FORUMS: list search recent posts

Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Don Scioli
Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on Apr 30, 2012 at 7:52:25 pm

I recommend to everyone who is a Mac fan or just enjoys a good business read to look at Ken Segall.s new Book, Insanely Simple, the Obsession that drives Apple's Success, which I just finished. Segall worked with Jobs at Next and at Apple as the ad guy for the agency that they employed, as well as at HP, Dell, etc. After reading this book, ( as well as Issacson's bio) which is a first hand account of Segall's interaction with Jobs, I am convinced that FCPX would never had been released as it was had Job's been in good health at the time. As Segall point's out, Jobs had on- hand's dealing with everything that went out of Apple, from products, to ads, to every nuance of packaging. It is illustrated clearly on pg.119 as Segall talks about how Jobs handled the release of Final Cut Studio 2 with the addition of the Color app which was to be part of it. No way he would have done hat was done what was done with FCPx.

I sure hope Apple can continue to "think different" without him, but I don't know.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on Apr 30, 2012 at 9:58:09 pm

[Don Scioli] "No way he would have done hat was done what was done with FCPx.

I sure hope Apple can continue to "think different" without him, but I don't know."


Speculation of the worst type.

You do realize that there are some of us who are using it daily that firmly believe that FCP-X is the absolutely best thing to happen to video editing in decades, right?

Apple tossed out a lot of very tired thinking that benefited only those with workflows designed around workflows less and less relevant to modern editing (like analog compatibility) - and replaced them with new-era thinking like elevating the database to near equivalency in operation with the editing engine, enabling superior new technology like Core Video over an aging Quicktime engine -and looking forwards rather than backwards in terms of how people actually shoot, edit and deliver video in the modern digital era rather than how they did it in the 1980s.

I know there are still people who MUST work like they've always worked. And bless them there are plenty of great approaches for those how want to do that. Premier and AVID to name two.

But please, there is only ONE tool being offered today that makes serious breaks from the conventions of the past and celebrates a new approach for the future. That you're stuck a year later seeing only what the death of Legacy took away - and not understanding anything much about what Apples decision might represent for all editors in the rapidly approaching future - is a sign that you may be stuck in a rut of your own design.

Jobs didn't disrupt and revolutionize by clinging to the past. He always looked to the future.

He Okayed X, overtly or implicitly by hiring and promoting people like Ubillos and the X team.

And his gift to them was the same one he used to promote the Mouse, the iPhone and the iPad.

The willingness to take chances to make things better.

I'm betting in 5 years we'll all look back and see that whatever the editing landscape looks like, it looks a hell of a lot more like X than it does like X's competitors.

We shall see.

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


Return to posts index

Jules bowman
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on Apr 30, 2012 at 10:22:59 pm

"You do realize that there are some of us who are using it daily that firmly believe that FCP-X is the absolutely best thing to happen to video editing in decades, right?"

The empreror is naked. You can patronise us all you want about wearing flares, but at least they area made of material. Plus the you can put a pound in the pocket and it is still there when you go back for it.


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on Apr 30, 2012 at 10:47:01 pm

[Jules bowman] "You can patronise us all you want about wearing flares"

Stop spinning.

I'm "patronizing" nobody with a thick enough skin to be called an adult.

I'm espousing a point of view. I give reasons for my thinking here all the time. You're free to disagree all you like. But you're not free to determine my tone when you can't seem to "hear" it accurately.

I regularly note how people can do fine work using Premier, Avid and Vegas.

The hallmark of the closed minded is someone who can't EVER find a single thing useful about a software package that suits the workflow of many editors as well or better than Legacy - and is starting to make some of us quite a bit of money - yet gets nothing but mis-information and derision from those who constantly prove that they don't have much real knowledge of how it works.

Look, we're still talking about it's features a YEAR after it's release. People here (and especially in the Techniques forum) are still trying to learn how to properly operate it.

That's prima facia evidence that it's not dumb, it's not trivial, and its certainly not "broken." Because if it was, none of us would would be using it. And we are.

The very first lesson I learned when I started writing for money was "write about what you know."

I suspect I know somewhat more about FCP-X than you do - and I base that on the fact that I use it nearly every day and you're saying stuff that runs contrary to my experience.

So please, follow that advice - or I and others who actually do understand aspects of this software more accurately than you will have to keep coming back to correct you. And it's kinda tiresome.

FWIW.

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


Return to posts index

Jules bowman
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 1, 2012 at 7:02:06 am

[Jules bowman] "You can patronise us all you want about wearing flares"

Stop spinning.

I'm "patronizing" nobody with a thick enough skin to be called an adult.

I'm espousing a point of view. I give reasons for my thinking here all the time. You're free to disagree all you like. But you're not free to determine my tone when you can't seem to "hear" it accurately.



If I was the lone voice then you may have a point but for a year you've been doing so and for a year many have asked you to stop it and for a year you haven't even the self awareness to realise you are doing it it seems? Why do you think I troll your posts? You think I have nothing to do in my life? Or maybe it is because you have consistently been an arrogant patronising condascending pompous man with your perceptions of and comments about FC10 and those that have made disparaging remarks about it? You still bang on about those left behind by the advancement often editing paradigm and how those are struggling with this evolution, among many other comments. Do you not see the insult and pompousness of that comment alone? If you don't Bill, then I would move on from forum posting and perhaps embark in some self awareness programme.

At no point have you called us adults bill. You have called us many other things though mate. And the irony of you starting the post with stop spinning will not be lost on the majority.

Stop it Bill, you are making a fool of yourself even if you are incapable of seeing it, and no, I will not be the only person to think this.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 2, 2012 at 4:13:39 am

[Jules bowman] "You still bang on about those left behind by the advancement often editing paradigm and how those are struggling with this evolution, among many other comments. Do you not see the insult and pompousness of that comment alone? If you don't Bill, then I would move on from forum posting and perhaps embark in some self awareness programme. "

No thank you.

I see every bit as much arrogance and intolerance in the paragraph above as you accuse me of.

I suspect you've earned the right to criticize my opinions in precisely the same way I've earned the right to criticize yours. Thousand upon thousands of hours behind the camera and in the editors chair.

As a result of that, we still see things very differently. If nothing else, that should be useful to many others who come here not knowing WHAT to believe.

If you can't see the shifting of the editing industry, I can't help you. If you think some vaunted "high end" skill set is enough to prosper in the world where there are millions of new people taking up editing every year - where there once was thousands - again, I can't help you.

And if you want to keep believing that alternate voices and opinions to yours are the problem and represent nothing beyond arrogance, than I wish you good luck with that view.

I've learned quite a bit here from those I disagree with. Even those I spar with regularly typically come up with reasonings that I have to consider carefully to see if there's value in what they post. But I find I'm learning nearly nothing from you because I don't remember you ever trying to do much beyond getting mad when someone questions your view.

You have reasons why my analysis of something is wrong say so. Tell me what counter-forces you see that makes a more traditional approach to editing the right path to growing success in a shrinking market. Tell me how YOUR approach will change any editors practice or chances of success beyond what editors have been doing for the past 20 years, and I'll listen.

Cuz I see a nice group of ideas in X that might just do precisely that.

You're ball.

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


Return to posts index


Jules bowman
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 2, 2012 at 9:41:52 am

"If you can't see the shifting of the editing industry, I can't help you. If you think some vaunted "high end" skill set is enough to prosper in the world where there are millions of new people taking up editing every year - where there once was thousands - again, I can't help you."

So, dear Billiam, what exactly is this shifting of the editing industry then? And I mean spell it out, not airy sweeping statements based on your perceptions such as 'independents leveraging the power of the internet through digital media and an increased flexibility of a trackless paradigm in tune with the social and political evolution of moving image as a viable commercial entity in a high octane capitalist environment that demands delivery yesterday and results right now': but actually factual proof that my "high end" skill set is not enough for me to continue to make the perfectly acceptable living I have been doing so for 10 years.

Are you suggesting that my business is under threat because 'millions of new people' [*notation please, sounds like an airy sweeping statement based upon your perceptions rather than fact] are starting to use FC10? Because that is how that comment came across. I may be wrong, but it sounds to me like you are privy to the shifting of the dynamic of professional filmmaking and I am not and because I insist on wanting tracks on my timeline and a project to be called a project some whippersnapper with a macbook pro and FC10 is going to steal away my clients.

Last time I checked, most major film and TV was done in post houses which will continue, for a rather long tired time dear Billiam, to use Avid first and FCP7 second (with I believe we will see a shift of that section to Adobe over the next couple of years), so can't see a shift there. And then all the independents will use what they want. Some will want to embrace the work-around-athon of FC10. Others will shift to Adobe. Others still will use other platforms. All of which, again, doesn't really suggest any sort of shift or threat to my prosperity in what I do.

So what is it mate? What is this shift I cannot see? Is it the internet Bill? The same one i've been delivering via for the last 10 years? Or is it digital media bill, rather than tape? The same shift I seemlessly embraced whilst eating my crunchie nut cornflakes? Or is it that someone can enter the market, Bill, with a 13" macbook, FC10 and an iPhone 4s Bill, and as such because I still use tracks on an EDL over 4 years old all my clients are going to flock to them because they're, y'know, cool dude?

Or is this shift something else Bill? What is it. Pray tell. Enlighten. Illuminate (*Factually please. Thanks in advance)

You are still throwing around this - YOU WILL FAIL BECAUSE YOU CANNOT EVOLVE - schtick and it is nonsense dear Billiam. To be honest mate I could ditch FCP7 and pick up Pinnacle Studio and I will still succeed. Why? Because I can frame a shot, I am good with people and I can cut a story. I won't use Pinnacle Studio because currently FCP7 is much better. And I will move to PP CS6 soon enough. I doubt I will ever use FC10 because everything I have read about it suggests to me what you may gain in some areas is completely outweighed by what you lose in others. Plus it doesn't have tracks.

And guess what, dear Billiam, my business will not suffer a jot because of my choice, laid out above. So you don't even need to help me. Something which, I may add, pleases me no end.

If you STOPPED with your nonsense about FC10 HATERS BEING UNABLE TO EVOLVE AND GRASP THE SHIFTING PARADIGM OF THE INDUSTRY b*ll*cks, you may actually start feeling a little warmth towards your admittedly somewhat blinkered fundamentalist view of FC10. people may actually go, 'well that bill fella he has found a use for it so maybe it isn't as shite as we think. But no mate, you have no sense of anything other than your own navel fluff, and that is why you are so irritating to so many.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 2, 2012 at 12:22:26 pm

How much less traffic would there be on here if Bill decided that he'd was not going to post anymore?

Steve Connor
"FCPX Professional"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Jules bowman
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 2, 2012 at 12:24:14 pm

Probably the same. But the blood pressure levels of those posting and reading would be reduced and we'd run less risk of causing damage to our eyes through constant rolling of them.


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 2, 2012 at 12:45:43 pm

[Jules bowman] "Probably the same. But the blood pressure levels of those posting and reading would be reduced and we'd run less risk of causing damage to our eyes through constant rolling of them.
"



If I was younger I would have done the LOL thing after that comment, but I'm not so I won't.



....oh, what the hell LOL :)

Steve Connor
"FCPX Professional"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Neil Hurwitz
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 2, 2012 at 12:44:20 pm

You Said
Are you suggesting that my business is under threat because 'millions of new people' [*notation please, sounds like an airy sweeping statement based upon your perceptions rather than fact] are starting to use FC10? Because that is how that comment came across. I may be wrong, but it sounds to me like you are privy to the shifting of the dynamic of professional filmmaking and I am not and because I insist on wanting tracks on my timeline and a project to be called a project some whippersnapper with a macbook pro and FC10 is going to steal away my clients.

Last time I checked, most major film and TV was done in post houses which will continue, for a rather long tired time dear Billiam,


You are wrong here, The whole industry is under threat from just what you say it isn't. As far as I can tell the number of true
multi-service "Post Houses" is way down. I am willing to bet that
the average salary of the editing community has actually declined
in the past 20 years ( in actual dollars forgetting about inflation). I used to pay my excellent
CMX/Grass 200/Chyron/ADO/Abekas editors 85,000 a year in 1995
Plus Overtime, Plus Benifits, I'd like to know just how many
editors out there are making this type of money now.
I call your attention to any newspaper classified section circa 1980
(remember those) The hottest job was a "Wang Word Processor Operator"
Jump ahead to now and a 12 year old can't get out of grade school
without knowing "Word"
As far as your comment on "Most Major Film and TV" your are perhaps
correct but please note that the number of both of these is on the decline. Scripted Drama on TV is being rapidly replaced by much cheaper Reality/Contest shows. Every 200 Million Blockbuster movie
equals 8 or 9 lesser films.


Return to posts index

Jules bowman
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 2, 2012 at 1:20:14 pm

Ok, I read your post twice.

Firstly you say i'm wrong at the top (the headline) then admit i may be right at the bottom (where people have usually stopped reading).

Secondly although it is sad that people are earning less in these facilities and that these facilities may even be reducing in numbers, I believe that most major film and TV is done in the kind of post houses I was talking about, will continue to be done in said post houses and they will continue to use Avid as a main EDL etc.,... which does kind of make my initial point seem right.

So am I wrong? Or am I right but you have an addendum to add?


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 4, 2012 at 7:59:00 am

[Jules bowman] "So, dear Billiam, what exactly is this shifting of the editing industry then? SNIP
a high octane capitalist environment that demands delivery yesterday and results right now': but actually factual proof that my "high end" skill set is not enough for me to continue to make the perfectly acceptable living I have been doing so for 10 years."


Tried to resist but I can't.

As to "Billiam" congratulations, you've joined the hallowed company of Lisa, the annoying 9 year old I went to grade school with. Please note that since I, myself, am no longer nine, I will refrain from taking the bait and referring to you henceforth as Julie-poolie-woolie - though God knows it's tempting.

Now to the fun.

I never claim I have a "high end skill set" tho I suppose some of my larger clients might argue otherwise. The problem is that I learned young that if *I* am every the one saying *I* have high end skills - instead of letting others say that about me - I'm all too often deeply misguided.

That's worth considering Mr. bowman. (by the way, is that lower case bowman an homage to Mr. cummings? Or just sloppiness? Oh, never mind. I screw up my typing a lot. I just seldom let it slide in every single post I make - but thats a digression, let's keep on point.

[Jules bowman] "Or is this shift something else Bill? What is it. Pray tell. Enlighten. Illuminate (*Factually please. Thanks in advance) "

Sure, happy to play.

In a nutshell, the increasing density of constantly available information we all have to contend with and the elevation of SEARCH as the primary driver of work efficiency. That's the change that X is built to address in my thinking.
I suspect you're stuck in thinking that "editing" is the important game here. But I think less and less so. The primary game in the world today that drives financial success is migrating toward information access. Period. Everything in business may well be subtly transforming into a functional subset of that.

IMO It's increasingly a waste of time to edit a "video" and then cut if off from the distribution and management links that enable people to find and use it as they like.

You want facts? Here's one. Google ascended because they understood that in a persistently connected world, SEARCH is the central core that brings order to chaos. Why did Apple dump Legacy? My suspicion is in large part because it was (extremely charitably speaking) a marginal digital asset management system at best and couldn't be transformed into much more than that. OTOH, X is entirely built around metadata and databasing.

You see X as an "editor." Because that's where your thinking appears to start and stop. I see it as a new tool that makes the editing functions an integrated part of creating and managing and tagging and searching and sorting and managing digital information that just HAPPENS to be video, audio and still content.

That's enough for now. More might make you feel I was being "condescending" somehow - and your risible tendencies takes too much of the fun out of any serious discussion with you, IMO.

[Jules bowman] "But no mate, you have no sense of anything other than your own navel fluff, and that is why you are so irritating to so many."

I must step back and try to get my poor brain around this cleaver endgame of yours, sir. You post "you may actually start feeling a little warmth" - then you refer to me with the presumptive intimacy "fella" and proceed to make reference to my navel. This sequence (which I pray is totally inadvertent) has me reeling. Nobody outside of my wife and my dog ever is in a position to have my navel be a part of their consciousness let alone spends any time at all speculating on what possibly might reside there.

This has me feeling ever so slightly "creeped out" - so I must withdraw from the field of textual battle to re-group.

Later dude.

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


Return to posts index


Jules bowman
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 4, 2012 at 8:34:23 am

Dear lord.

I get it now. Information access not story telling. Using SEARCH functions not narrative telling aptitude. Of course, all end users want to see beautifully ordered databases and don't care about the edit.

Sorry, you've intellectualised this to a point where it is utter pish mate. Organising data can aid and benefit in an edit. But it is utterly illogical to think that it is more important than the edit. Than the process of juxtaposing footage into a coherent and engaging video.

Dude, mess around with your metadata all you want. Organise until the cows come home. Unless you can cut something of value to the end user who gives a shit? Apart from you, of course.

I can't believe your acolyte like obsession with FC10 is simply based on your penchant for lists. OCD much :)?

Ok, we're done talking now. As in I will avoid you because after that last reply i think you're spouting intellectualised nonsense and I now know you have absolutely nothing of value to ever add to my life. It's like talking to a scientologist.

Oh, and Navel fluff = self absorbtion. That you took it to a homoerotic place and it 'creeped you out'... well, to be honest mate that doesn't surprise me because i think you're a bit of a nob... though that will probably send you into convulsions of closeted delight/confusion.

Bye Billiam.

Love and kisses Julie poolie woolie

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx




oh, swansong:

"I suspect you're stuck in thinking that "editing" is the important game here. But I think less and less so. "

lmao. sorry. LMAO.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 4, 2012 at 9:01:24 am

[Jules bowman] "Ok, we're done talking now. As in I will avoid you because after that last reply i think you're spouting intellectualised nonsense and I now know you have absolutely nothing of value to ever add to my life. It's like talking to a scientologist. "

Do you honestly think you're going to be able to resist responding to Bill in the future?

Steve Connor
"FCPX Professional"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index


Jules bowman
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 4, 2012 at 9:04:09 am

Yes :)

Honestly, I already feel like i've added 2 years and 3 months onto my life by simply making that decision. It's a beautiful thing.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 4, 2012 at 2:35:53 pm

[Jules bowman] "Yes :)

Honestly, I already feel like i've added 2 years and 3 months onto my life by simply making that decision. It's a beautiful thing.
"


I think that I need to learn how.


Return to posts index

Frank Gothmann
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on Apr 30, 2012 at 10:27:18 pm

Always the same bull**** about the old, analogue (?) workflows "less relevant to modern editing" that got retired in favour of something new and amazing.
You really learned your Apple mantras well.

Jobs had lots of great ideas but he also had a ton of extremely stupid ones, often living within his own reality distortion field. I'll never forget his speech at All -Things Digital about people loving itunes for Windows so very much - probably one of the buggiest and most hated apps on the Win side ever.
X smells like jobs bigtime. It has all the good things of him and Apple as well as the worst. Great ideas with big potential that never gets fully developed because it all is suffocated in oversimplification and the need to be different for the sake of being different. That plus often very sloppy software engineering, as if someone had lost interest halfway through.

And by the way: Core Video and Quicktime are totally different things. Core Video is NOT a replacement for Quicktime and never will be.

------
"You also agree that you will not use these products for... the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons."
iTunes End User Licence Agreement


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on Apr 30, 2012 at 10:58:04 pm

[Frank Gothmann] "Great ideas with big potential that never gets fully developed because it all is suffocated in oversimplification and the need to be different for the sake of being different. That plus often very sloppy software engineering, as if someone had lost interest halfway through."

It's clear you're a software engineer. I'm not. So I'll defer to you or others who've examined the code inside X and would know if it's as "sloppy" as you're publicly stating.


[Frank Gothmann] "And by the way: Core Video and Quicktime are totally different things. Core Video is NOT a replacement for Quicktime and never will be.
"


Fine. Core Video, and Core Audio, et all, are subsets of AV Foundation, - which essentially replaced Quicktime as the underlying video playback technology in the transition from Legacy to X.
I would have imagined that you understood that my fundamental point was the the many issues (like transition luminance value shifts) that were problems left over from Quicktime are no longer an issue in X because they jettisoned the old QT code that was causing them.

That OK to say?

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


Return to posts index

Frank Gothmann
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on Apr 30, 2012 at 11:26:49 pm

[Bill Davis] "It's clear you're a software engineer. I'm not. So I'll defer to you or others who've examined the code inside X and would know if it's as "sloppy" as you're publicly stating. "

I don't have to be a software engineer to see bugs when I run into them on a daily basis. And that related to lots of software from Apple. That's only half the problem. The issue is that a lot of those bugs are there for years and years - unfixed.


[Bill Davis] "I would have imagined that you understood that my fundamental point was the the many issues (like transition luminance value shifts) that were problems left over from Quicktime are no longer an issue in X because they jettisoned the old QT code that was causing them."

QT is a mess and I hope for the best. It remains to be seen how well all that is fixed once other apps start interacting with AV foundation. Cause at the moment it's just a phantom in the shape of QT X and FCP X. Plus a lot of the issues in QT are related to the codecs themselves. Prores has tons of Gamma issues, in Windows not even QT Player can play it back without shifts. DnxHD or Cineform in QT wrapper has none of that. Again, not related to the architecture per se but specific coding and bugs that are simply left unfixed.

------
"You also agree that you will not use these products for... the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons."
iTunes End User Licence Agreement


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 1, 2012 at 1:14:46 am

[Frank Gothmann] "[Bill Davis] "It's clear you're a software engineer. I'm not. So I'll defer to you or others who've examined the code inside X and would know if it's as "sloppy" as you're publicly stating. "

I don't have to be a software engineer to see bugs when I run into them on a daily basis. And that related to lots of software from Apple. That's only half the problem. The issue is that a lot of those bugs are there for years and years - unfixed.
"


Oh. Then you're NOT a software engineer. And as such, what you're saying about the software engineering in X is simply unsupported opinion. Fine. Now I can assign the appropriate weight to your opinions on that particular topic.

Actually, I too use a lot of Apple software. I seldom find it to be "buggy." Perhaps I and the hundreds of millions of other people on the planet who keep rewarding Apple with their purchases are just unable to see the flaws that annoy you so.

I'm sure it's just all of us not being quite as "discerning" as you.

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


Return to posts index

Frank Gothmann
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 1, 2012 at 9:21:53 am

[Bill Davis] "Oh. Then you're NOT a software engineer. And as such, what you're saying about the software engineering in X is simply unsupported opinion. Fine. Now I can assign the appropriate weight to your opinions on that particular topic.

You do know that's a silly statement.

[Bill Davis] Actually, I too use a lot of Apple software. I seldom find it to be "buggy." Perhaps I and the hundreds of millions of other people on the planet who keep rewarding Apple with their purchases are just unable to see the flaws that annoy you so. "

See, Bill, unlike you, it seems I am capable to give Apple credit for stuff where credit is due, and critique where that is due. You simply think everything is top and golden.
I can give you lots of things I like about X and OSX, at the same time I can give you lots that is broken and braindead. Same for Windows, Avid, Adobe and tons of other apps.

An application corrupting projects under not precisely known circumstances is, presumably not only in my book, bad engineering and needs to be fixed. If you think it takes a software engineer to figure that out... well...
I can go on about bugs and issues, spinning beachballs, memory leaks, Soundtrack Pro, DVDSTP, Motion, Compressor & Qmaster, itunes, Quicktime, Lion Server, Samba but there is no point because you don't want to hear it. Look at some non-Apple centric forums and read up on the implementations of Lion Server, bring some beer, popcorn and have fun because you're in for a wild ride.

And I am not saying by any means that Apple are alone in this boat; there is tons of sloppy software out there. It's just that they aren't really any better and they, too, only cook with water.
Apple are just different with great marketing, twisting reality quite a bit and a huge number of people happy to come back for round 2 after having been burned. To me, that's an admirable persistance but not rational and I don't really understand it.

And about the "the hundreds of millions of other people on the planet who keep rewarding Apple with their purchases are just unable to see the flaws that annoy you so. "... c'mon, Bill, you cannot possible think this is a serious statement.

------
"You also agree that you will not use these products for... the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons."
iTunes End User Licence Agreement


Return to posts index

Greg Andonian
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on Apr 30, 2012 at 10:37:59 pm

Bill Davis I'm betting in 5 years we'll all look back and see that whatever the editing landscape looks like, it looks a hell of a lot more like X than it does like X's competitors.

Then why is Apple putting the source monitor back in?

______________________________________________
"THAT'S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."


Return to posts index

Don Scioli
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 1, 2012 at 12:10:24 am

I didn't want this to turn into an argument on the merits of X vs. 7. in leu of reading the book, here is what happened on page 119... you make the judgement.

When Apple was getting ready to roll out Final Cut Studio 2 they had just purchased the app COlor, which had a previous list price of 25k. Some of the Apple product managers wanted to charge a premium for Final Cut Studio with Color vs. Final Cut Studio without Color. Names such as Final Cut Studio Platinum or Final Cut Studio Extended Edition were bandied about and at the product meeting with Steve Jobs, a full assortment of package designs, each with it's own name, was clearly laid out on the table. The Platinum Edition had a nice shiny platinum stripe across the top. Each of the others had some feature to differentiate it from the standard edition. The product managers told Jobs this was being done to accommodate the addition of Color to the mix.

Jobs looked at the boxes, then at the team.
"Put the software in the box," he said
They looked at him.
"Put Color in the Final Cut Studio box. We sell one product. Period".
Silence from the group.
"What's next," Jobs said.


Return to posts index

Greg Andonian
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 1, 2012 at 12:31:35 am

"Some of the Apple product managers wanted to charge a premium for Final Cut Studio with Color vs. Final Cut Studio without Color. Names such as Final Cut Studio Platinum or Final Cut Studio Extended Edition were bandied about"

I wonder if this is how the "Final Cut Extreme" rumors got started...

______________________________________________
"THAT'S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 1, 2012 at 1:16:48 am

[Greg Andonian] ""Some of the Apple product managers wanted to charge a premium for Final Cut Studio with Color vs. Final Cut Studio without Color. Names such as Final Cut Studio Platinum or Final Cut Studio Extended Edition were bandied about"

I wonder if this is how the "Final Cut Extreme" rumors got started...
"


I don't think so. I personally never had one, but I remember a lot of talk back in 2006-7 about Apple reps having conversations with the majors about such a tool from folks I worked with.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 1, 2012 at 1:33:42 am

Here you go







Just a reminder to us all that the answer depends very much on where we choose to look from.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 1, 2012 at 1:37:03 am

Now that's what I call a 3D transition!


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 1, 2012 at 1:41:07 am

On the issue of Jobs choosing to bundle Color and not have a differentiated product there are two ways of seeing this. Firstly it made it simple that there was just one affordable version for all. Secondly for many the Studio bundle was complicated to drive and to round trip within.

So Jobs was both right and wrong. An alternative may have been a simplified edit package without Color and another product which was a finishing tool that had Color properly integrated and had better titling & compositing tools built in ala Smoke.

The two things that constantly come up with FCS3 is that for editors it was complicated and for finishing people like me that it was poorly integrated. So the irony is that choosing simplicity of packaging and pricing meant that a proper finishing tool which people would have paid extra for couldn't be developed and complications for editors who didn't need that amenity couldn't be simplified.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 1, 2012 at 4:58:52 am

[Michael Gissing] "The two things that constantly come up with FCS3 is that for editors it was complicated and for finishing people like me that it was poorly integrated. So the irony is that choosing simplicity of packaging and pricing meant that a proper finishing tool which people would have paid extra for couldn't be developed and complications for editors who didn't need that amenity couldn't be simplified."

I dunno. It's not like just the inclusion of Color in the box made FCP, or any of the other apps more complicated to use. And while the round trip between FCP and Color was certainly fragile (especially Color 1.0.x) it was obviously good enough to help create a 'desktop-colorist' movement that led to Resolve and pretty nifty Baselight plugin being offered at price mere mortals could afford.

I think Jobs decision to keep the packages together stays in line w/the simplicity of having everything in one box. The Final Cut Suite wasn't always a suite so I'm not surprised Jobs wanted to keep the product line streamlined. Of course now FCPX, Motion and Compressor are all separate apps so WTF do I know...

Even if he did decided to offer Color as a separate item I doubt any more effort would've been put into it. Given Apple's history w/Shake, not much being done with Final Cut Server, DVD SP remaining at version 4 since '05 and Color only going from 1.0 to 1.5 during its Apple lifespan they've shown time and time again that they'll make what the want to make and the customer can take it or leave it.


-Andrew

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 1, 2012 at 5:26:12 am

I have had so many editors say - 'oh that's how Color works' - when I grade for them. For many it was software that they didn't need and wondered why they were paying for it, even though I used to argue that it was just a freebie that some of us found useful.

But by having one package that had to meet a simple cost point model it meant Apple were never going to spend time improving integration. If they had embraced a more expensive version and used the price difference to develop the integration properly it would have meant they could have dropped Color from a more basic edit package and perhaps made a cheaper version a la FCPX.

So now I am looking a Smoke being at the sort of price with integration that many of us were hoping for when the FCP Extreme rumours were about. And FCPX at the editors price. So my reasoning is that Steve Jobs obsession with simplicity actually made things complicated. Every time I have to eject a DVD Rom from my MacPro I curse Jobs and his obsession.

Shake shows the same mentality and the lack of commitment to certain areas of the industry. Such simplicity may be good for marketing but it isn't in the interest of users who actually need something sophisticated and inherently more complex than Apple's bread & butter consumers.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 1, 2012 at 4:41:10 pm

[Michael Gissing] "But by having one package that had to meet a simple cost point model it meant Apple were never going to spend time improving integration. If they had embraced a more expensive version and used the price difference to develop the integration properly it would have meant they could have dropped Color from a more basic edit package and perhaps made a cheaper version a la FCPX."

I think this is where we differ. Even if Apple had a separate package for Color I don't think the end result would've been any different than what we got. Apple could've done a number of things but they didn't and I think think having Color as part of the suite tied anyone's hands. I won't beat the dead horse named Shake anymore, but Final Cut Server was kept separate and got so little love that almost everyone I talked to thought it was an actual server. I had to explain to them that it was an asset management tool... and then what an asset management tool was good for.

Apple's attention was elsewhere (iOS/iDevices & FCPX) which is why even the the upgrade from the FCP6 suite to the FCP7 suite was so lackluster, IMO. Looking back I think Color (which made complete sense to me after I watched Walter Biscardi's training DVD) was a hail mary pass to keep the FCP Suite interesting as Apple let it die on the vine.


-Andrew

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index

Alex Hawkins
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 1, 2012 at 1:15:05 am

Bill can you please stop insulting and patronising those of us who are happy with editing conventions that have been around for at least the past 30 years.

[Bill Davis] "Apple tossed out a lot of very tired thinking that benefited only those with workflows designed around workflows less and less relevant to modern editing"

[Bill Davis] "I know there are still people who MUST work like they've always worked. And bless them there are plenty of great approaches for those how want to do that. Premier and AVID to name two."

[Bill Davis] "That you're stuck a year later seeing only what the death of Legacy took away - and not understanding anything much about what Apples decision might represent for all editors in the rapidly approaching future - is a sign that you may be stuck in a rut of your own design."

These sort of statements, besides not being uncommon in your plethora of punitive pejorative posts, make it sound like we who are content to bypass Final Cut X have had some sort of frontal lobotomy and need to be pitied because we just cannot see the future of editing.

You can break out any analogy you like, but a lot, a lot, of really smart people think that X just doesn't cut it as a professional editing tool. Now these people are not "naysayers" or whiny neophytes or stuck-in-the-mud-luddites, they are highly skilled, perceptive, forward thinking people who edit for a living.

You love it, that's great. But I don't keep reading posts from other people intimating that you, and whoever else is using X, are: Apple fanboys; don't really know what editing's all about; aren't really professionals and just love new toys.

However I do keep reading posts from you suggesting, or at least intimating, what I've said above.

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

Indeed!

Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 1, 2012 at 5:24:57 am

[Alex Hawkins] "Bill can you please stop insulting and patronising those of us who are happy with editing conventions that have been around for at least the past 30 years. "

I'm sorry you see this as patronizing. It's honestly not my intention to be so. It IS my intention to articulate my difference of opinion on why X has been designed the way it is. And why that re-design can work really, really well for editors with practices like mine.

There are plenty of editors here who represent your view. And just a couple who represent my view. So why are you so concerned at a voice like mine being represented? If I'm correct and some of the thinking behind X is forward thinking and useful - then people here can perhaps consider the alternative positions I propose? What's the problem with that? Traditional tools are well represented in editing. Why are you guys so bristly when someone wants to argue for the value of a different approach?

I get that editing as an industry is under a lot of stress and there are big changes afoot. But don't that argue for listening MORE closely to alternatives, even if they are currently inadequate to the way you work today?

I actually write pretty regularly here in acceptance of other peoples work flows. Noting over and over that I have no issue with those who use Avid, Adobe, and Vegas in pursuit of perfectly reasonable editing requirements that make those a better choice than X for many situations.


[Alex Hawkins]
You love it, that's great. But I don't keep reading posts from other people intimating that you, and whoever else is using X, are: Apple fanboys; don't really know what editing's all about; aren't really professionals and just love new toys.
"


Uh, then perhaps you aren't reading the same threads I am. The term "fanboy" has been applied to FCP-proponents here in about the same percentage that the term "metalhead' has been applied to fans of the band Judas Priest.

[Alex Hawkins]
However I do keep reading posts from you suggesting, or at least intimating, what I've said above."


Okay. Point taken. I"ve probably been too vociferous lately.

I clearly don't have the writing chops to articulate my points without causing reactive pain in those who hold similar views to yours.

Sorry about that. My failure. I don't know how to suppress my ire about what some here write that seems dismissive of X as a tool and an entire approach to editing without resorting to the same (or worse" dismissiveness in response.

Mea Culpa.

But I honestly don't naturally try to "trash" others. If you go back and look at where I get bristly - I suspect you'll nearly always find it to be in response to someone who's written something I feel is wildly off base about either the software's operation, design, philosophy or capabilities.

I know a good deal about it's operation. Not more than others here - and certainly not with any definitive understanding. But I do use it consistently for paid work for pretty well known national level clients - and it works for me. So when people say it's crap, I get a bit riled. I'll try to keep and eye on that.

I'm happy to entertain any debate about X's actual approaches and functions. I just don't really cotton too the trashing and the wholesale misrepresentation of what it does or how it works.

Simple as that.

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


Return to posts index

Alex Hawkins
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 1, 2012 at 5:50:48 am

[Bill Davis] "There are plenty of editors here who represent your view. And just a couple who represent my view. So why are you so concerned at a voice like mine being represented?"

Do you really think you're that outnumbered? I'd place it at almost a 50/50 split.

[Bill Davis] "I get that editing as an industry is under a lot of stress and there are big changes afoot. But don't that argue for listening MORE closely to alternatives, even if they are currently inadequate to the way you work today?"

Cool. Just play the ball and not the man.

[Bill Davis] "Uh, then perhaps you aren't reading the same threads I am. The term "fanboy" has been applied to FCP-proponents here in about the same percentage that the term "metalhead' has been applied to fans of the band Judas Priest"

Mmmm just as long as I am not referred to one because I listen to Jethro Tull.

[Bill Davis] "I'm sorry you see this as patronizing. It's honestly not my intention to be so. It IS my intention to articulate my difference of opinion on why X has been designed the way it is. And why that re-design can work really, really well for editors with practices like mine"

[Bill Davis] "Okay. Point taken. I"ve probably been too vociferous lately.

I clearly don't have the writing chops to articulate my points without causing reactive pain in those who hold similar views to yours.

Sorry about that. My failure. I don't know how to suppress my ire about what some here write that seems dismissive of X as a tool and an entire approach to editing without resorting to the same (or worse" dismissiveness in response.

Mea Culpa.

But I honestly don't naturally try to "trash" others. If you go back and look at where I get bristly - I suspect you'll nearly always find it to be in response to someone who's written something I feel is wildly off base about either the software's operation, design, philosophy or capabilities"


Fair do's to you. No probs at all.

Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 2, 2012 at 4:39:28 am

[Alex Hawkins] "Do you really think you're that outnumbered? I'd place it at almost a 50/50 split.
"


You must be new in these parts! For the longest time it was no more than 90-10. Yes, today it's swinging more towards an even split. If they trend continues - that's going to perhaps be a bit of a problem for those who just tossed this particular baby out early and never learned the value of the new approach.

My personal opinion is that X was always a LOT harder for people to understand than they imagined when they first looked at it. Remember the "iMovie Pro" meme? Here we are nearly a year later and exceptionally talented editors with fine editing brains and tons of real world expertise are still not comprehending some of the fundamental changes Apple made in this tool.

I get that this is largely because they can't "live" in it since it doesn't fit their workflow - but it still indicates that what's "under the hood" of X is not in any way, shape or form trivial as to an alternate approach to the craft of editing.

The ones who appreciate it best appear to be the ones who use it most. So what does that mean?

Are we fools who confront a bad program but are too self-conscious to admit we've made a terrible choice and are just maintaining "appearances" and blowing smoke up our client's pant legs so they never find out we can't actually do efficient pro work with this tool? Or have we just taken the time to learn the complexities and nuances of the tools - and after doing that - find that it actually works for us in ways that other software has not?

Because if any other thing is true - wouldn't we have simply jettisoned it and gone back to the "money" software we used to use - if out of self-preservation if nothing else?


[Alex Hawkins] "Cool. Just play the ball and not the man.
"


Works for football (soccer) but fails massively for basketball - where the coach almost universally sends the player in off the bench with an instruction like "you've got Johnson".

That's my fundamental point in all of this. We're NOT always playing the same game. So adjustments MUST be made.

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


Return to posts index

Alex Hawkins
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 2, 2012 at 11:54:14 pm

[Bill Davis] "You must be new in these parts!"

Been here for over a decade.

[Bill Davis] "that's going to perhaps be a bit of a problem for those who just tossed this particular baby out early and never learned the value of the new approach"

See. There you go again.

[Bill Davis] "that's going to perhaps be a bit of a problem"

Why? How?

[Bill Davis] "Here we are nearly a year later and exceptionally talented editors with fine editing brains and tons of real world expertise are still not comprehending some of the fundamental changes Apple made in this tool."

So therefore where do you think the fault may lie . . . ?

[Bill Davis] "Are we fools who confront a bad program but are too self-conscious to admit we've made a terrible choice and are just maintaining "appearances" and blowing smoke up our client's pant legs so they never find out we can't actually do efficient pro work with this tool? Or have we just taken the time to learn the complexities and nuances of the tools - and after doing that - find that it actually works for us in ways that other software has not?

Because if any other thing is true - wouldn't we have simply jettisoned it and gone back to the "money" software we used to use - if out of self-preservation if nothing else?"


See again, why do you always turn it around to the personal? This time in a pseudo self deprecating manner at first then in a more roundabout, subtle way, having a dig at others who haven't "taken the time to learn the complexities and nuances of the tools".

No one is saying you're a fool for using it or you're blowing smoke up your client's pant legs. So why do YOU say it? I just don't get that. You seem to be conducting an argument that no one else is having.

[Bill Davis] "Works for football (soccer) but fails massively for basketball - where the coach almost universally sends the player in off the bench with an instruction like "you've got Johnson".

That's my fundamental point in all of this. We're NOT always playing the same game. So adjustments MUST be made."


Sorry to be dumb but . . .

. . . HUH!!??

Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia


Return to posts index

Kevin Patrick
Re: Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
on May 1, 2012 at 4:13:50 pm

[Don Scioli] "I sure hope Apple can continue to "think different" without him"

I think this is (perhaps rather obviously) a huge challenge for the people at Apple. Do they ask themselves, "What would Steve do?" Do they start doing things they've wanted to do, but never did or could do under Steve? How will the loss of Steve change Apple?

One interesting change I noticed was Apple's decision to start paying a dividend to share holders. If I have my dates correct, Apple started paying a stock dividend in 1987, right after Jobs was forced out. They stopped in 1995, right before Jobs came back in 1996. Now, they've started up again in 2012.

http://investor.apple.com/dividends.cfm

Perhaps there's no correlation.

Although several of Apple's top executives hold a great deal of Apple stock, which vests over a 10 year period. Paying dividends usually results in more interested buyers, which usually drives the stock price up. Having executive compensation based on stock price is good for shareholders. But it might not be good for the future of the company, it's products, it's people and it's consumers.

Either way, we will find out.


Return to posts index

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