FORUMS: list search recent posts

On being rude to Randy Ubillos

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Aindreas Gallagher
On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 2:21:39 pm

One of the posters below there after the apple FAQ announcement, acting somewhat in - everything is fine here now, lets move on with FCPX - mode said

"But PLEASE - stop the personal attacks on the designer, and keep it civil. I don't think much of what has been said here is fair or respectful. Would you have said the same to their face? I doubt it."

I've got... one more rant in me.. so here goes: I'm one of the people being a bit scathing of Randy Ubillos. I don't know about rude tho. that implies sort of the opposite of being polite and respectful of our betters or something. And yes, God knows, if given the opportunity, I would say what I've said here to his face.
hands up who here would like to ask randy some questions in a town hall setting?

Anyway - I would actually argue that I'm being derisory of Randy, and actually not of Randy Ubillos the man, although I have had imaginary famous people call him names, but rather I have been derisory of of the hubris implicit in Randy's approach to updating a key piece of software for the professional video editing market.
FCPX, whatever else you think of it - is, I would argue, not particularly great software, purely as software I'm not sure at all how good it is: there seem to be tons of little finnicky mistakes in it, piles of people have attested to its bugginess, it's media management is ridiculous, and it's missing so many fundamental features its kind of amazing that apple are looking for cash for it, while they inform us that someone else will figure out the pro features for Final Cut Pro, at a future point, charging us unknown amounts of cash, but that this will all happen after apple finalise the API architecture for the product they they just sold me. So that's great.

But that's not my real bugbear - I've been venting spleen non-stop for so long that, rather than type something new, let me just reach back into the sludge of my previous invective and paste a paragraph in - its in a reply to a guy saying that NLE's had remained largely unchanged in their approach for too long:

"...well yes, that is precisely correct. editing software has remained largely the same, 3D software, when you think about it, has remained much the same both in how it exposes functionality - four up view - transform and manipulation tools - and the degree of functionality it exposes - a lot.

Saying - looks the same as in the 1990s - side steps an inescapable point - the software looks the same because the professional editing environment, no more than the professional 3D environment, or indeed the professional print environment, have complex requirements, exposing functionality for the artist to deliver across multiple markets and output mediums in a high pressure environment - that is what maintains the complexity of the software and the tried and tested conceptual underpinnings of the software it self: multiple tracks, a source, a viewer, all of these things have real world counterparts, and they predate the editing software itself. Placed within the software, they are the distillation of hard won thought."


See - I believe in that statement - you might disagree with it, but I think that statement is fundamentally true. Complex tasks are complex. High performance professional software functioning in truly complex environments, be it post production, 3D, or broadcast, engenders necessary complexity by exposing a swathe of different functions to the artist. But he or she will have internalised all those functions and options over their years of training, they understand the craft toolset as represented by the professional software and so he or she is perfectly comfortable with that. Right? We all get this OK? Photoshop/3DSMax/FCP7/Flame, expose a broad range of functionality at the surface - it looks fine to me, I need all that functionality, but if I had no idea what photoshop or 3DSMax was for - their interfaces would confuse me.

And so to my issue with Randy and what he has done with the upgrade to the software I have been using professionally for about the past nine years:

This is what I would argue Randy has done - he has taken the multitrack editor and boiled it down into a few digestible parables and adverbs, primary and secondary storylines, noises off (thats the name for nat sound tags in a future release) he has done this to make iMovie Pro an easily digested upgrade for a person coming from a very particular piece of software - iMovie - my problem with this is that I, the professional customer waiting so long for this upgrade, do not need the parable of the primary storyline, I do not need the handholding of V2 auto-linking to V1, I already fully understand the functions and practices of editing made available to me by a true multitrack editor - I don't need randy to boil it down for me - I already get it. I need all the true functionality underlying and driving his simplified metaphors. All of it. But you see, Randy wasn't talking to me, or to you, or to anyone of us as professional editors - he completely knows we get it, he was talking to people who's wallets apple haven't really been able to get at - prosumers. It's a potentially large market. Randy has decided, or has been told, that his conversations, now and in the future, are to be had with them, not me or you. And in case we are confused, Apple are doing this for entirely financial motives. 75 billion in the bank just is not enough.

And so as an editing professional working in the creative industries, the direction Apple have taken with this application really really really really annoys me. They are, he said, finally getting the bile right into his mouth, denigrating professional craft by deeming this professional software.

Its not a new way to think of editing, its a prosumer way to think of editing.

See? it rhymes, so it must be true.

Famous quote from every professional editor who ever lived in all the known galaxies of the universe:
"randy ubillos, you, who's name will go down in infamy: FCP7 wasn't a multitrack editor, ediiting is a multitrack operation, editing software is meant to be a powerfully versatile expression of that simple truth, not some pat boiled down collection of grossly simplified metaphors designed to draw in the prosumer crowd at the expense of the fifty percent of the professional video editing community you successfully wooed and bound to your ship before merrily throwing them back into the sea."

http://bit.ly/jIUH2N


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


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 2:38:00 pm

You don't get it

And you're just griping...

That should cover about 25% of the responses.


Return to posts index

Scott Sheriff
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 2:56:28 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "...and bound to your ship before merrily throwing them back into the sea."

Well, if I have a ship, then I might just keel-haul those behind this debacle!

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com

I have a system, it has stuff in it, and stuff hooked to it. I have a camera, it can record stuff. I read the manuals, and know how to use this stuff and lots of other stuff too.
You should be suitably impressed...

"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." ---Red Adair


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 4:04:26 pm

I kind of wonder about the ship at cupertino myself, some posters have made oblique reference to an awful lot of internal cupertino turf wars in the production of this software - with wildly diverging opinions on what this software was supposed to be. Which would explain its chimera qualities. They haven't even gotten VAT receipts together for the EU market, or proper tax receipts for Australia, according to a poster below - barring anything else I think this software release feels like an executional fiasco, because it is a fiasco.


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


Return to posts index

J Hussar
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 3:06:29 pm

When this mess with FCPX happened I tried to figure out who is the problem. Was it Steve Jobs? Tim Cook? Apple culture in general?

Eventually after searching the net you find this one guy, Randy Ubillos. He was the 'mastermind' behind screwing up iMovie 08 - a fiasco similar to this one. It reads like a script for what just happened to us. Only with iMovie 08 it wasn't people whose livings depended on the software.

At one time, long ago, he did work on interfaces for editing software. Now he didn't invent the paradigm, there were other systems in existence. He just translated what was out their into some basic front ends. The analogy is he came up with another word processor after word processors existed, he followed the same rules - he did not do anything that special.

But Randy is lauded as this pioneer. I think it has gone to his head and I think he has powerful friends in Apple. And his ego made FCPX - a disaster for most of us. It was his ego that made this awful new paradigm, just so he could have some milestone - well no one asked for the new paradigm - I certainly never heard anyone say timelines sucked, ever.

If you find him on the net, he is all interested in how to get his vacation footage onto a mac for editing. Seriously, that's what the articles state. Not that he wanted to make a very complex documentary, or a feature film, or a TV show. Nope - he wanted to get his vacation videos onto the Mac in a better way. WTF?

So this is the guy who decided that FCPX was a better way to edit his vacation videos. It's mind boggling.

The sad part is that this madman can damage so many productive lives.



Return to posts index

Mike Stroven
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 4:50:51 pm

Keep in mind that Ubilos was part of the "purchase" from Macromedia. Macromedia (and I've never understood why) didn't see Final Cut as a product that fit their overall product strategy.

I would venture that if Randy and his team couldn't sell their product to the Macromedia management, they just weren't very good at conveying the vision of using it. That's a shortcoming they never got over even at Apple.

In true Apple form, a bunch of clueless product marketing people try and dumb things down to the point that any 2nd grader can use them. They don't understand the professional market, and they never have. They don't understand the enterprise market either, surprise... They are like Volkswagon without the R&D of Porche and Audi.

They buy technology from the professional world, and then dumb it down to make it palatable for the masses. It's one thing to lower the cost, but a different thing altogether to lower the capabilities.. They have the money... Why do they not invest in the high end technology, and they apply that research in the low end?



Return to posts index


J Hussar
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 5:30:50 pm

[Mike Stroven] "In true Apple form, a bunch of clueless product marketing people try and dumb things down to the point that any 2nd grader can use them. They don't understand the professional market, and they never have. They don't understand the enterprise market either, surprise... They are like Volkswagon without the R&D of Porche and Audi."

Sony does this. Sony has a professional division that make $ 50,000 HD tape decks and HD cameras, plus other hard core pro equipment. It is a division within the company.

The R&D from the high end trickles down and is used in prosumer and consumer products - it is great business strategy, and one Apple should employ.

Apple should work with the Pros, make some cutting edge stuff and use the R&D to make the consumer end cutting edge.

I worry that Steve J. is sick and some of the worst elements (i.e. Randy) of the company are taking it over for some short term profit.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 9:31:14 pm

Hey Mike, its not that Macromedia didn't want it. They were caught in a web of contract and licensing agreements between Microsoft and Truevision that kept them from releasing.


Return to posts index

Chad Nickle
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 3:31:32 pm

The media management is great, and the software is amazing, Yes, it has major things missing at this point, and yes, they totally botched the launch, but I think there is a very vocal minority here. In the long run, FCPX will be an amazing piece of software. I look forward to the day when I come back to the Cow and not have to sift through pages of whining and complaining. I understand the complaints, there were many oversights, but they had to move on sometime, FCP 7 was a dinosaur.


Return to posts index


Jamie Franklin
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 3:48:00 pm

[Chad Nickle] "FCP 7 was a dinosaur"

So is the ol' "whining and complaining" meme being attempted *still* after the stench of problems of Randy's holiday "event" video software released a week ago...

Not even trying to wrap it in plaster of paris can keep that meme going....sorry bud. FCP7 wasn't a dinosaur, it was the revolution of multitrack editing...


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 3:51:21 pm

FCPX is the first of the Relational Database driven NLEs, leaving behind the old SpreadSheet model. Apple is the first but they wont be the only and, as time passes, may not even be the best. But the model they are using will be what other NLEs eventually move to. Apple doing this first means that, even if it takes time, they have a good chance of eventually leading as facilities see the need for the Relational model and expediting workflow.

Some people love spreadsheets and they still exist but there's no way that a spreadsheet is equal to or more powerful than a relational database. Again that doesn't mean other databases will be better executed but it does mean Randy Ubillos and those around him at Apple saw this first.



Return to posts index

J Hussar
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 4:05:51 pm

I think the thing is that some people have the project in their head and want to arrange it the way they want. I don't mind meta data organization. But I want the option to turn it off.



Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 5:48:40 pm

[J Hussar] "But I want the option to turn it off."

How would that work? I don't think it's impossible, just not implemented. As long as there's metadata there should be alternate ways of arranging it.

My own thought is that one should have the option to have it default to Secondary Storylines (track) if one wants to work primarily in a track modality.

Trying to use a Storyline modality is a bit clunky at the moment but it is there and it may only take a few GUI changes to allow for that without making a major overhaul.



Return to posts index

J Hussar
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 11:28:08 pm

That's what I'm talking about - just a bit more control. My issue is that the one size fits all approach isn't the best fit.



Return to posts index

John Chay
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 4:07:19 pm

I'm having a hard time grasping what you are saying. I think comparing editing to a spread sheet is weird.

All of the work that I do has a beginning, a middle and an end. In the end, the final product is a linear product. I'm not sure how working in a "relational database" creates a better work environment when in the end all I'm trying to do is create a story that is compelling and makes sense.




http://www.john-chay.com

Editor/Videographer


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 5:46:23 pm

[John Chay] "I'm having a hard time grasping what you are saying. I think comparing editing to a spread sheet is weird. "

. . . and that may be the problem people are having grasping why FCPX is the way it is. It is a relational database. No other NLE is based on that.

[John Chay] "I'm not sure how working in a "relational database" creates a better work environment when in the end all I'm trying to do is create a story that is compelling and makes sense."

... and I remember linear editors not being able to grasp why one would want to digitize tapes when one could simply put up the 1" reel or the betacam tapes and start editing . . . linearly.

Superficially the story may be linear but the parts are all relational especially when you get into compositing or even tying b-roll, cutaways, fx, titles, layers of sound. You now have both vertical and horizontal relationships. Sometimes relationships are one to one and/or linear and sometimes not.

Each Connected clip is a relationship to a clip below it. Each Secondary Storyline are clips related to each other but with a single connection to the Primary or Secondary Storylline below it. The metadata tagging and collections are each designed to make doing a Query in the database possible. Such query is a bit more complex than a simple "find" even though superficially it can be that simple. The query has the potential to be complex.

In a spreadsheet the rows are independent except to the extent one is doing a formula for specific cells. Use a spreadsheet and use a relational database and it becomes apparent why relational databases are far more powerful.

FCPX itself has barely tapped that potential because what we're seeing is just the foundation. Eventually this will get hooked into a server based system but Apple seems aways away from that.

Even a database can end in a simple report superficially but the ability to generate a wide variety of reports limited only by your ability to build relationships and queries, etc.

If you've read some of the people who are metadata geeks and those looking at AV Foundation, they have used terminology that alludes to the database nature of FCPX. Philip Hodgetts is one but there are others.

Sorry I can't explain any better but in exploring FCPX from both the media handling and the Storyline handling, the relational database becomes more clear to me. What they have is very skeletal at the moment but I think the designers know what they're doing and where it can go. Whether they can get it there in a way that has both an easy to use front end without crippling the power, is the challenge and there's no guarantee of success. I do think they're taking a daring step though and whether people like it or not, at least appreciate it.



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 6:09:58 pm

Craig, do you know but what you're saying there really does sound crazily interesting, and insofar as I get it from yours and chris kenny's comments, I do dimly understand that Apple have been extremely rigourous with the new underpinnings of this software - it feels like a bit of mad technical moonshot, ZFS for all and damn the old architecture thing, and really its hard not to have sneaking admiration for that on a basic intellectual cleanliness level.
there is no way I'm going to regurgitate my other criticisms - but you've got me more than curious enough to read properly, and quite a bit more, about the technical architecture underpinning the software.


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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 7:31:15 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "it feels like a bit of mad technical moonshot"

In other places I've likened to creating the language Esperanto. Apple may be the one company that can pull off this new language but it's certainly no guarantee of success. Right now they're just creating the dictionary and the grammar rules. They have not created the novel, speech, epic as of yet.

Certainly people can move to other things and come back to it when it's a full fledged language. Others will start their lessons now while the grammar rules are still under construction and the dictionary is still be added to with new words.

Apple's very difficult challenge is to bring the language into common use. Esperanto failed. Apple has better marketing power though . . . or at least had in the past.

Some have said Apple is acting as they have always had. Actually I think they're acting different, that doesn't necessarily mean better though.

In the last couple of years we've seen some marketing changes. Steve Jobs answering emails, cryptic as his responses are, knowing that they would viral. Randy Ubillos responding to one person privately through Facebook. A sneak peak of FCPX, with all the flaws in execution, is also new. It's almost as if Apple is undergoing some changes in marketing by using "communities" to spread messages and some things are working and others not so well.

That they used to manage very long transitions such as OS9 to OSX or PPC to Intel and did not do that this time is very different as well.

It's almost as if Apple is in transition on many levels. Of course this has people nervous and, as noted above, no guarantee of success. The mighty have fallen before. Apple is the one company that can pull this off. That's doesn't mean they will . . . but if they do it will be a paradigm shift . . . and if not . . .

The App Store itself can be a great way to distribute and there are potential problems there as well. I just went through six days of customer service hell because the App Store has no live support and despite my purchase and download, FCPX showed as not installed therefore I'd get no updates and couldn't install on my MBP without being requesting to pay for it again. I did push and got Live support and probably tore the heads of a couple of lower level managers in both tech support and iTunes support as a result. It now shows as installed though . . . six days later. Nothing a professional can afford to accept as support.

I am no fanboy and my slings and arrows are sharp. I do have a grasp of what they're doing technologically. I like it. I hope they get the rest of the house in order though if this ever to be an Esperanto in wide use.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 30, 2011 at 10:30:24 pm

I think Craig has a lot worthy to say in his analysis.

However, I don't think the Esperanto thing is all that close on point.

I see it more as the computer industry acknowledging that the pervious books, written in LATIN are nearing the end of their useful life.

A lot of people at the top of society are trained in Latin - and those monks and educated folk are angry to see that their skill set is looking pretty dated in the face of the inroads that Spanish, Dutch and whatever are making. Now we see a new language emerging. They're not asking it to be Esperanto and trying to unite whole world into a common language base - They're looking at creating something more like English, I think - a somewhat more modern way to arrange words - with links to the past languages - but that moves the root language structures into something more modern.

But gutting the old sputtering code base of FCP - while critical to a lot of us here - ignores the fact that what's really changing is modern computer engineering and silicone design. THAT is what's pushing a lot of the re-write of FCP. Not the interface. It's the core that they blew up. They actually left a LOT of the interface design intact - while concentrating in the first iteration on showing what the brand new CORE could do well.

YOU may want to cling to the LATIN. I see the value of letting it evolve into something better.

Simple as that.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 30, 2011 at 11:54:15 pm

But English does have roots in so many other languages.

Judging from the reaction to FCPX people don't seem to be seeing it as built on anything they can recognize, hence the reason why I thought of Esperanto.

Esperanto was supposed to be an easy to learn language. No country has adopted it. It's a constructed language with no genealogy related to any ethnic language although it has elements related to other languages.

While I'm not speaking to the technical roots of FCPX, I thought the reaction to it as something that is not an outgrowth of legacy FCP (no genealogy to that "ethnicity"), not adopted by anybody, supposedly designed to be easy to learn whose paradigm would be the new "international" language of the NLE.

Modern NLEs could be Latin though. I'm not sure if those who speak other languages would think of English as an advancement nor would English speaker feel that language were an advancement over other languages.

Basically I've viewing the reaction to FCPX and the challenge Apple has it getting it's new language accepted.

I think the task before Apple to get FCPX accepted as an international language as more difficult road and has had a more virulent reaction than the English language has.



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jul 2, 2011 at 2:30:11 am

I just came back to this wandering back down the threads - it really is, as ever with craig, an absorbingly accurate observation.


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


Return to posts index

james carey
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 6:52:42 pm

[Craig Seeman] ".. and I remember linear editors not being able to grasp why one would want to digitize tapes when one could simply put up the 1" reel or the betacam tapes and start editing . . . linearly.
"


Wait a minute, you and I have different memories of the transition from linear to non-linear. i learned film editing on moviolas and flatbeds, then linear video tape editing on ECS offline and CMx online systems. I remember being a little perplexed by the first (clunky) non-linear system, but also immediately recognized and appreciated their worth. it was easy to 'grasp' just by looking at cut&paste methods in word processing for instance and understand how this innovation was going to change my world for the better. Any linear editor having to make a last minute change in a long form program know exactly why I welcomed the change. Most editors I know took to it quickly. So this revolt is hardly of same sort.

But then, perhaps I am slow to 'grasp' this, trying to convince me that FCPx model is better because it is based on a relational database method just doesn't have the same 'aha' experience for me.

Jim Carey
Director of Video, Radical Entertainment
linkedin: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/jcarey256
mobygames: http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,17212/


Return to posts index

John Chay
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 6:59:41 pm

I remember my first lesson on Avid and watching the instructor create a dissolve with a click of a button. Right then and there I knew linear editing was obsolete.

No "aha" moment with Final Cut X for me either.




http://www.john-chay.com

Editor/Videographer


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 9:08:48 pm

[james carey] " immediately recognized and appreciated their worth. it was easy to 'grasp' just by looking at cut&paste methods in word processing for instance and understand how this innovation was going to change my world for the better."

It's not the interface that drew the complaint that I heard. It's doing things like digitizing.

There were editors who had a dozen or more betacams who felt they could be half way through an edit session while the Avid was digitizing 20 hours of BetaSP tapes.

Other editors felt the image quality was so poor that the rough cut would be so inaccurate that after all that time digitizing and cutting would only mean an online in which they were trimming edit after edit now that they were seeing the master tapes.

[james carey] "was going to change my world for the better."

Yes at some future point when image quality improved and only on projects where it was worth spending hours to digitize and log footage which meant typing in from paper notes that they could be using to edit from already in an online room.

FCPX has potential too. That's my point. What looks bad today may actually be the future. I think the relational database model will win. It's far too powerful. This does not mean some other company wont get there and offer a smoother path. It may well be that FCPX is somebody's EMC to somebody else's Avid. The relational database model opens many doors that FCPX itself may not have walked through yet. I think Apple's pushing to get through those doors though.



Return to posts index

james carey
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 9:31:03 pm

Fair enough, and agreed, but it wasn't because we couldn't 'grasp' why NLE would eventually be better, we certainly could see that in the future NLE would be better. In the meantime we could go on using the tools at hand. I didn't notice any support or tools being withdrawn from the market place when editdroid or laser edit (whatever it was called) or avid arrived on the scene. But your point is well taken, I will continue to edit with FCP7 or PPro5+ or even AVID MC until such time as FCPx becomes a useable tool, if it does.

Jim Carey
Director of Video, Radical Entertainment
linkedin: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/jcarey256
mobygames: http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,17212/


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 10:32:58 pm

[james carey] "I didn't notice any support or tools being withdrawn from the market place when editdroid or laser edit (whatever it was called) or avid arrived on the scene."

Yes it is odd that Apple pulled FCS2009. This from a company that had transitions that lasted well more than a year from OS9 to OSX and PPC to Intel. Even when they EOLd Shake they kept it available for a considerable amount of time. Even on the consumer side, EOL'd MobileMe is staying alive for another year and subscribers all got free extensions through the end. And although much of iLife is in the App store you can still by the box from the Apple Online store and it includes the EOLd iWeb and iDVD. You can even still get an iPhone 3GS from AT&T for $49 plus contract.

Actually Apple's handling of FCPX is very much atypical of their history whether it's transitioning to new technologies or EOLing products and, as I note above, this is both professional and consumer products.



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 11:02:33 pm

Its a *tiny* bit hyperbolic to say this, but a lot of people have wondered for a long time what apple would be like without the laser focus of Steve Jobs at the tiller - I think in some way this rollout gives some indication. Its just crazy messy, it's like a bomb has gone off.


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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 4:19:50 pm

[Craig Seeman] "FCPX is the first of the Relational Database driven NLEs, leaving behind the old SpreadSheet model. "

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. When I edit, I my sole concern is in crafting experience in time. How I do that should be up to me.



Return to posts index

J Hussar
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 3:51:30 pm

Hi Chad, or is that Randy?

Chad Nickle
Member Since:
June 27th 2011



Return to posts index

Chad Nickle
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 4:06:18 pm

You got me! I have some itinfoilhats for sale if you are interested.


Return to posts index

Tom Babauta
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 5:09:14 pm

So they think FCP7 was a dinosaur huh? The same way AfterFX is a dinosaur too which is why Apple tried to topple it with Motion? Look how that turned out.

I'd like to see them take a swing at Photoshop, since by now, it "should" be a dinosaur too. Hold on to your hats, iPhoto PRO is coming.



Return to posts index

Hamdani Milas
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 3:54:57 pm

Hear, hear, to Mr Gallagher's focus on the critical importance of interface (GUI) of editing software and the process of making movies. There's a good reason why the mainstream editing applications basically emulate all each other, it's tried, true, tested and proven. It's not mere tradition, it's not old fashioned, "it just works". (now, where have we heard that before?)

FCPX gives the middle finger to all of this. And the astonishing thing is it was sold to the post-production industry as an upgrade to FC Studio 3. Truly amazing.

I concur also with Mr Hussar's thoughts on this being the work of an out of control ego. FCPX and the way it was promoted and launched has all the world-conquering hallmarks of immense hubris. And if it really was intended for professional working editors then it's demented to release it in such an incomplete state. Apart from anything else it's a colossally poor business decision.

I tried to write a message to Apple's feedback address voicing my opinion, but there is no feedback category for FCPX! So I sent my thoughts on Apple and Mr Steve Jobs to the FCP address instead. Not that I expect any one at the other end to read it.

Hamdani Milas

Independent producer, director, cinematographer, writer, editor
Milas Film Productions, Hong Kong
http://www.milasfilm.com


Return to posts index

Cris Daniels
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 4:22:24 pm

Who exactly asked Apple to re-write how we edit? We asked for 64-bit, better tools, an update to the interface was due for certain.

The problem is as simple as it looks, it is Imovie Pro. Plain and simple. How anyone could deny that is ridiculous.

If Apple thinks this is how people edit, especially in production environments, boy are they out of touch...

If Apple thinks adding a few functions into FCP X adequately replaced Color, or Final Cut Server, that is delusional as well.

It is also becoming clear there is a certain segment of Apple cheerleaders, non-Apple employees and Industry gurus", who are either getting the marching orders, or paid to put lipstick on this pig. No worries, we simply note their credibility hit and move on.

Nobody that insists that I need to "see how brilliant Apple was" in their "re-invention" of "professional editing" is relevant.

This same kind of reaction would occur if Adobe revamped Photoshop into some kind of node based application, or told us Photoshop Elements was actually an upgrade...


And if the answer is "wait and see what we do with the updates to FCP X", then why the hell is it out now? Are they admitting is isn't ready for prime time? That is a damage control statement if I every heard one. You WILL NOT see the most important features missing added back in, that is what WE KNOW and is the crux of the problem.

As far as Apple holding some kind of crystal ball, and laughing at the way everyone emulates this software in the end. Uhh..... wishful thinking.


Return to posts index

Ben Holmes
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 4:11:47 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "One of the posters below there after the apple FAQ announcement, acting somewhat in - everything is fine here now, lets move on with FCPX - mode said"

That would be me. You can address me directly if you want. I understand I differ in my initial impression of FCPX to you. I also differ in my opinions of what Apple will do in the future to X. I think we can all agree on that. What does NOT HELP in any way is posting personal insults about any one. I did, as I recall, rather rudely suggest to that you 'chill out' in a previous response. I regret that, and I apologise - I think it's the most restrained response I could manage at the time.

However, I'm not going to stick around in a forum where invective and rambling discourse about the nature of professional applications which add nothing to anyone's decision of 'should I or shouldn't I use X' drown out debate of those points, or where my own posts (which invariable include my view that it's too early to judge X, and those points where I feel X is lacking) are characterised as 'everything is fine here now'. It's playground debating.

I'll be in the techniques forum if anyone wants to call me a pompous ass - you can come round and do it my face as well if you like.

All the best,
Ben

Edit Out Ltd
----------------------------
FCP Editor/Trainer/System Consultant
EVS/VT Supervisor for live broadcast
RED camera transfer/post
Independent Director/Producer

http://www.blackmagic-design.com/community/communitydetails/?UserStoryId=87...


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 4:33:01 pm

hey - not at all, its just that I have indeed been slagging Randy Ubillos - and well, you were broadly critical of the tenor of the stuff being thrown at the designers of the software, so I thought I'd have one last go at explaining why his actions with the software annoyed me. And then I wrote about 20000 words on the topic, with about a third of it in italics. I know I'm like the boy who cried wolf - but that last diatribe pretty much states my position - thats pretty much the last of it for me. I swear said the boy who cried wolf - That expresses my personal position. you or anyone else will likely not get a heiffer like that from me again - I'd also say to you that this is a forum - "rambling discourse about the nature of professional applications"
welllll... a week after FCP changed utterly you are going to get a *bit* of that kind of thing - and really Ben its a forum, we're kind of here to talk, occasionally to write too long pieces that nobody has to read - debate and express our views.

I regret characterising your position as "everything is fine here now" - and please believe me it was not at all my intention to -well indeed I did not call you - a pompous ass. I really don't think you are. Sure I hardly know you bud. Ubillos, with the position he took with the software and the buck stops there nature of his role- yes frankly, him i feel its fair to criticise - but I really didn't mean to direct criticism or scorn at you - I was just responding to the sentence you wrote as it made me think about my slagging of him as the architect of the software.

peace and whatnot -


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


Return to posts index

Ben Holmes
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 4:53:27 pm

Aindreas,

I think we could have a few pints and talk about this - you're a passionate guy with interesting views. Actually, it was the erstwhile Mr. Ubilos you called a 'pompous ass'.

I don't deny anyone the right to be angry with Apple and him for changes they did not like in software they spent years learning. I'm pretty pissed myself - my time is valuable, and mostly spare time is family time. But onwards I must go - with whatever the future tools are.

Less noise, more objectivity, and better manners benefit everyone. Maybe we should talk more about the features we'd like to see, features we don't know how to use, or move on to another app and another forum? I think it's possible we've vented enough.

Best wishes,
Ben

Edit Out Ltd
----------------------------
FCP Editor/Trainer/System Consultant
EVS/VT Supervisor for live broadcast
RED camera transfer/post
Independent Director/Producer

http://www.blackmagic-design.com/community/communitydetails/?UserStoryId=87...


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 5:02:53 pm

oh yeah I diiiid call him a pompous ass. mmm. Well then after that my language went full blue off the rails and I got slapped down for it so..

You're right on the move on thing - that really was my last, crazed, mecha dinoasaur spews lava, novella length, rant. Apple be apple and they've made the move, you'll say that for them - they're not afraid of making a move, and so no amount of clawing at them verbally is going to get them to turn around, however much you might really really wish it could. So then you stop clawing.


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


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 6:03:29 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] " so no amount of clawing at them verbally is going to get them to turn around, however much you might really really wish it could. So then you stop clawing."

I think it's too early to make that judgement. They clawed back an inch so far.

Can you recall this level of backlash? Do you honestly think, this will be the end?

If they put FCS3 back on the shelves instead of taking their 30 silver, then we should expect some moves to gain back what they are inevitably losing at this point in time...if they don't.... then that to me will ring as the last word on this...


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 6:40:42 pm

No to be fair I've never seen a net/fire/s**tstorm the scale of this, (said the man busily pumping the bellows at the flames...)
And yes - I also thought they would put FCS back on the shelves for a bit - nearly everyone thought they were going to do that - I think even gruber said he thought they were going to do that. He actually advised them to call FCPX FCP express X sure. And that was coming from Gruber. You'd think self motivated interest to protect their position at the facilities would have had them throw it back on the shelves for a bit if only to get the words EOL out of everyone's mouth.. but well sure, you know - its apple, they're not for the turning.
Although - they *did* guarantee FCP7 in Lion. that's more than they had done previously I think? If that's a new commitment, its not an insignificant engineering commitment.
I personally think we've had our last and only word from the mountain - It'll be what it'll be like. their software strategy is locked - we're no shifting it.


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


Return to posts index

J Hussar
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 29, 2011 at 6:44:21 pm

Apple doesn't like a PR mess, and making professional media people mad is a huge error (i.e. Conan O'Brien video).

No they are in full alert mode - they thought they'd slip it by and they failed. They'll try and make peace, just for the sake of PR.

Not complaining would have been the big mistake. The legal idea is here:

Silence is acquiescence (aka. silent acquiescence and acquiescence by silence) is a related doctrine that can mean, and have the legal effect, that when confronted with a wrong or an act that can be considered a tortious act, where one’s silence may mean that one accepts or permits such acts without protest or claim thereby loses rights to a claim of any loss or damage.




Return to posts index

Mario Paglia
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 30, 2011 at 12:16:24 am

Here's my point:
once (10 years ago) Apple needed to offer great softwares to make people (especially pros) buy macs. They make money from hardware not from software. So they bought great pieces of software and made it mac only: Macromedia Final Cut, Nothing Real Shake, Emagic Logic, Silicon Color Final Touch.
Now they are selling macs to the masses and are less interested in investing money to get something they already have. I mean, everybody here is considerating to switch to Avid or Adobe, but i guess no one would ever think of getting it on a windows machine, we would just use another software on our macs. And of course we'll keep on buying macs.

What would you do if Avid releases an aja-compatible media composer? Why use Color if you have DaVinci on the same machine? Motion is a little toy compared to After, or not?

And, exscuse me if i am a little selfish, ten years ago being an offline editor on avid here in italy was paid 50€-hour, now there are pretended editors who learn fc at home and accept work for 10€-hour ( but of course don't understand the difference from a vhs to a betasp). Look at the signatures here, now we all are online editor, colorist and post consultant.

Pros need pro-softwares. I dont need hundreds of templates when i cannot use my sapphire plugins on my machine. Im tired of explaining to my customers why their logo on an alpha-channel quicktime movie doesn't display correctly on my 13k€ barco display

My only complaint is that i will admit to any avid fanatic i know, that they were right



Return to posts index

Francois Xavier
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 30, 2011 at 10:48:40 am

Motion is a little toy compared to After, or not?

Not , it's just a cliché

Documentary Director & Editor
Paris /France


Return to posts index

Mario Paglia
Re: On being rude to Randy Ubillos
on Jun 30, 2011 at 1:40:57 pm

I've been using motion for very large projects, and it becomes slow and instable. The same things on AE work flawless. I can send you both projects to' try yourself. So its not a cliche.



Return to posts index

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