apple to poach what little bits they could to put into their consumer quality stuff that they have subsequently released. So the conclusion is that you should not be surprised that the big conglomerate Apple cannot write code. They are a big picture company which BIG ideas and have no real skills at writing code. They are trying to figure out the next product to put a lower case i in front of and market to the taffy minded masses.
It must be pointed out that for me, with almost 30 years in editing, I have never EVER had a piece of software released by a company that will not allow the user. IE client, to open older or existing projects. Its just utterly bush league to do that. I know of not one soul who uses FCX ..most are using FCP 7 and myself, although I have 7 fresh in a box, am stilling using 6 because of the need to connect with other suppliers.
If it has taken Apple a whole year to release a 0.3 dot release I doubt you will see anything significant this NAB... maybe nothing.
APPLE is a marketing company who have no ability to write code. They just buy the software they want then decide if it can be marketed.
END OF STORY.


Return to posts index

Don Walker
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 11:04:42 pm

[Michael Belanger] "APPLE is a marketing company who have no ability to write code."

I am in the middle of a tight deadline but couldn't resist. Apple's Motion is an AWESOME program. IMHO

don walker
texarkana, texas

John 3:16


Return to posts index

Michael Belanger
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 11:17:07 pm

I have been using AE for eons ...very close to the beginning ... so I prefer that and its integration with PS and Encore. Motion is OK but I just don't need to learn another program which is where AE was several years ago. IMHO

mb


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 11:25:46 pm

[Michael Belanger] "I have been using AE for eons ...very close to the beginning ... "

I don't think Motion and AE are a fair comparison. Motion is designed as a motion graphics application that's easy for editors to do fancy things without getting bogged down with keyframes. As such it's both powerful and crippled (yes I know keyframes are there under the hood). AE simply blows away Motion when it comes to doing some serious compositing, especially when you count the included add-ons, like Mocha. Just take a look at a feature like Rotobrush. That's some serious image science without anything comparable in Motion. The same would be true of Nuke or even the built-in tools of Smoke or Avid DS.

For $50, Motion is a great buy, but it quickly falls short when you need to do something beyond building templates or flying text around on the screen. But, it does some nice things. For example I just used it yesterday to change speed on footage that was then composited in AE. Of course, it crashed when I tried to use Optical Flow, so I stayed with Motion Blur-Blending. I would have used Twixtor in AE, but it wasn't available on the workstation I was using.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Michael Belanger
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 11:33:27 pm

Sorry... use what you like but you are spot on that Motion is kinda vanilla. I honestly don't think AE is any more difficult than motion. There are plug ins for AE that simply don't exist for Motion like invigorator so I stick with what I know works. I had a client fumble for hours trying to do a simple camera zoom in to a very small spot . Did it in about a minute in AE. You may be correct that Motion is more for beginners.

mb


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 11:39:19 pm

AE users always talk down Motions capabilities, glad you're having fun with it, I've been doing the same this week

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Michael Belanger
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 11:43:17 pm

Yeah sorry don;t have the latest version of Motion as I don't use FCX ... I took out the P on purpose


Return to posts index

Don Walker
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 12:08:35 am

I wasn't trying to Motion on the same level as AE. Nobody who has used both would. But for an Apple originated program, it is incredibly useful, especially in FCS 3. I have not used 5 enough to make a judgement. Other programs that I think work well are the iwork suite, and Garage Band.

don walker
texarkana, texas

John 3:16


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 12:17:51 am

I think we went down this Motion rabbit hole because of Michael's statement that "APPLE is a marketing company who have no ability to write code." I think that's completely incorrect. Apple is a DESIGN company in the same way that Porsche is a design company, which also manufactures cars. (No, no... Don't let this turn into another dumb car analogy!!! ;-) )

The point is the design is important for both hardware and software and it's in the DNA of everything Apple does. They also happen to be very good at marketing, but that doesn't mean they can't do good design, coding or anything else.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 1:04:01 am

[Oliver Peters] "I think we went down this Motion rabbit hole because of Michael's statement that "APPLE is a marketing company who have no ability to write code." I think that's completely incorrect. Apple is a DESIGN company in the same way that Porsche is a design company, which also manufactures cars. (No, no... Don't let this turn into another dumb car analogy!!! ;-) )"

Great comparison. I think this is spot on.


[Oliver Peters] "The point is the design is important for both hardware and software and it's in the DNA of everything Apple does. They also happen to be very good at marketing, but that doesn't mean they can't do good design, coding or anything else."

I was initially going to write a harsh critique of Michael's original post, because I do believe that Apple has some truly outstanding engineering -- but then I realized I couldn't. I couldn't come up with a single counterexample in the professional space that showed something that Apple both designed and built entirely in-house that was renowned for feature set or broad applicability, stability and performance.

The big ones are FCPX, Motion, and the application formerly known as Soundtrack. Everything else in FCS came from elsewhere. Logic came from eMagic. Mac OS X is brilliant, but it's based on FreeBSD, Darwin, the Mach kernel, and NeXTSTEP. iOS is brilliant, but it's based on Mac OS X. (I'd argue that what Apple has added to Darwin/Mach/NeXTSTEP to get to OS X/iOS shows massive ability in both design and engineering, but Michael is still right to point out that the provenance is not uniquely Apple.)

FCPX and Motion are great examples of design -- they are both applications that offer completely new and inventive solutions to long-standing problems -- but neither is known for stability, so it's hard to argue that they are great examples of well-written software. Soundtrack was less inventive in its design, and also was not a great exemplar of software engineering.

As best I can figure off the top of my head, that leaves Compressor as the best thing I can point to, and that's not a lot to hang your hat on.

I was more than a bit surprised when I thought this through, but might there be more to Michael's argument than appears at first blush? Is there something else I'm not thinking of?

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

Oliver Peters
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 1:21:51 am

[Walter Soyka] "but then I realized I couldn't. I couldn't come up with a single counterexample in the professional space that showed something that Apple both designed and built entirely in-house that was renowned for feature set or broad applicability, stability and performance"

I would suggest Aperture - the Lightroom/Aperture debates notwithstanding.

But I think the point you are making - to which I would agree - is that Apple is the ultimate remix artist among hardware/software developers. Most of their designs are derivative, although often significantly enhanced with an innovative approach and designed for better ease of use. And, of course, marketed like it was first invented at Apple.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 1:30:24 am

[Oliver Peters] "I would suggest Aperture - the Lightroom/Aperture debates notwithstanding."

I spaced on Aperture -- that's a good one to point out. It is well-designed, with good performance and stability.

That said, my wife is a photographer and recently switched to Lightroom. She's found that Lightroom does more and performs better on the same hardware.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 1:37:08 am

[Walter Soyka] "She's found that Lightroom does more and performs better on the same hardware."

Same for me. Plus Apple doesn't seem to be paying too much attention to Aperture anymore. Knock down the price and sell it on the App Store. Hmm.....

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 2:40:32 am

[Walter Soyka] "I was more than a bit surprised when I thought this through, but might there be more to Michael's argument than appears at first blush? Is there something else I'm not thinking of?"

Apple is a hardware company.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 3:10:14 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Apple is a hardware company."

I just find this argument so much less compelling these days. This whole hardware/software dichotomy just does not seem appropriate to what Apple is becoming. It certainly was true for much of the last decade--especially when they bought/developed the Pro Apps to sell hardware, but in this decade of this century its services are becoming nearly as important as its devices, and the line between its services and devices is very blurry.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 3:14:31 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Apple is a hardware company."

I'm not so sure.

Samsung is a hardware company.

Apple sells hardware, but their value proposition is the whole system and its cohesion: hardware, software, and now services.

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: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 3:46:00 am

[Walter Soyka] "Apple sells hardware, but their value proposition is the whole system and its cohesion: hardware, software, and now services."

A smart hardware company with a money making formula that's just good enough to peddle that hardware.

You don't have Apple without the hardware.

Sorry.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 5:09:38 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "A smart hardware company with a money making formula that's just good enough to peddle that hardware.

You don't have Apple without the hardware."


Apple is a user experience company.

Hardware is a piece of it. Software is a piece of it. But in the end, both are focused with laser-like intention on delivering the best possible user experience. Period.

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


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 6:03:56 am

[David Lawrence] "Apple is a user experience company.

Hardware is a piece of it. Software is a piece of it. But in the end, both are focused with laser-like intention on delivering the best possible user experience. Period."


Seems like that laser is burning a lot of people as of late. :)


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 6:19:49 am

[David Roth Weiss] "Seems like that laser is burning a lot of people as of late. :)"

True that. And one could argue their design focus is getting soft in the UI department as well.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 2:34:36 pm

[David Lawrence] "True that. And one could argue their design focus is getting soft in the UI department as well.
"


I agree with this, I hate the iCal/notes UI thing, if they spread that to FCPX then even I'm moving to Adobe!

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 3:23:14 pm

[David Lawrence] "Hardware is a piece of it. Software is a piece of it. But in the end, both are focused with laser-like intention on delivering the best possible user experience. Period."

I hear you, but remove the hardware from the equation, and you have no Apple.

Remove iWork and other Apple products, you still have Apple.

Apple is recently (and when I say recently, I am tailing about iTunes forward) back in the software game. I am also separating the OS from "software", even though it's software. So, perhaps it's not fair.

I agree that they have developed a platform, and it's something other companies are sort of trying to achieve or mock or stay away from, but no hardware, no Apple.

They have developed a system that relies solely on their hardware. We can dance around what Apple actually does, but they push hardware through user experince.

Jeremy


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 3:05:56 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You don't have Apple without the hardware. Sorry."

I agree with that.

But likewise, you don't have Apple without the software. That's why I think calling them a hardware company is overly reductive.

Look at this thread, the E5 thread, the HP thread, and the licensing thread. Most folks here don't care about the Mac Pro hardware itself. Who's buying a Mac Pro to run Linux or Windows on it? Everyone here cares about the software you can only get on the Mac platform. Most of the posters in this thread who are considering Mac Pros are also considering cross-platform software like Premiere Pro or Media Composer, but they're still interested in Mac Pros for OS X or ProRes encode.

Apple measures their sales in units of hardware, but Apple doesn't compete on hardware. They compete with their total systems on user experience. Without Apple software, Macs are just well-designed commodity PCs, iPhones are just well-designed commodity smartphones, and iPads are just well-designed commodity tablets. Without Apple software, Apple really would be a hardware company.

I measure my sales in units of time. My clients are paying for time because that's how my fee is calculated, but they're buying media production, or the application of my expertise and skills. My value proposition is more than a ticking clock.

Likewise, Apple's software AND hardware -- together -- are key to Apple's value proposition, which is the thing that Apple customers buy.

As we move to the post-PC era (and I almost can't stand myself for using this phrase so often), Apple is making services like the iTunes Store, the App Store, and iCloud another key component of their value prop.

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: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 3:30:36 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Everyone here cares about the software you can only get on the Mac platform"

For us, it's about the OS. I guess that's software, but it's really how the computer operates.

With PCs, the OS is pretty much constant, you then choose a manufacturer based on certain box features or price.

I don't buy Macs for iTunes I buy them for OSX.

If I do end up switching NLEs to something that's cross platform, I will probably stay with OSX.

I say probably, you never know in this crazy world. I am sure all the answers will be obvious soon enough.

[Walter Soyka] "Without Apple software, Apple really would be a hardware company."

Again, you mean without the Apple OS. Most of the apps on my computers and handhelds are not from Apple, just like on the one (very important) windows machine that we have in the office, the software is not from Microsoft.

[Walter Soyka] "As we move to the post-PC era (and I almost can't stand myself for using this phrase so often), Apple is making services like the iTunes Store, the App Store, and iCloud another key component of their value prop."

...to buy hardware. You cannot purchase those services separately and reap the benefits without an Apple hardware ecosystem from your desktop, to your office, to your tv, to your pocket.

I guess it's semantics, but all of the "user experience" is centered around the hardware, where they make their money. You have to buy an Apple device to get the cool stuff.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 3:48:34 pm

I think it's simplistic to say you could remove either the hardware or the software side of Apple and have it be the same company. Apple doesn't have to manufacture hardware. To that point Foxconn would be the hardware company, not Apple. It's the design and engineering that's important. You have to understand how to build a machine that's optimized to do the things you are asking of it via the OS or applications. For Apple it's an integrated endeavor. That's why Flash is banned and on-board SDI or CUDA is ignored. The Mac Pro are not a generic box in the same way as an HP or Dell.

That being said, HP (and IBM in the past) makes some really fine desktop machines and I think you could easily run a licensed version of OSX on an HP and have great results. I think the legal, European hackintoshes have already proven that. Although I really appreciate Apple's hardware designs, I buy their products for the user experience that's largely based on the OS. I'm less inclined to care about their applications. In fact "improvements" like "versions" are forcing extra steps and workarounds in my workflow. So it's a mixed bag - hardware, software, design, engineering, etc.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 3:56:11 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I don't buy Macs for iTunes I buy them for OSX. If I do end up switching NLEs to something that's cross platform, I will probably stay with OSX."

Right. You aren't buying your Macs for the Apple hardware itself. You've told me here about how Apple rarely has the latest and greatest hardware anyway. You are making your purchase decisions based on the software (OS X) because you like its user experience. (Very good reason to buy Apple products!)

With Apple, the hardware and software come in a bundle. With other vendors, they can be separated.

Software like OS X is made by Apple, and only available to run on Apple hardware. That's why I can't see how Apple is just a hardware company.

I brought up Samsung before. Consider them. They sell tablets, just like Apple, but they use Android. There's nothing in the user experience to differentiate them from HTC, Motorola, or whoever else decides to sell an Android tablet.

Apple is different from the pure hardware vendors. They sell a whole system that is uniquely theirs. They buy from hardware vendors. They don't even actually manufacture the hardware they design.

The existence of Hackintoshes -- and the hoops people are willing to jump through to get OS X running on non-Apple hardware -- speak to the value of Apple's user experience outside of their hardware.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I guess it's semantics, but all of the "user experience" is centered around the hardware, where they make their money. You have to buy an Apple device to get the cool stuff."

My hardware sits under my desk or in the other room. I don't even look at it all that often. I spend hours every day in the software.

Apple's industrial design is elegant. The hardware can be differentiated on that basis. However, when I think Mac, I don't think of the box -- I think of what's on the screen.

I do agree with you that Apple sells hardware, so I see why you say they're a hardware company.

However, couldn't you agree that Apple customers are buying something more than hardware alone? Couldn't you consider that calling Apple a hardware company might be dismissive of the critical contributions of their software design?

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: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 4:13:56 pm

[Walter Soyka] "However, couldn't you agree that Apple customers are buying something more than hardware alone? Couldn't you consider that calling Apple a hardware company might be dismissive of the critical contributions of their software design?"

And that's where the marketing comes in. All of the Apple commercials sell the experience, but force you out to the Apple store to buy....? a Phone, an Air, an iPad, an iMac......a MacPro, ok maybe not a MacPro.

You don't see this and go buy iTunes. What do you need to get this experience?







You don't see this, go out and buy an HTC device, and run Apple software on it:

http://www.apple.com/ipad/#video

I guess the way I see it, I see it for what it really is.

You buy an Apple product for OSX, iOS, whatever, but all of that really comes "for free". Not really free, but almost free.

The hardware does not come for free, and that's my point. You can't download an iTunes movie and play it on your Roku.

So, the Apple experience comes wrapped in a tightly controlled and designed hardware based environment. That's why I said they were a smart hardware company. They build the experience to sell the hardware, make no mistake about it. And that's often why the software is "good enough". FCP7 was good enough for a really really long time.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 4:05:46 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "...to buy hardware. You cannot purchase those services separately and reap the benefits without an Apple hardware ecosystem from your desktop, to your office, to your tv, to your pocket.
"


That ecosystem is being moved away from the desktop. The whole point of iCloud is to dethrone the desktop as a hub and turn it into a satellite node. Apple's ideal is now for you to buy a thin client device--modified, certainly, since it can also store apps locally--and use their centralized server as market place and storage. Yes, you buy hardware, but you also buy apps and content, and you subscribe to storage space. No one in this thread is even remotely suggesting that Apple does not make the vast majority of their money through sales of physical appliances; what they are saying is that things have gotten far too complicated for the "hardware/software dichotomy" model to be of much use in describing Apple.

So, a) yes, they make most of their money through hardware sales, but b) their services have grown substantial enough that they could fuel a very large corporation on its own, and c) the way that services and hardware are intertwined creates a unique synergy that is neither one nor the other, but something more.

At the end of the day, its a silly thing to argue about. It's probably some subconscious flaw of mine, in that I seldom meet a maxim that I don't try to take an axe to.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 4:18:03 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Yes, you buy hardware, but you also buy apps and content, and you subscribe to storage space."

That storage space is free (unless you pay for more).

And what did you have to buy to view all of these cool things? A Galaxy 2?

iCloud/iTunes is useless without.....?


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 4:33:54 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Chris Harlan] "Yes, you buy hardware, but you also buy apps and content, and you subscribe to storage space."

That storage space is free (unless you pay for more).

And what did you have to buy to view all of these cool things? A Galaxy 2?

iCloud/iTunes is useless without.....?

"


This is getting ridiculous. Yes. Some of that storage space is free. Other storage services are not, or will not be--iTunes Match, for instance. And, since I've already answered the rest of your comments in the post this is a response to, let me just re-post them again:

No one in this thread is even remotely suggesting that Apple does not make the vast majority of their money through sales of physical appliances; what they are saying is that things have gotten far too complicated for the "hardware/software dichotomy" model to be of much use in describing Apple.

So, a) yes, they make most of their money through hardware sales, but b) their services have grown substantial enough that they could fuel a very large corporation on its own, and c) the way that services and hardware are intertwined creates a unique synergy that is neither one nor the other, but something more.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 5:31:31 pm

[Chris Harlan] "This is getting ridiculous. Yes. Some of that storage space is free. Other storage services are not, or will not be--iTunes Match, for instance. And, since I've already answered the rest of your comments in the post this is a response to, let me just re-post them again:

No one in this thread is even remotely suggesting that Apple does not make the vast majority of their money through sales of physical appliances; what they are saying is that things have gotten far too complicated for the "hardware/software dichotomy" model to be of much use in describing Apple.

So, a) yes, they make most of their money through hardware sales, but b) their services have grown substantial enough that they could fuel a very large corporation on its own, and c) the way that services and hardware are intertwined creates a unique synergy that is neither one nor the other, but something more."


But it all comes back to Apple selling hardware. You don't go into the Apple store and buy iTunes Match.

Apple has been very smart in the products they have developed to peddle their hardware, along with the OS that drives it.

I hear what you're saying, I really do, but it comes down to the hardware that they sell.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 15, 2012 at 1:19:37 am

[Don Walker] "I wasn't trying to Motion on the same level as AE. Nobody who has used both would. But for an Apple originated program, it is incredibly useful, especially in FCS 3. I have not used 5 enough to make a judgement. Other programs that I think work well are the iwork suite, and Garage Band.
"


Don, I agree with you completely. Its a very handy program. I always been impressed with its behaviors concept, and I use it frequently. Its been a very nice Swiss Army Knife for the FCS suite.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: With Great Sadness......
on Mar 14, 2012 at 11:42:58 pm

[Oliver Peters] "For $50, Motion is a great buy, but it quickly falls short when you need to do something beyond building templates or flying text around on the screen. But, it does some nice things. For example I just used it yesterday to change speed on footage that was then composited in AE. Of course, it crashed when I tried to use Optical Flow, so I stayed with Motion Blur-Blending. I would have used Twixtor in AE, but it wasn't available on the workstation I was using."

Agreed. I love Motion for its ability to wap together a title sequence, and you can do some very creative things with it very quickly. But to even suggest that it is where AE is silly. I still like using it with FCS3, though.


Return to posts index

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