FORUMS: list search recent posts

Apple Patents

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>

Michael Gissing
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 20, 2012 at 8:58:43 am

Patenting collaborative workflows? Sounds like the antithesis of collaboration to patent it. A sure way to make third parties shun you I would have thought.

More Apple control freak stuff more likely


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 20, 2012 at 1:50:54 pm

[Michael Gissing] "Patenting collaborative workflows? Sounds like the antithesis of collaboration to patent it. A sure way to make third parties shun you I would have thought. "

Did you read it? It isn't a patent on collaborative workflows. It is a patent for an NLE-like computer program that can have multiple instances of the UI acting upon a single project at the same time. It has nothing to do with the amorphous concept of interchanging work between multiple tools as is done with XML, OMF, EDL, etc.

[Michael Gissing] "More Apple control freak stuff more likely"

Yes. Software patents as a concept are bogus. Apple aggressively exploits them for better or worse. I say they stifle innovation in their current implementation.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 20, 2012 at 2:05:11 pm

[Andrew Richards] " It is a patent for an NLE-like computer program that can have multiple instances of the UI acting upon a single project at the same time"

An interest aspect of this is that Walter Murch has been advocating for an interactive, collaborative timeline for many years. His concept is that several editors (or editors + sound + VFX) could be simultaneously working on the exact same timeline at once. Each person would have a section "cordoned off" as they were working on it, so that two people wouldn't be able to alter the same section of the timeline at once. Release the "block" and everyone's timeline is updated. He has certainly verbalized this concept since before this patent date. In some ways, Lightworks does that now.

[Andrew Richards] "Software patents as a concept are bogus. Apple aggressively exploits them for better or worse. "

I completely agree. Many software patents are awarded for processes, not products, code, etc. The patent is for the general way something is done, not for a specific and quantifiable way of doing it. In many cases these are relatively intuitive workflows that anyone could figure out and generally do. Yet often companies are awarded patents on these simply by having a clever write-up and paying lawyers to file. The patent office doesn't really understand and doesn't know enough to challenge them.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 20, 2012 at 2:12:23 pm

Interesting, too, in reading this, is that the general description seems to overlap what is already done by Avid, Quantel, A-Frame, Xprove and others. I'm sure Avid and Quantel would have patents on their work, so as usual, it sounds like multiple patents have been issues for essentially the same processes. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but this is certainly not a patent for a specific piece of software.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 20, 2012 at 2:39:54 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but this is certainly not a patent for a specific piece of software."

It wouldn't be a proper software patent if it weren't tragically broad and overreaching.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 20, 2012 at 2:54:41 pm

Wait until the soccer mom skateboarding youtubers get a hold of this!

They will be able to collabo-chat to their editor back in the edit trailer after landing a 720 off the vert pipe.

Pretty radical.

In all seriousness, I'm all for it as long as it is useful. Personally, in our tiny little biz, sharing is becoming more and more crucial. It allows for generalization as well as specialization.

The FCPX timeline has been the most controversial topic of FCP X. I and others like me, have always felt that a bigger picture is in store and what we are seeing now is just a shell, a beginning.

Eventually, it will make greater sense and, I believe, the X timeline metaphor might begin to crystallize. I can already see a bit of it now as X is certainly primed for it if you can allow your imagination to wonder a little bit.

Of course, I think this patent vision will take a long time to put in to practice and "get right", and I'm certain it won't look like anything that I would expect, but I sure am listening and watching.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Kevin Patrick
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 20, 2012 at 6:28:50 pm

[Andrew Richards] " Software patents as a concept are bogus."

Richard,

That's kind of a broad statement, so I won't try to read too much into it.

If you come up with an idea for a better mouse trap, shouldn't you be able to protect your idea? Protect it from others who might simply copy it and profit from your idea? Protect your idea from large corporations who might copy it and also have enough money and lawyers to make it difficult for you stop them?

I thought that was one of the ideas behind patents. Protecting a person's (corporations are apparently people too)idea. That seems like a good idea. At least from the perspective of person with the idea. The end consumer may not have the same perspective. Even though having the ability to patent and idea might be good for the consumer.

But you don't seem to have an issue with patents in general. Specifically software patents? Why would a software idea be different from a non-software idea? Or did I read too much into your comment? (if I did, sorry) I'm just interested.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 20, 2012 at 6:34:38 pm

[Kevin Patrick] "But you don't seem to have an issue with patents in general. Specifically software patents? Why would a software idea be different from a non-software idea? Or did I read too much into your comment? (if I did, sorry) I'm just interested."

Not all industries face the same issues around innovation, so the one-size-fits-all patent system may be more appropriate for some than for others.

Richard Posner (a judge who recently threw out a smartphone patent case between Apple and Motorola) has written a fascinating editorial:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/why-there-are-too-many-...

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


Kevin Patrick
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 20, 2012 at 6:51:42 pm

I think I can understand the concern over what a patent is granted for. Or being concerned over granting a patent that is too broad.

I'm not sure I agree with the argument that patents should be granted to ideas that are costly to produce (or come up with) as opposed to an idea that does not have a high cost to produce. Such as the pharmaceutical industry.

Perhaps there are too many patents. I'm not sure how you quantify this, or where you draw the line.

Perhaps some patents are too broad. I can see where that can be a problem.

But I think if you have a unique idea, one which you can specifically define, you should be able to patent it. Regardless of whether the idea is hardware or software related. Regardless of how hard it was to come up with the idea. How could you get a small start up business funded and up and running if you're brilliant, unique idea can simply be copied by anyone else?

Just my thoughts. Not necessarily the correct ones.


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 20, 2012 at 6:59:18 pm

[Kevin Patrick] "Richard, "

Kevin, as a fellow first-name-as-surname sufferer, I expected better...

j/k, happens all the time.

[Kevin Patrick] "But you don't seem to have an issue with patents in general. Specifically software patents? Why would a software idea be different from a non-software idea? Or did I read too much into your comment? (if I did, sorry) I'm just interested."

There is a great debate raging all around the Web regarding the conceptual validity of software patents and to a lesser extent business method patents as opposed to traditional "manufactured thing" patents. Your reaction citing the better mousetrap is an example of the type of patent people typically think of when they think of patents. However, software patents are very different, often to the point of being ridiculous. The standards of being patentable are supposed to be novelty, utility, and non-obviousness. Software patents often fail at least two of those tests even to the eyes of a layperson.

Kirby Ferguson says it very eloquently in part 4 of his excellent Everything Is a Remix series:






Basically nearly all software is by its nature interrelated and software patents harm the process of innovation and tilt the field in favor of big companies or patent trolls that only use them as weapons. Hence my link to Judge Posner's opinion after dismissing one of Apple's patent suits.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Kevin Patrick
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 23, 2012 at 1:20:33 pm

[Andrew Richards] "I expected better..."

Apparently, I not only referred to you by your last name, but I couldn't get your last name correct either. Sorry.

Andrew,

Both your post (links) were very interesting. I can understand the concern over issuing patents that are too broad in scope. Perhaps software patents are more difficult to define than hardware patents. But I'm not sure I would go so far as to say there shouldn't be software patents.

If a software engineer comes up with a great (unique) idea, they should be able to patent their idea. So they can protect their idea and perhaps launch a start up company based on their idea.

Are there too many patents? I don't know how to answer that question. Do people or companies benefit from patents? I think so.

Do consumers benefit from patents. I think that's a harder question to answer. I think consumers benefit from competition. Having many choices. If only one company sells the iPhone, only the company benefits. The consumers are stuck having to pay whatever cost that company chooses.

If one company creates a better software mouse trap, do consumers benefit if all companies have the right to build that mouse trap? Or would consumers benefit if the other companies have to figure out how to build an even better mouse trap? Which process produces more competition? Which process produces more innovation?

I don't think I know the correct answers. But I think people should have the ability to protect their ideas, at least for some brief period of time.

Kevin


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 23, 2012 at 1:36:50 pm

[Kevin Patrick] "Are there too many patents? I don't know how to answer that question. Do people or companies benefit from patents? I think so."

I think you have to go back to the original intent of copyright and patent law in general. It was intended to protect the original creator of intellectual property for a specific length of time. This was to give them breathing room to develop and profit from the idea or product. However, the second part of that was that they should also have a limited term, after which the IP became public domain. This was intended to encourage innovation by others building upon the foundation of the original copyrighted or patented item. This original legal intent would seem to benefit both the producer and consumer of the product or idea. I think that we've gotten away from those principles.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Kevin Patrick
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 23, 2012 at 3:33:34 pm

I agree with your suggested intent of patents.

I agree that there should be a limited term for patents and that at some point they should expire. I thought that's the way patents were working. Isn't the limit something like 17 years? Which is probably a very long time for some industries, but might be justifiable for others.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 23, 2012 at 3:48:36 pm

[Kevin Patrick] " Isn't the limit something like 17 years? "

I don't know what the current limit is, but frequently companies get extensions, mainly as a way of protecting turf.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Andrew Richards
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 23, 2012 at 5:23:53 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I don't know what the current limit is, but frequently companies get extensions, mainly as a way of protecting turf."

You can calculate the current time limit on copyright by taking the age of MIckey Mouse and adding roughly 15-25 years. Such is the power of Disney's lobbying efforts. I'm not sure if there is a similar rule of thumb for calculating how far afield from the Framer's original intent patent expirations will stray.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Kevin Patrick
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 24, 2012 at 5:10:33 pm

Aren't you (we) mixing copyright with patent?

I can understand Disney wanting to keep control of what they created, Mickey. Copyright or trademark? But not a patent.


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 24, 2012 at 5:52:33 pm

[Kevin Patrick] "Aren't you (we) mixing copyright with patent? "

Yes, but I said as much- that the term on copyright is Mickey + N and that I'm not aware of a similar axiom for patents.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 24, 2012 at 6:17:23 pm

[Kevin Patrick] "Aren't you (we) mixing copyright with patent? "

I believe both copyrights and patents have an expiration date.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 24, 2012 at 6:21:58 pm

Expiration terms:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2700_2701.htm

http://inventors.about.com/od/copyrights/a/expiration.htm

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 21, 2012 at 12:10:39 am

Yes Andrew I read the article and I understand the concept. However I stand by my original statement that patents stifle real collaboration. For nearly 15 years I have had exactly this sort of collaborative workflow with DAWs like dSP and now Fairlight. dSP did it best by allowing ownership of tracks within a project. I had three studios networked 14 years ago to a shared RAID and this sort of collaboration was not only possible but was a common occurrence.


However Apple has a history of punitive legal action to protect such bogus patents. So if I was a third party software developer or even a rival NLE manufacturer, I would be pretty annoyed that I wouldn't be able to access a wider collaborative process without paying royalties or even emulate similar functionality.

It also strikes me as problematic to a third party plugin developer to be able to handle such workflows. I already have issues with plugins and fonts when projects are moved from one FCP system to mine. But the more an NLE relies on third party developers then the harder it will be to create stability. In the long run inter software collaboration is important so that external interchange formats like XML & OMF become less necessary. Apple are clearly signalling that collaboration is going to be within their eco system and anyone trying to emulate or collaborate across other NLE & post systems will be discouraged by having to comply and pay royalties to Apple.

It would be nice if a concept like dynamic linking between Adobe software could be applied to someone using AE generated graphics elements in a FCPX edit with audio being done on a Fairlight or ProTools. This patent discourages this sort of thinking.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 21, 2012 at 1:51:41 am

I think I need to say that I'm against stifling creativity through bogus patents. I would hope that whatever this patent turns out to be that it legally blocks other companies from attempting "collaboration" in similar ways. I am not smart enough to know how far is too far and what software patents really do (or don't do).

[Michael Gissing] "It also strikes me as problematic to a third party plugin developer to be able to handle such workflows. I already have issues with plugins and fonts when projects are moved from one FCP system to mine. But the more an NLE relies on third party developers then the harder it will be to create stability. In the long run inter software collaboration is important so that external interchange formats like XML & OMF become less necessary. Apple are clearly signalling that collaboration is going to be within their eco system and anyone trying to emulate or collaborate across other NLE & post systems will be discouraged by having to comply and pay royalties to Apple."

I'm not sure about what relying on third party and stability have anything to do with each other.

People herald FCP Legend for its third party capabilities.

Adobe after effects major strength is sheer amount of plug in and bolt ons that take advantage of Ae's core strengths.

Third party development helps to strengthen the core app in the long run.

XML v5 is where it is today through developer collaboration with Apple.

This patent doesn't seem like it will stifle third party development, but I'm not a lawyer either.


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 21, 2012 at 3:11:14 pm

[Michael Gissing] "I stand by my original statement that patents stifle real collaboration."

I've been pretty outspoken in this thread against software patents, so on that principle we seem to agree.

[Michael Gissing] "It also strikes me as problematic to a third party plugin developer to be able to handle such workflows. I already have issues with plugins and fonts when projects are moved from one FCP system to mine. But the more an NLE relies on third party developers then the harder it will be to create stability. In the long run inter software collaboration is important so that external interchange formats like XML & OMF become less necessary."

The only way for interchange formats like XML or OMF to be made obsolete would be for some kind of open common spec for project files across vendors, and I'm pretty comfortable predicting that will never happen. It isn't a matter of technical capability, it is a matter of practicality and durability of the dev work. Interchange formats, especially open plain text like XML, are more portable and are a more practical meet-in-the-middle approach to integrating disparate tools.

[Michael Gissing] "Apple are clearly signalling that collaboration is going to be within their eco system and anyone trying to emulate or collaborate across other NLE & post systems will be discouraged by having to comply and pay royalties to Apple."

I think you're missing a key distinction in this patent, which is that this is a method for more than one user to interact with a project simultaneously. It isn't going to stop anyone from building collaboration features like we've had for over a decade with interchange formats for sharing work across tools, albeit asynchronously (which for all we know is already patented by someone else anyway). Apple has long supported asynchronous interchange via XML, which I would argue is the most open and accessible format for a third party to embrace. It is no less a sin for Pro Tools to not import FCPXML than it is for FCPX to not export OMF.

Patent or no patent, there isn't a way for a third party to implement live collaborative editing within FCP. There would need to be an API and there isn't, so your point is moot. The same is true for any other NLE save for perhaps Lightworks by virtue of being open source. But even being open source doesn't guarantee that live multi-user collaboration is doable. You need to have your project data stored in a way that multiple users can simultaneously interact with it without stomping on each other. A flat project file simply won't permit that, you'd need the data in a DBMS.

[Michael Gissing] "It would be nice if a concept like dynamic linking between Adobe software could be applied to someone using AE generated graphics elements in a FCPX edit with audio being done on a Fairlight or ProTools. This patent discourages this sort of thinking."

That would be nice! What you're describing is an open API for these tools, and one already exists at least for AE (though it may not permit the seamlessness Adobe achieves with Dynamic Link among its own apps). Even with APIs available, in your example Apple would still need to implement their side of the equation (and they don't even do it for their own motion graphics app). This patent probably does throw cold water on the dream of parallel Post process, where Sound doesn't have to wait for Picture and Online doesn't have to wait for Graphics, but I'd say that doesn't happen in a world without patents anyway. I don't think a single vendor could realistically pull off that kind of thing among its own apps, let alone several vendors all pulling in different directions.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 21, 2012 at 3:31:22 pm

Well said, sir.


Return to posts index

Alex Gollner
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 22, 2012 at 1:23:01 am

Remember that Apple uses its software to sell hardware.

They would have no problem with the next versions of Adobe Audition, Avid ScriptSync and Autodesk Smoke acting as collaborator applications with Final Cut Pro X.1 database projects. As long as the new versions of those apps with this ability could only be running on Apple hardware.*

Then the FCP X(as a media collaboration operating system)-compatible apps will sell more Apple hardware, and everyone gets rich...


*Windows, open source and Android versions of these tools would have to find a different core app to maintain the host project database. Of the As, only Adobe seems to have the resources to engineer such a new platform.

___________________________________________________
Alexandre Gollner,
Editor, Zone 2-North West, London

alex4d on twitter, facebook, .wordpress.com & .com


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 20, 2012 at 2:45:13 pm

This patent along with Alex Gollner's observations are almost enough to buoy my hopes of actually seeing a client/server collaborative FCPX feature set.

Almost. It's hard not to expect to be disappointed anymore.

Alex posted his thoughts on the patent as well.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 20, 2012 at 2:57:33 pm

[Andrew Richards] "This patent along with Alex Gollner's observations are almost enough to buoy my hopes of actually seeing a client/server collaborative FCPX feature set. Almost. It's hard not to expect to be disappointed anymore."

This is all very interesting to me. The article indicates the patent was filed in July 2008. That's around where I identify the turning point in Apple's treatment of the so-called "video pro" market (see my article FCPX and the Domino Effect [link]).

My question -- and it is a question, as I could argue the point both ways -- is this: does this patent on collaborative editorial mark the end of one era, or the beginning of another?

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

Andrew Richards
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 20, 2012 at 3:03:23 pm

[Walter Soyka] "My question -- and it is a question, as I could argue the point both ways -- is this: does this patent on collaborative editorial mark the end of one era, or the beginning of another?"

I second your question, and you've perfectly articulated the rationale for my skepticism. My inner optimist really wants this thing to become a product, but my inner realist says nothing Apple has been doing in the intervening years would indicate that is likely to happen.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 20, 2012 at 9:36:45 pm

[Walter Soyka] ""My question -- and it is a question, as I could argue the point both ways -- is this: does this patent on collaborative editorial mark the end of one era, or the beginning of another?"

[Andrew Richards] "I second your question, and you've perfectly articulated the rationale for my skepticism. My inner optimist really wants this thing to become a product, but my inner realist says nothing Apple has been doing in the intervening years would indicate that is likely to happen.
"


Not sure here.

Apple seems (in my layman's brain at least) to use patents a bit as shields against endless litigation. (Clearly since they have such deep pockets, they're a massive lawsuit target.)

So if they can lodge a patent in their portfolio that codifies their rights to interface elements, it's gotta be at least SOME hedge against someone claiming that they need to cough up royalties on whatever comes next.

Wasn't that one of the fundamental speculations about why X was such a radical departure? In part because a good chunk of the code in Legacy was licensed rather than original Apple IP?

With their resources and legal clout, perhaps having a robust defensive technology patent filing program is probably just smart basic business. The more they can get ahead of IP issues by constantly working the patent stream, the less time they may have to spend in court fighting against other sharks who want to litigate a chunk of Apple's cash or revenue stream into their own pockets?

It's a cold world out there in big money land.

"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

Walter Soyka
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 20, 2012 at 9:42:09 pm

[Bill Davis] "Apple seems (in my layman's brain at least) to use patents a bit as shields against endless litigation. (Clearly since they have such deep pockets, they're a massive lawsuit target.) So if they can lodge a patent in their portfolio that codifies their rights to interface elements, it's gotta be at least SOME hedge against someone claiming that they need to cough up royalties on whatever comes next."

Ask Samsung and Motorola if Apple plays offense or defense with their patent portfolio.

But that wasn't the point Andy and I were making there -- we were wondering if the collaborative editorial idea here came from the Legend or X side of the fence. The timing could be right for either one, and the distinction is important.

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

Bill Davis
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 20, 2012 at 9:53:57 pm

[Walter Soyka] "The timing could be right for either one, and the distinction is important."

Well, to some still trying to suss things out, I suppose.

And happily, we'll eventually know the truth as X develops.

I know it would delight many of us to know that Apple has a big master plan for X's future.

But I also keep trying to live in the NOW. And this prognostication stuff is usually too much inside baseball for me since I've already made the commitment to X and all my time is devoted to trying to keep learning more about how it works right now!

Here in Arizona we're expecting rain and the rare chance to walk in warm rain is one of the things I truly treasure about life in the desert.

Have a great weekend, one and all.

"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

Walter Soyka
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 20, 2012 at 9:58:07 pm

[Bill Davis] "Here in Arizona we're expecting rain and the rare chance to walk in warm rain is one of the things I truly treasure about life in the desert. "

Enjoy!

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

Michael Phillips
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 21, 2012 at 1:50:45 am

Also keep in mind that having a patent granted doesn't necessarily imply they will develop it and bring it to market. But it does mean that it may cause other manufacturers to delay, revamp or not deliver, or allow Apple to license it. Lots of ways that patents can work for a company.

Michael

Michael Phillips


Return to posts index


David Roth Weiss
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 21, 2012 at 9:02:03 pm

[Bill Davis] "And happily, we'll eventually know the truth as X develops."

So, how many years longer will you go on repeating that?

[Bill Davis] "I've already made the commitment to X and all my time is devoted to trying to keep learning more about how it works right now!"

That you and a few others have been devoted to that pursuit for 13-plus months at this point says little for the ease of use of FCPX, which was supposedly its "reason d'ĂȘtre." So much for finding the truth...


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple Patents
on Jul 22, 2012 at 9:22:33 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "[Bill Davis] "And happily, we'll eventually know the truth as X develops."

So, how many years longer will you go on repeating that?"


How about precisely the same amount of time it took Legacy to grow from a silly experiment that didn't even support JKL transport conventions - into something professionally useful?

IIRC it was Version 3 of Legacy that was the tipping point where "serious" editors started looking at it?

I think that was about 3 years of development between FCP Intro and "Rules of Attraction." So that seems a fair basic development period to me.

[David Roth Weiss] "That you and a few others have been devoted to that pursuit for 13-plus months at this point says little for the ease of use of FCPX, which was supposedly its "reason d'ĂȘtre." So much for finding the truth..."

Well, I was able to cut and sell work done on it after about 30 days and have continued to do so since. (Around 50 finished programs to this point)

I guess you're a lot smarter than me because I seem to keep learning and growing and discovering new things about X every week because my particular work don't force me into some areas of the program commonly.For example, I STILL haven't really explored Roles yet since the kind of work I do generally doesn't require that kind of complex audio mixing. (My programs are generally designed around MOS video mixed with interviews and actualities - sot they focus nearly exclusively on traditional "narration plus music" sound constructs that really don't benefit from complex multi-track mixes.

That might change next week, and if so, I'll dive into roles. But its a good example of why it's perfectly rational for someone to work with a tool for a long time and still keep growing in their understanding of it over time.

I suppose if I'd been able to devote all my time to exploration, rather than so much time on the silly stuff like running a business, shoot prep and client service - and more on constant software exploration, I'd be farther along, but it's an OK trade in my book.

BTW, David, I though you'd left editing for sales months ago?

Why are you even concerned about this little corner of the world? Aren't you swamped helping people migrate from FCP to the new ProMax solutions?

What keeps YOU coming back here if X is truly the train wreck you often imply? And what does it say that you keep driving by the scene of what you keep arguing is a total disaster?

Having trouble moving on?

"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

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