FORUMS: list search recent posts

apple's response to David Pogue

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Jim Sprague
apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 25, 2011 at 7:29:33 pm

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/professional-video-editors-weigh-...

as a well known Apple shill, Pogue was able to ask some "tough questions". turns out everybody is wrong!


Return to posts index

Greg Burke
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 25, 2011 at 7:55:06 pm

It really is a neat program, You do have to get out of your mind set to wrap your head around it. But My company has tried for 3 days to get it to read a Video signal from a external deck, and we can't,even with black magic cards (we got it to read firewire 800 though HDV deck) . Witch is a bummer. I personally don't care for the "Event" organization, similar to Iphoto and iMovie. But thats just me. This guy has answers....but they don't make sense why cant you save as? why do you to Duplicate project? (witch Btw takes ALL the Media from the current project and Copy it to the new place to duplicate the project to anyway I digress. the main point is its Easier for a person who knows little about editing to jump in and use it, People like me who want more control just dont get it in x-FCP. Feels like the program is on Auto[pilot. But it really is a neat program, it just doesn't meet any of my needs at this point in time.



-Greg

I wear many hats.
http://www.gregburkepost.com


Return to posts index

Miles Heckendorn
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 25, 2011 at 8:20:42 pm

I love how he buries the most important screw-up half way into the article...

"Complaint: Can’t import old FCP files.

Answer: As I noted in my column, this is true; your old projects are stranded forever in the older FCP program. You’ll have to keep both programs on your hard drive, and edit the old projects in the old program. When you install the new FCP, your old copy is safely preserved."


I'm sorry, but this is the biggest deal breaker of them all. After trying Walter Biscardi's tutorial of opening old FCP7 files in PPro (it works!) I'm seriously thinking of getting my shop to switch. I have projects that I have to work on that are two,....three.....four years after the initial project. What are they thinking?!?!


Return to posts index


Chris Kenny
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 25, 2011 at 10:28:03 pm

[Miles Heckendorn] "I have projects that I have to work on that are two,....three.....four years after the initial project. What are they thinking?!?!"

That you'd prefer to work with those projects as you left them in FCP 7, instead of having them imported with a bunch of screwy changes into FCP X. Which would be inevitable almost regardless of how much effort Apple put into opening old projects, given the differences in the way the timeline works and all the rendering differences that would exist because of the new rendering engine.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Joe Murray
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 1:41:24 am

[Chris Kenny] "That you'd prefer to work with those projects as you left them in FCP 7"

And yet, they're not going to continue to support FCP 7, or provide access to the updates to FCP 7 in case you need to reinstall. So you're somehow supposed to use projects from years gone by with a piece of software that is not supported. We have about 16 terabytes of archives on LTO tapes, and sometimes go back 3-4 years to update projects. Do you think, if Apple is already abandoning FCP 7 as they have, that they will continue to keep FCP 7 alive when they update the OS, so that I can access those projects? If you do, then your faith and blind support of Apple knows no bounds.

A migration path for old projects, even if it's one sequence at a time, is not something that couldn't be figured out if Apple wanted to do so. If Automatic Duck can export an XML from FCP X, then FCP X can import an XML. If it can import an XML, it should be able to import one from a previous project. The lack of any stated plan for migration of old projects IS a big deal, and at least on this one point you should really stop defending Apple.

Joe Murray
Edit at Joe's
Charlotte, NC


Return to posts index

Jim Sprague
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 3:11:33 am

it's worrisome that they've stopped supporting 7 for sure, but what's really scary is the thought that they make do something to break 7. I'm really hesitant to install Lion now. Am i just being paranoid?


Return to posts index


Peter J. DeCrescenzo
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 4:43:04 am

[Jim Sprague] "... what's really scary is the thought that they make do something to break 7. I'm really hesitant to install Lion now. Am i just being paranoid?"

I don't think you're being paranoid at all. It's not unusual for new versions of operating systems to not support, or not fully support, applications, device drivers, plug-ins, file formats and so forth -- or some combination of these.

Chances are one or more of these things will "break" under a new OS.

Specifically given the situation of Apple killing FCP-7 immediately before release of a new OS certainly elevates this issue (these possibilities) to the level of rational thought, not paranoia.

Hey, a FCP-7 configuration (inluding the app, drivers, plug ins, file formats, etc.) might run just fine under Lion -- we'll know soon enough -- but I have my doubts, and I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

---

http://www.peterdv.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Corneles
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 4:53:32 am

with this whole fiasco, apple will be lucky if I even install lion.
maybe just shrink wrap the 8core, as to protect the 8 years
of projects - while editing on a new W7 workstation.. Does adobe support linux yet?


Return to posts index

anthony mouchonnet
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 8:13:18 am

Instead of investing in Automtic duck omf export for FCPX, I will invest the same money in the Automatic Duck plug in to transfer all my FCP7 projects to Avid or Premiere!

We are editing concerts, mostly shot with 15 to 20 cams and recorded on AJA Kipro, so directly in Prores HQ for a direct use in FCP. What i will do now with 80h in QT after each show if i can't edit a multicam in FCPX? It will take days to import them in Avid for a multicam editing. I have the feeling that Apple betrayed us. We have invested a LOT of money in our workflow, with Kipro, SAN and FCP editing stations. What are we gonna do if we need to add one more FCP7 on the SAN if we can't buy licence anymore? We will have no other choice that using serials we didn't bought...
Premiere is certainely the easiest and cheapest way to go on to work with the same workflow. I just don't know any editor on Premiere because nobody's using it here (i am in France). I know a lot of editors on Avid but it doesn't fit our workflow.

And for the corporate clients we have since years and are updating their movies every year, what i am gonna say to them? Sorry, Apple has decided that the memory of your company doesn't worth to be used anymore? Look forward and restart from scratch?

My father may be doesn't need XML or OMF export nor multicam to edit his vacation movies but for us who are living with producing movies and editing, we NEED all that they have removed from the previous version.

ps: sorry for my english, i am better in french ;-)


Return to posts index


Jim Sprague
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 4:46:51 pm

I may be wrong, but I think MC will edit ProRes via AMA. You should be able to edit the footage as soon as you mount the drive. Plus Avid has terrific Multicam, plus it's only $995 for FCS users.


Return to posts index

anthony mouchonnet
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 4:52:22 pm

AMA is working just fine with prores but not for a 15 HD stream multicam editing.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 1:26:21 pm

If they thought it was important they would have worked it out. To say they couldn't do it is ridiculous. To say they wouldn't do it because it wasn't worth their effort is another. The fact that that they didn't believe it was worth doing tells you everything you need to know about how they want to position this product and what they think of their legacy users.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index


Chris Kenny
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 1:28:30 pm

[Herb Sevush] "If they thought it was important they would have worked it out. To say they couldn't do it is ridiculous."

It's not especially ridiculous when you consider the differences in timeline behavior. And "If they thought it was important they would have worked it out" shows no understanding of the complexities of actual software development. A major product like this, especially an initial version, pretty much always ships while there's still a long list of things the developers really wished they'd had time for.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 5:15:50 pm

[Chris Kenny] "... And "If they thought it was important they would have worked it out" shows no understanding of the complexities of actual software development. ..."

I suspect quite a few of the people reading this forum know a fair amount about software development, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop discounting their knowledge and experience.

In any event, it doesn't take a PHD is computer science to know that, given Apple's _billions_ in cash, and specifically the cash cow formerly known as FCP-7, Apple could have created a much, much better FCPX by this date (today) than they have.

The _only_ reason they did not is because the _chose_ not to deliver a more complete product. It's apparent Apple made several decisions throughout FCPX's development to specifically, purposefully not implement many very important features of FCP-7 in FCPX, and then, to make matters worse, they chose to make a disaster of FCPX's release by stopping sales of FCP-7, and (more!) also by not having a free trial version available on day one.

Committing the many, many decisions required to make all that happen simply doesn't happen by accident. And committing that many _bad_ decisions doesn't happen because "software is hard". They happened because the FC dev team management is arrogant and/or out of touch, or worse.

That's why the burden is on Apple, not us FC users. Rather than you asking us to be "patient", we should be angry at Apple for disrespecting us. And Apple should be apologizing ASAP directly to FC users as a group, and stop hiding behind the skirts of folks such as David Pogue and others.

If Apple has something to say, as always they should communicate it clearly & directly to the adults who use FC professionally.

[Chris Kenny] "... A major product like this, especially an initial version, pretty much always ships while there's still a long list of things the developers really wished they'd had time for. ..."

FCPX is _not_ a version 1.0 product, at least not in the traditional sense. Instead it's the result of at least 10 years of FC development & market experience. Yes, I know FCPX was written from scratch, but it's not like Apple never created a product similar to FCPX before, or never worked with the likely users of FCPX before, or never experienced the huge multiplier effect a product like FCPX can have on the rest of their (hardware) business, an so forth.

This endless repeating of "it's just version 1.0" sounds like making excuses, and isn't particularly honest.

Sorry to repeat, but what happened this week with the FCPX release did not happen by accident. Apple's dev team managers & execs made many, many decisions over the course of at least the past several months that resulted in the clusterf*ck that is today's the FCPX feature set & release.

I will counter your earlier statement by saying that anyone who knows anything about software development (and marketing) understands that what Apple did this past week was deliberate, and in hindsight, a series of serious mistakes. Worse, Apple's hiding behind the skirts of others only makes their mistakes (plural) much worse.

Apple can recover from their mistakes by addressing FCPX's many serious shortcomings very quickly (in weeks, not months or years) and by immediately communicating directly and comprehensively with their customers, not via rumors, whispers, nods & winks from Apple's paid ("Thank You For Smoking") spokespeople.

---

http://www.peterdv.com


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 5:24:11 pm

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo] "I suspect quite a few of the people reading this forum know a fair amount about software development, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop discounting their knowledge and experience.

In any event, it doesn't take a PHD is computer science to know that, given Apple's _billions_ in cash, and specifically the cash cow formerly known as FCP-7, Apple could have created a much, much better FCPX by this date (today) than they have. "


Not to put too fine a point on it, but the implication that you can necessarily make better software by throwing more money at the problem is precisely the sort of thing you don't want to say if you want people who have experience with software development to think you're familiar with how it works. If money created good software, Windows Vista would have been the best software product ever released.

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo] "Committing the many, many decisions required to make all that happen simply doesn't happen by accident. And committing that many _bad_ decisions doesn't happen because "software is hard". They happened because the FC dev team management is arrogant and/or out of touch, or worse."

Could you be more specific about what these 'bad decisions' are? I'm hard pressed to think of anything objectively 'bad' about FCP X that can't be attributed to an inability to implement all desired features prior to the desired release date.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 6:06:48 pm

Chris -

You keep on explaining FCPX's limitations by saying it's an "initial release" or it's a "1.0 release."

But it's not. It's a version TEN release and I know it's so because Apple says so on all their packaging. Final Cut Pro Ten ( X = 10 in Roman numbers, in case you didn't get that.) And for a version TEN release, this product has some problems.

Of course if it truly were an initial release, then Apple is marketing their product fraudulently, wouldn't you say.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 6:22:04 pm

[Herb Sevush] "You keep on explaining FCPX's limitations by saying it's an "initial release" or it's a "1.0 release."

But it's not. It's a version TEN release and I know it's so because Apple says so on all their packaging. Final Cut Pro Ten ( X = 10 in Roman numbers, in case you didn't get that.) And for a version TEN release, this product has some problems.

Of course if it truly were an initial release, then Apple is marketing their product fraudulently, wouldn't you say."


Come on, don't play dumb here. It's the first version of a newly written app. This is not really disputable. Companies mess with version numbers all the time. UNIX folks may remember how Solaris 2.7 became Solaris 7. The product sold as "Windows 7" has an internal version number of 6.1. OS X is not actually the same operating system as OS 9. It's not 'fraud' because version numbers are not required to have any particular meaning.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 6:45:17 pm

Chris -

Windows going from 6.1 to 7 was an actual upgrade to a product. The higher version number actually represented something. ( I don't know anything about Solaris but I'm guessing the same holds true there.)

As for OS9 - "versions of Mac OS X prior to 10.5 include a compatibility layer called Classic, enabling users to run applications and hardware requiring Mac OS 9 from within Mac OS X." Jeez, that sounds like an upgrade to me, all this programming to make sure previous legacy software can still work in a new environment. I wonder what company could have thought of that?

You have stated over and over again this is a brand new product and NOT an upgrade so that in this case going from version 7.0.3 to Version 10.0 is supposed to represent what - other than fraudulent marketing hype.

Can't you even admit this - it doesn't weaken your argument for FCPX's future to at least acknowledge that the marketing behind this was totally out of line.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index


Chris Kenny
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 6:51:43 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Windows going from 6.1 to 7 was an actual upgrade to a product. The higher version number actually represented something. "

You're misunderstanding. The product Microsoft markets under the name "Windows 7" is Windows 6.1. "Windows 7" is just the marketing name.

[Herb Sevush] "As for OS9 - "versions of Mac OS X prior to 10.5 include a compatibility layer called Classic, enabling users to run applications and hardware requiring Mac OS 9 from within Mac OS X." Jeez, that sounds like an upgrade to me, all this programming to make sure previous legacy software can still work in a new environment. I wonder what company could have thought of that?"

Apple just stuck the old OS in a virtual machine. The rough equivalent with FCP 7 and FCP X is that you can have both installed on the same system.

[Herb Sevush] "Can't you even admit this - it doesn't weaken your argument for FCPX's future to at least acknowledge that the marketing behind this was totally out of line.
"


What are we talking about here? Some web site copy? Apple hasn't done a done of marketing around this product.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 6:46:28 pm

[Herb Sevush] "You keep on explaining FCPX's limitations by saying it's an "initial release" or it's a "1.0 release." "

When it's convenient to call FCP X "completely new" Chris calls it new.

When it's convenient to call it a replacement for FCP 7 he'll use that.

It's a common way to win arguments when the facts alone don't support you.

Lawyers do it... Apple does it... Chris Kenny does it...


David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new tutorial: Prepare for a seamless transition to FCP X and OS X Lion
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/FCP-10-MAC-Lion/1

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index

anthony mouchonnet
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 6:22:28 pm

As Apple doesn't communicate with us, i have send an email to the 2 public relations of Apple in charge of the launch of FCPX. I have found their email down the page of the (discreet) news on Apple's homepage. I NEED to know what we can expect and when.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 5:56:15 pm

I didn't say it would be easy and I didn't say it would be fast. What I didn't say is that if a project manager at Apple had said that one of the "have to's" for the new software was that it read old legacy projects, then it would have been part of the software. Period. To say other wise is to ignore the entire history of programming.

When Microsoft updates Windows one of the "have to's" is that it be backward compatible with older versions. No matter what they do, that's one of the givens. It probably makes things incredibly difficult for their programmers and contributes to the inefficiency of their code, but they do it, because they deal with big business as a client and they would get annihilated if they didn't. Now your telling me that writing an NLE is harder than upgrading Windows? Microsoft can do it but Apple somehow can't. I don't think so. It simply wasn't a "have to," it was probably more of a "that would be nice to."

And, like I said, the list of "have to's" tells you everything you need to know about how they are targeting their software.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 5:58:54 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I didn't say it would be easy and I didn't say it would be fast. What I didn't say is that if a project manager at Apple had said that one of the "have to's" for the new software was that it read old legacy projects, then it would have been part of the software. Period. To say other wise is to ignore the entire history of programming. "

That's probably true of that particular feature, but I think making that happen would have required Apple to make sacrifices with respect to implementing the new timeline they way they wanted to. There was a judgement call to make, they made it, and it's not as obvious as you seem to think it is that they made the wrong long-term choice.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 6:22:56 pm

Chris -

There was a judgement call to make, they made it, and it's not as obvious as you seem to think it is that they made the wrong long-term choice.

Finally you got it. They made a "choice." Thank you. We are finally on the same page. I've never argued that they made a good or bad choice, I've only argued that they made a choice, and that choice tells you a lot about their values. We can infer what we want about what their highest values are, but we know that protecting the investment of long term FCP users wasn't one of them

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: apple's response to David Pogue
on Jun 26, 2011 at 6:44:01 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Finally you got it. They made a "choice." Thank you. We are finally on the same page. I've never argued that they made a good or bad choice, I've only argued that they made a choice, and that choice tells you a lot about their values. We can infer what we want about what their highest values are, but we know that protecting the investment of long term FCP users wasn't one of them"

What it tells you is that Apple is willing to sacrifice backwards compatibility in favor of innovation, which is not news. It's Apple being Apple.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

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