FORUMS: list search recent posts

Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Marcus Moore
Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 28, 2014 at 7:43:05 pm

Another interesting article by Alex Gollner, looking at how ProApps doesn't JUST make money off hardware sales--

http://alex4d.com/notes/item/pro-apps-2005-2014

If course, these numbers pale in comparison to larger profit centres like iPads and iPhones, or even Macs- but at nearly 2 BILLION DOLLARS a year in revenue (up from approximately $250 million in 2005), it certainly seems less likely that Apple would walk away from this business as many have suggested.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 28, 2014 at 7:54:35 pm

That's pretty impressive for sure - before Avid was de-listed they were showing total annual revenue of a little over $600million and that includes everything they make from audio hardware etc. So FCPX at $299 and Logic at $199 have a way larger user base than ANY other NLE including Adobe!

It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 28, 2014 at 7:58:24 pm

Let's not forget MOTION $49, COMPRESSOR $49, and the (still for sale) APERTURE $79. Aperture was a big seller if you look at the "Top Grossing" or "Top Paid" listings. Motion and Compressor, due to volume and price, probably make up significantly smaller proportion of the total revenue.


Return to posts index


Tim Wilson
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 28, 2014 at 8:51:50 pm

So I was a little ahead of schedule, but this is very nearly EXACTLY what I predicted. I observed that Apple had made at least $2 billion from the software sales of FCS Legend, and that was assuming only one software upgrade for only one third of units sold. The number was surely higher.

That was over the course of 12 years. I predicted that they would soon be making more than that every single year.

Again noting that my timing was wrong, I have maintained from the beginning that Apple's interest in Pro Apps had NOTHING to do with selling high-end Macs, and everything to do with their interest in being in this market.

But I'm right so rarely that I thought it was worth mentioning. LOL

Keep in mind that Apple pushed FireWire as a solution for laptop editing, and long positioned FCP as a self-contained system that could do everything it needed to on a minimal hardware platform. It was in contrast to everyone else that needed heavy iron.

This too goes back to Steve's vision of a consumer-oriented video application to run on the colorful new bubble-shaped iMacs. It was only after Adobe declined to sell Premiere to Apple (!!!) that they went looking for an alternative. They happened to find it being developed by the former developer of Premiere, now at Macromedia, and running on Windows. The fact that it could easily scale up to something truly professional was a happy accident.

It's part of why I've also never bought the idea that Final Cut X was EVER intended for consumers, AT ALL. iMovie a nifty product that does that just fine. The distinctions are meaningful, even if, in the long run, the two have informed each other along the way.

It's ultimately a confirmation that Steve was right, that a low-cost video creation platform could be a money-maker for Apple, WITHOUT heavy iron, which was never the point. Computer sales, yes. Top of the line computer sales, absolutely not. Monitor sales, absolutely not. It's no accident that...wait for it...the IMAC is such a sweet spot. That was the plan from the beginning.

BTW, this is an overly brief summary of an extremely well-documented set of stories from volume 2 of John Buck's Timeline: A History of Editing, a marvelous overview from 1925 to roughly 2011, just before the release of X. (Now THERE's the start of a third volume for ya.) You'll enjoy the heck out of it.

And as a reminder, although my timing was off, I was in fact right three years ago: that Apple would be making more from an APP version of the ProApps in a year than they'd made in the entire history of FC Legend.

I'll let you know the next time I'm right, but it may be a while.


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 6:13:58 pm

[Tim Wilson] "It's part of why I've also never bought the idea that Final Cut X was EVER intended for consumers, AT ALL."

"import from imovie"

[Tim Wilson] "It's ultimately a confirmation that Steve was right, that a low-cost video creation platform could be a money-maker for Apple"

Given the fact that final cut studio was already that amidst the more costly solutions, isn't that like saying he was right about what they were already right about and that an even more affordable solution would be even, uh, rightier... :)

He was so right about telling the pros to stop whining and worrying about Fcx too...and that they would love it! buncha whiners


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 6:58:39 pm

[Tim Wilson] "It's part of why I've also never bought the idea that Final Cut X was EVER intended for consumers, AT ALL. iMovie a nifty product that does that just fine."

Not sure how you would define this line or if there are any meaningful numbers to account for which sector is buying FCP X in what percentages, but X is an excellent step up from iMovie. I have students editing within minutes and students have other students editing within minutes.

The magnetic timeline is truly intuitive in terms of being able to shuffle things around without getting out of sync. Beginners tend not to keyword nor do basic videos really require this. But the basic import with keywords connected is kinda a nice gift to those getting started.

There are many many more people producing movies who are not pros than ever before and many many more prosumer level pros than ever before, and prosumer level non-pros than ever before.

PHOTO will replace both iPhoto and Aperture. Today's consumers are much more computer literate than ever before.

There is nothing wrong with consumer level use of professional tools.

FCP X gives you lots of room to grow but its dead simple for basic edits. Much better than iMovie.

And a simple google search will help anyone who can follow directions on a feature they never used before.

Kids will spend $100 and up for sneakers that last a few months to wear the shoes that NBA players wear. $300 bucks to edit like the pros using your (soon) 4K $600 buck DSLR. Why not?

Video has become a new form of literacy. Not everyone can read and write but it ain't rare.

What I find interesting is when there is a pro at an event, be it a party or wedding or presentation or whatever, they'll also be a ton of other people shooting with phones, cameras, and even prosumer level cameras at the same event.

I shot stills at an event recently and my partner shot video. I was using a Canon 5D. There was guy there shooting with an expensive Nikon. At first I thought, wow, I better be good. But then it occurred to me that I was shooting full time and he was splitting his time between shooting and participating. And it actually takes some of the pressure off, cause if some shot gets missed, well there's extra coverage. The event is more than covered. Over-covered. Likewise, there was a ton of people there that cook for their families; but just the same, there was caterer.

If you can go viral with a series on u-tube you can make a living with product placement.
If not, it was worth a shot and a nice hobby.

New world.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index


Jamie Franklin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 7:22:02 pm
Last Edited By Jamie Franklin on Jul 29, 2014 at 7:23:12 pm

[Craig Alan] "
There is nothing wrong with consumer level use of professional tools."


There is when the professionals tool is fundamentally broken in favour of a more easily digestible (sellable) - grandma milly and students can learn in an hour - gui.

Its why this forum exists...


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 7:27:26 pm

[Jamie Franklin] "There is when the professionals tool is fundamentally broken in favour of a more easily digestible (sellable) - grandma milly and students can learn in an hour - gui."

There is clearly disagreement as to whether it is fundamentally broken. You and others say it is, I and others say it isn't. We're both AFAIK, professionals. It seems like these threads always devolve into veiled discussions of who is "more" professional. Which is stupid.

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 7:38:11 pm

[Charlie Austin] "It seems like these threads always devolve into veiled discussions of who is "more" professional. Which is stupid."

I agree.

'a pro' =

1. getting paid for it/making a living at it

2. master of a craft (as my father's generation used to call it, "a real pro")

3. being able to express yourself in a unique way, finding your voice (as my mother's generation used to call it, "an artist")

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index


Jamie Franklin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 7:43:09 pm

[Charlie Austin] "It seems like these threads always devolve into veiled discussions of who is "more" professional."

That is not what I said, veiled or otherwise. It's not about who is professional. It has always been about what elevated a tool to a more professional level. The argument has always devolved into sand kicking when it was never a real argument in the first place. The tool IS broken. The timeline is fundamentally broken. Regardless of all the other white noise.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 7:53:12 pm

No, I think that is an opinion.

Could the timeline be improved upon? Yes. Absolutely. Is it fundamentally broken? Absolutely not. Going back to FCP7 timeline is an absolute chore for me. 20 year editor, I LOVE this new paradigm.

I think the only real truth is that people like to work in different ways. One is no less professional than the other. The traditional timeline is certainly more mature, it's been honed and refined since the 90s- Xs timeline has rough edges, but the core concept is one that I love using every day.


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 8:02:51 pm

I'll preface it in saying, for a lot of us. It's all there in the pudding...the exodus to another solution.


Return to posts index


Marcus Moore
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 8:07:04 pm

How many years was PPro out in the wilderness for hobbyists and wedding videographers before it's toolset was mature enough to tackle what it's doing now?

If you've been in this business, you've seen enough cycles to know nothing is forever. Maybe Final Cut will miss out on a portion of the market for the next 2-3 years while the tool matures- but it's only getting better, and they're focusing on Pro improvements.


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 8:44:34 pm

The editor was still at its heart an open timeline.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 9:09:41 pm

[Marcus Moore] "How many years was PPro out in the wilderness for hobbyists and wedding videographers before it's toolset was mature enough to tackle what it's doing now?"

On one hand I agree, but on the other hand if Apple had released FCP 8, instead of FCP X, PPro would still be considered an also ran (and I've been enjoying my PPro usage over the last 8 months). In the past few years Adobe, Apple and Avid have all made decisions that concluded in snatching defeat out of the jaws of NLE victory and leaving users with a wide open playing field (including dark horses Resolve and Lightwave). Which on one hand is cool and will hopefully lead to increased competition and innovation, but on the other hand can also be unnerving because there is no 'safe bet' anymore.


Return to posts index


Charlie Austin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 7:57:35 pm

[Jamie Franklin] "That is not what I said, veiled or otherwise."

Sorry if I implied that you did, it was just an observation triggered by the "grandma milly and students" bit you tossed out. Perhaps you meant that an NLE's professional grade should be based on how difficult it is to learn. ;-)

[Jamie Franklin] "The tool IS broken. The timeline is fundamentally broken. Regardless of all the other white noise."

No, it's not. It's different, but it does the same thing. Does it need improvement? Sure, what doesn't. It's never stopped me from doing the exact same thing as I do in other NLE's. Sometimes it makes things much easier, sometimes not.

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 8:04:48 pm

Randy Ubiculous said he wanted an editor his grandma could cut her vacation clips on...thats what I was referencing.

Given the imovie on roids appeal, it is easier to learn.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 8:24:01 pm

[Jamie Franklin] "Randy Ubiculous said he wanted an editor his grandma could cut her vacation clips on...thats what I was referencing.

Given the imovie on roids appeal, it is easier to learn."


Fair enough. Though he was talking about iMovie, and that's what he got. But, other than some concepts, names and vague UI similarities, iMovie and X aren't the same thing. Or weren't. The newest version of iMovie was built on FCP X guts. But there's already a contentious thread or 2 about that. :-)

And saying "some of us feel it's broken" is fine. Some of us don't feel that way. Thus, this never ending debate. Maybe someone from Adobe will chime in here and set us all straight...

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index


Craig Alan
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 8:16:23 pm

[Jamie Franklin] "There is when the professionals tool is fundamentally broken in favour of a more easily digestible (sellable) - grandma milly and students can learn in an hour - gui."

The only thing that makes it more sellable is the price. Have you looked at the manual of a consumer level gear. It ain't more easily digestible. To compensate there is auto everything - which is hit or miss.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being able to learn basic edits within minutes (particularly with someone showing you how).

There is something wrong with renaming these operations in the belief that it makes it easier to learn, which it dos not.

For the pro, even more so than for the casual user, ergonomics is paramount. Nothing wrong with basic edits being, well, basic. Missing features does make it the wrong tool for anyone needing those features, pros or not.

A professional camera/lens has an optical ring you turn to adjust the aperture/F-stop. Any consumer can turn it and learn what it does in seconds. Try to do the same with a mini-cam and you need to go into the menus or some other read the manual to figure it out digital version of this basic function. Workaround: auto exposure. A feature that was later added to many pro cams cause the technology evolved. It doesn't replace the wheel, it's just an option. Even more so with auto-focus. Some shots it does the job and some it don't.

Being a professional tool means it meets the needs of pros. It rarely hurts a consumer to have a professional tool - they tend to last longer, have the ability to move up a notch, helps you learn professional practices, gets better results more easily (not less). Nothing complex about a well balanced hammer or knife, a tripod with a smooth operating fluid head, a camera with xlr plugs vs mini-plugs, SDI vs HDMI.

Pros often need to quickly produce product where as an amateur may take as long as it takes to get it right.

All great pros started off as unpaid beginners. And we all get old if we don't die trying.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 8:19:21 pm

It's nice that we're back here again, I miss the "it's not Pro" debates.

Steve Connor
Mellowing slowly


Return to posts index

Ryan Holmes
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 8:26:31 pm

[Steve Connor] "It's nice that we're back here again, I miss the "it's not Pro" debates."

I just commented today in the Adobe Creative Cloud: The Debate forum how I thought this forum pivoted after about a year away from all the petition signing, my life is over, the sky is falling, this isn't pro software to a debate more about the uses of the software and the nature of Apple itself. Apparently, I spoke too soon.... :-)

Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 8:47:08 pm

Well the original debate was whether FCP legacy was professional. Looking back the answer turned out to be that AVID was only for pros cause no one could afford the beast unless they worked at a high-end production facility. FCP took a couple of years but was adopted by pros and its price point changed the industry. FCP X is clearly being used by pros but like legacy rarely in the high-end production facilities. So far.

The other and related aspect of this debate is what is a professional tool.

My take: it's a tool that gets the job done. Different jobs need different tools. Different folk like different brands.

To say FCP X is broken is vague. It doesn't work for _______?

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 9:51:58 pm

[Craig Alan] "To say FCP X is broken is vague. It doesn't work for _______?"

No one has been vague. The freedom of FCP7's timeline vs compound clips, magnetics and roles has been very widely and (until recently closed system) the cause of a big shakeup in the NLE market. It didn't happen...just because.

A lot of us had to freeze a system going on, holy jebus time flies, 6 years now...I have to say, there is some revisionism going on here on the arguments presented that had infrastructure panics when X released. Tapeless deliveries are in full swing. Weeeeeeee...but uhoh!, archiving, copyright, international and OMIGOD!!! still broadcast is requiring SR and or dolby encoded Hdcam. Good thing my trusty Mac Pro 1.1 32 bit system running my 667 32bit FCP7 snow leopard dinosaur keeps trucking. As it is the bread and butter next to a Smoke 2015 on a z820. And phew for it.

We are able to find alternatives to Apple now thanks to X, so that's progress of a kind. But FCP7 is still such an amazing tool 6 years later for a reason. Nothing vague about it.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 10:08:25 pm

[Jamie Franklin] "The freedom of FCP7's timeline vs compound clips, magnetics and roles... But FCP7 is still such an amazing tool 6 years later for a reason. Nothing vague about it."

As someone who beta tested the early versions (2,3,4) of FCP, and was one of, if not the first editor in my little LA trailer niche to finish a spot cut on FCP, I agree on the goodness of FCP "classic" And there are certainly some workflows for which FCP X isn't entirely suited. However, as someone who is proficient in both FCP old and new, I've gotta tell ya, the FCP X timeline feels so much more "open" than FCP 7 it's not even funny.

I'm in 7 now and it's driving me nuts. I'm not talking about the need to render stuff and other technical details which FCP 8 (PrCC) has quite nicely solved. I'm talking about the timeline. Cutting. Basic timeline operations. It is painfully limiting compared to FCP X. To me anyway. And I'm not cutting a cat video. I wish i was, FCP 7 is perfectly suited for that purpose. ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 8:31:10 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Jul 29, 2014 at 8:37:40 pm

[Steve Connor] "It's nice that we're back here again, I miss the "it's not Pro" debates."

lol. The only true professional software is Resolve 11. It has amazing Color correction, an edit page that looks like FCP X and uses some of the same concepts, plus it has professional grade tracks that you can patch and stuff like other NLE's. I've got my copy, how 'bout everyone else? Let's all switch to R11! Then we can fan out to all the other forums and convince them of the error of their ways. It'll be awesome!

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 9:12:28 pm

have you used as a NLE?

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 9:17:54 pm

[Craig Alan] "have you used as a NLE?"

R11? Yep. Not extensively, but I've cut with it to see how it works. It's pretty cool, not quite ready for primetime, but it's still in (public) beta so who knows. It has some nice features, but it has tracks. Eeew. :-)

If I needed fixed tracks and was using Pr or MC and looking for an alternative I'd be more interested.

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 8:39:22 pm

Most of these are old arguments but necessary to understand the full context of issues still alive. But I will stand by my argument that they broke a feature that at its heart, and the fundamental truth of an editor - an open timeline - is why many left and are happy they did.

[Craig Alan] "helps you learn professional practices,"

And yet...I think the whole initial release of X kinda contradicts this: There is something wrong with renaming these operations in the belief that it makes it easier to learn, which it dos not.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 8:42:32 pm

[Jamie Franklin] "they broke a feature that at its heart, and the fundamental truth of an editor - an open timeline "

How is the X timeline not open? Serious question... To me, if anything it's more open.

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 30, 2014 at 10:56:36 pm
Last Edited By Jamie Franklin on Jul 30, 2014 at 11:04:47 pm

[Charlie Austin] " How is the X timeline not open? Serious question... To me, if anything it's more open."

I have stated whats not my bag. Mags, roles, gaps, compound clips. The ease of use between dragging and futzing in 7 from bin to sequence is still a simplified and open playing field. There are frustrations in everything, but the liberty is just not there in X

Serious question. Screen layout in X. Can I customize it? Bin aka *cough hack* "libraries" on one screen. Sequence pancake and source viewer on another monitor and playback monitor out.

How do I do this in X? I have done the google and no success. Found something that was gobsmackingly ridiculous with mission control. But I'd rather poke out my eye.

Then, as I assume this is possible, cause it is "pro", after painstakingly finding this solution, can I save the layout?

Edit: I see you can "Show Events" on a second window without any control. Thats something I guess. But not very customizable. And not remotely what I want in an nle


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 31, 2014 at 5:28:55 am

[Jamie Franklin] "Serious question. Screen layout in X. Can I customize it? Bin aka *cough hack* "libraries" on one screen. Sequence pancake and source viewer on another monitor and playback monitor out. "

Bins have no relation to Libraries. Bins are related to keyword/smart collections.

You can throw either the Viewers (Source/Record Windows) or the Event Library to a second computer display, and have a monitor out if you have an I/O box or HDMI out on the machine.

I used Legacy FCP for a decade, and while different, the FCP X timeline construction in my experience saves way more time than it burns in futzing, once you know how to use it.

My opinion on it is the polar opposite of yours- I think the foundation of the timeline is incredibly strong- it's the details that need work.


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Aug 1, 2014 at 5:48:52 pm
Last Edited By Jamie Franklin on Aug 1, 2014 at 5:50:50 pm

[Marcus Moore] "I used Legacy FCP for a decade, and while different, the FCP X timeline construction in my experience saves way more time than it burns in futzing, once you know how to use it."

See this isn't what interests me. I would rather have *complete control* over this "time saving!" fetish.
Are you doing anything long form? I can't imagine cutting a feature on this. I am using it right now. And it doesn't function without the futzing. THAT is what gives the user control. Not animating a trick or preventing me from pancaking a timeline. How does this not frustrate the user? So who is this *timeline* really for...?

I even wonder if you really are saving time scrubbing everything and losing all these heavenly useful controlable, customizable, features in 7.

You really don't miss pancaking a timeline? Getting a bum clip with god knows what, and dragging it into a *new* sequence and getting that sweet sweet popup...YES, OF COURSE! Problem halfway solved...

Time saving? An automated timeline that has built in restrictions saves time. Why, sure. But now we are arguing something completely different. Robots can make a gibson I suppose...but then...



[Marcus Moore] "You can throw either the Viewers (Source/Record Windows) or the Event Library to a second computer display,"

Can I resize it? Place windows where I'd like? Having PP 2.0 deja vu


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Aug 1, 2014 at 6:08:05 pm

If time-saving isn't a metric that's important to you, then I wonder what part of the industry you're working in. ;)

The associative nature of the timeline is something that I've come to very much enjoy, not only for time saving reasons but for how fluidly I can cut. If I desperately need to pancake footage, I can sandwich them between slugs. Let me be clear, I don't see a substantive loss of control when I work.

I think you're finding an inherent problem with the philosophy of the timeline thats just not there- and that's because you don't like it. And that's fine. One of the great advantages here is that there are now TWO philosophies for timeline construction. Traditional track-based NLEs may find things to learn from the FCPX timeline and integrate them over time. At the same time there are things from Legacy FCP that I'd like to see reincorporated to the X timeline- visual organization is lacking, and trimming tools still need work. But the base conceit of the magnetic/connected/trackless timeline is something I very much hope Apple never gives up on; cause me, an editor since the mid-90's, loves it.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Aug 1, 2014 at 6:29:30 pm

[Jamie Franklin] "I even wonder if you really are saving time scrubbing everything and losing all these heavenly useful controlable, customizable, features in 7.
"


Is it very hard to believe that many people use FCPX and are finding it a better and faster NLE to use than FCP7? do you think everyone is lying or delusional? Do you think that their real world and in many cases long term use of FCPX doesn't give them enough insight?

Steve Connor

Hoping to become a pedant


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Aug 2, 2014 at 4:53:35 pm
Last Edited By Jamie Franklin on Aug 2, 2014 at 4:56:06 pm

Is it very hard to believe that many people use FCPX and are finding it a better and faster NLE to use than FCP7?

Yes. It is. The timeline is automated and forces relationships. This to me doesn't really equate to "better" when flexibility is sacrificed. Faster doesn't = more creative. Just because you can drive faster on rails doesn't mean you are a better driver. This is why I find these arguments perplexing.

I'm not nit-picking here. That is a structural flaw in this timeline/gui, that, and a couple of i/o points, and annoyances is why 7 is still around. Do you honestly think so many of us stuck with 7 or moved on because they are scared luddites? Are we still in 2011? I've tried it. Others tried it. (yes, including the updates. I use it for other small tasks still) And yet we're still put off by the forced relationships.

Do you think that their real world and in many cases long term use of FCPX doesn't give them enough insight?

I'm going to call BS on this. This is not iced tea. This is not yoga. There is no epiphany magicsauce here. The timeline is not an acquired taste.

Anyways, I think we've argued this into the ground. Hope you're having a great summer!

j


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Aug 2, 2014 at 5:31:42 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Aug 2, 2014 at 5:33:23 pm

[Jamie Franklin] "Yes. It is. The timeline is automated and forces relationships. This to me doesn't really equate to "better" when flexibility is sacrificed. Faster doesn't = more creative. Just because you can drive faster on rails doesn't mean you are a better driver. This is why I find these arguments perplexing. "

What I find just as perplexing, is that when people who use X say they feel it's better to work in than FCP 7, it gets discounted as the ravings of kool aide drinkers. I started cutting in Media Composer and still own it. Occasionally I still use it.. in a feeble attempt to keep my chops up. I personally can't understand why anyone would prefer to work in it, but people do. And they like it. Does that mean it's "flawed"? Nope, it means I don't like it. But I wouldn't presume to say that, because of my preference, all Avid users are lemmings who don't know what they're talking about. It's ridiculous.


[Jamie Franklin] "Do you honestly think so many of us stuck with 7 or moved on because they are scared luddites? Are we still in 2011? I've tried it. Others tried it. (yes, including the updates. I use it for other small tasks still) And yet we're still put off by the forced relationships. "

Nobody… ok almost nobody… is calling anyone scared luddites except in jest. And all the so-called "forced relationships" can be controlled, overridden, whatever… as needed. What you see as horrible flaws I, and others see as useful features.


[Jamie Franklin] "I'm going to call BS on this. This is not iced tea. This is not yoga. There is no epiphany magicsauce here. The timeline is not an acquired taste. "

Of course it isn't. Like any NLE, it's something you learn to use by using it. If you don't like it, don't use it. Calling BS on all the people who do like it is insulting really. This all comes down to: "I like it!", "I don't!". "It doesn't do the things I need it to!", It works great for me!". There are plenty of talented, competent, professional editors who like cutting in X, many of them have lots of experience cutting in other NLE's to compare it to.


[Jamie Franklin] "Anyways, I think we've argued this into the ground. Hope you're having a great summer! "

heh, quite true, but it's been too quiet in here lately. At least we've been on topic! Hope you have a great summer too. :-) I'm gonna go watch Sharknado now… lol

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple's ProApps - not that scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 12:26:04 am
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on Jul 29, 2014 at 12:26:42 am

Original thread:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/65839

Conclusion:

[Franz Bieberkopf] "...the total for "iTunes, Software, and Services" comes from Apple - and the rest is just his guesses at how that breaks down."

The numbers that he's dreamed up are way off.

FCPX is selling about 300,000 per year - that's 90million per year on FCPX sales. It's more or less consistently their "highest grossing" software, which means that Logic and Aperture gross less than that per year.

The math from there gets nowhere near 2 Billion.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple's ProApps - not that scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 1:14:23 am
Last Edited By Marcus Moore on Jul 29, 2014 at 1:28:01 am

This is a more recent report- and not the same info, though how Dediu breaks apart the iTunes number is presumably the same as from February. So your trepidation about the numbers might still stand.

Let's not forget to incorporate growth into your yearly calcuation- if we only take the growth on the chart as true, then ProApps sales have basically doubled from the launch of X in 2011 to the first 3 months of 2014. On this chart from 250 mil in 2011 to just shy of 500 mil in the highest selling quarter this year.

While your avg of 300,000 per year is probably in the ballpark (if you assume Apple's "over 1 million" from April to be something like 1.2-1.4 after this quarter), then we'd have to think they sold WAY more in the last year than they did in the first year. So FCP X unit sales for 2014 might be closer to 600,000, depending on what the sales curve looks like. Which would make 2014 FCP X revenue closer to $180 million.

I agree there's still a disparity between that and 2 billion/yr.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple's ProApps - not that scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 2:21:48 am

[Marcus Moore] "... we'd have to think they sold WAY more in the last year than they did in the first year. So FCP X unit sales for 2014 might be closer to 600,000, depending on what the sales curve looks like."

Marcus,

I suppose there are lots who might believe the same.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple's ProApps - not that scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 2:32:24 am

Until we get another number from Apple- when they cross 2 million maybe, we'll have a better idea of the sales curve. Until then its unclear.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Apple's ProApps - not that scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 3:29:54 am

[Marcus Moore] "Until then its unclear."

But heaven forbid that should stop people from tossing numbers around.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple's ProApps - not that scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 3:37:14 am

It's called a discussion forum for some reason... Hmmmm.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple's ProApps - not that scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 8:01:18 am

[Marcus Moore] "It's called a discussion forum for some reason... Hmmmm."

That gets a "like"

Steve Connor
Mellowing slowly


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Apple's ProApps - not that scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 1:42:45 pm

[Marcus Moore] "It's called a discussion forum for some reason... Hmmmm."

Can't really do much discussion about total b.s.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple's ProApps - not that scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 1:48:53 pm

Apparently Franz and I can. In this case talking about where the data might be going wrong. But you're right, of course... [insert eyes rolling]


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple's ProApps - not that scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 1:58:39 pm

[Marcus Moore] "Apparently Franz and I can. In this case talking about where the data might be going wrong. But you're right, of course... [insert eyes rolling]
"


Discussion forums aren't the place for speculation and inaccuracy, thank goodness we have someone who's keeping an eye out for this happening.

Steve Connor
Mellowing slowly


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 11:21:29 am

As others have already noted, those numbers are off.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 4:19:06 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "As others have already noted, those numbers are off."

Thanks for clearing that up Dennis. Is this Adobe's official position on the hypothetical sales numbers of
competing products? Can you also comment on Media Composer sales? I believe there's a thread on that here somewhere. :-/

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 4:53:18 pm

Dennis,

Since the data source was outlined by Alex Golner in his original post very clearly, are you saying that the source was wrong, that Alex's interpretation was wrong, or that you guys have more reliable internal research?

Not looking for a breach of confidentiality here, just looking for clarity.

If you parse his charts, it kinda indicates that Apple Pro Apps (as a group) have about half the installed base of the current Adobe base across all the CC apps including not just video, but Photoshop/Lightroom et al.

You're saying that's significantly inaccurate? And if so, is there non proprietory data that can be referenced to better help us understand this? Thanks.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 6:01:56 pm

hang on tho - I'm all for pro apps being a healthy sector bringing in coin for apple, but isn't there a basic math problem with the X install base multiplied by 299? even including logic and the fifty dollar apps?

How do we get to anywhere near 2 billion annual turnover? Doing iphone calculator sums even if you take a million X purchases the last fiscal year - and I'm not really sure you can given apple's public statements on the total install base - that gets you 300 million for the year say -
how do Apple get their hands on the other 1.7 billion?

Again - I'm down with a healthy pro apps team bashing on, but 2 billion in pro apps sales for a single year sounds like an unusual number, unless adobe are laundering money for tony soprano or something, which I have heard scuttlebutt on.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 7:35:24 pm

As I'm prone to do in these situations I went to the source and talked with Horace Dediu (who provided the data that Alex used in his post) via twitter.

Apple only provides one number for the iTunes Software and Services (of which ProApps is part of)- how he has broken this apart into the different divisions is based mainly on public statements made by Apple. It is absolutely a "best guess" for a group for which Apple provides no specific data.

I provided him the "over 1 million" installs number provided by Apple in April- so that will probably factor in to new calculations next time around.

In his article, Alex rounded up, and said "approaching 2 billion". Horace's says his own chart info is $1.7 billion for past 12 months, but he admitted that number is probably too high.

Logic and Aperture are both strong sellers (frequently bouncing back and forth with FCP X on grossing and paid apps charts), and Logic is only $100 less than FCP X. Based on what articles we've seen about increased adoption, it would amaze me if more of the "over 1 million" weren't sold in the last 12 months than the previous 12, or the 12 before that.

So let's spitball for the last 12 months (and yes I'll be generous)

500,000 FCPX = $150 mil
400,000 Logic = $80 mil
300,000 Aperture = $24 mil
150,000 Compressor = 7.5mil
150,000 Motion = 7.5mil

TOTAL: $269million

That's a big spread, no argument from me.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 7:57:23 pm

fair play. Yes, Horace is the man, his stuff is brainy aces generally, but as you say 2 billion is hard to square, the math is units sold times price in the end, and you'd need some zany numbers to hit that.

sure the only thing that's important is that it is seen as more than paying its way, and represents a no brainer strategic stake in the future of media production.

Given Alexa, Blackmagic and Cion are ProRes vending machines, it seems incredibly unlikely, given their history with adobe, that Apple wouldn't keep their hand in with software that handles it on their own top end hardware. They're unlikely to rely on adobe or avid to strategically answer their need for a top tier prores native editing system to push their most expensive hardware, given neither editing system is particularly at all pro res native.

mind you - ppro, on a stacked machine, encodes prores at a speed that actually blows my mind. granted there are 24 cores and 64 gb ram, but good god that thing can work it. a 30 second spot goes out in 5 seconds. I look at my watch. It's ridiculous.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Ryan Holmes
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 8:07:30 pm

[Marcus Moore] "So let's spitball for the last 12 months (and yes I'll be generous)

500,000 FCPX = $150 mil
400,000 Logic = $80 mil
300,000 Aperture = $24 mil
150,000 Compressor = 7.5mil
150,000 Motion = 7.5mil

TOTAL: $269million"


Even if you sold all 1 million seats this past year, that still wouldn't get you to $2 billion. However, I'm assuming that what we're talking about with the $2 billion is the entire app ecosystem, of which FCPX is a part. I don't know that the pro apps really generate or detract much from Apple's bottom line either way.

Bill Davis and I were discussing this same thing a few weeks ago in regards to Aperture:

[Ryan Holmes] "[Bill Davis] "What business or structural negative should Apple be worried in the ProApps business model?"

I don't know that there is a structural negative yet for Apple. At some point, they may deem the cost of R&D, programming, testing, etc. as a waste of talented programmers that could be better utilized on iOS or Mac OS. Any reports that I can find don't breakout Pro Apps downloads as their own line. So we can't really be sure. But even if we grant 1 million seats of FCP X, and we grant that they sold all those seats last quarter in 2014 (which they didn't, they're spread out over 3 years) that's still only $300 million in revenue (not profit) from FCP X. Q2 2014 Apple posted $45.6 billion in revenue. So the FCP X aspect is really inconsequential in Apple's ecosystem, especially once you spread that revenue out over 3+ years."


Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost


Return to posts index

Paul Neumann
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 9:07:54 pm

And just food for thought, how difficult is it to keep talented programmers interested in a project that is inconsequential to a successful company's bottom line? I work for a large tech company and our best and most badass programmers fight to be working on the best and most badass projects. They want to put gold nuggets and brass rings on their resumes.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 29, 2014 at 9:35:47 pm

I take Ryan's point, but I'm not sure it's as simple as that.

Take, for discussions sake, the big web development news out there this week about the kudos that the British Government is getting on their Government services web presence redo. Everyone's saying its hugely improved, (if imperfect in some still being revised areas.) Interest all around the world. I think a lot of the success has been the team and the tools. New team. Using Ruby on Rails, iirc. Organized around an adaptation of, I think, SCRUM/Agile concepts. (I might have some of this wrong since these are not areas of my expertise) but the point is that if you took that superb team and put them to work on a video app like X - could they do better than any other team?

Maybe, maybe not.

It seems like Software development expertise just isn't always a simply transportable skill set.

Maybe you can take a great classical pianist and make them a great ragtime player with a little adaption time, but I'm a bit suspect of that.

It's Michael Jordan playing baseball again.

BTW, the reading I accidentally did this week about the UK Web thing and the modern large scale software dev process caused me to think about how X has developed. Coding solutions then circling back to refine even fundamental assumptions if the process owners feel they can be improved. Sounded a lot like the X story to me.

Wish I knew more about this stuff, it's fascinating watching the world being re-wired and re-imagined in so many practical and metaphorical ways for the information age.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Alex Gollner
Re: Apple's ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
on Jul 30, 2014 at 11:14:39 pm

Thanks for getting more information from Horace, Marcus.

I've added a second update to the original post to include your Twitter conversation with Horace and this most recent post of yours.


@Alex4D

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

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


Return to posts index

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