FORUMS: list search recent posts

Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Andrew Kimery
Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 15, 2014 at 10:11:52 pm

Let the speculation, Kremlinology and most likely inflammatory comments begin! ;)

http://alex4d.com/notes/item/apple-drops-proapps-from-corporate-definition

"For over 10 years Apple have included a mention of their professional video and audio applications in their corporate definition. Like most companies they define who they are in every press release they put out.

This week they dropped the words 'professional applications' from their definition:"


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 15, 2014 at 10:31:02 pm

Oh boy! There goes the neighborhood out with the bath water. :-)

If they-- Apple, decides to deep six Motion and FCP X as we know it I will move over to Linux and keep a close watch on what BMD does with Fusion and Resolve. I doubt though that this will happen.

camera operator | editor | production assistant

Remember kids, tracks are you friends when you charge by the hour. Track Tetris, game on!


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 15, 2014 at 10:43:02 pm

[David Mathis] "Oh boy! There goes the neighborhood out with the bath water. :-)

If they-- Apple, decides to deep six Motion and FCP X as we know it I will move over to Linux and keep a close watch on what BMD does with Fusion and Resolve. I doubt though that this will happen."


Ha ha, I don't think Apple will EOL Motion or FCPX anytime soon either... but I do wish they would sell Shake to someone who's interested in reviving it for Windows, Linux and OSX. If BMD wants to be the new Autodesk, they'll need more than one compositing application, just sayin'. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index


David Mathis
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 15, 2014 at 11:21:30 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Ha ha, I don't think Apple will EOL Motion or FCPX anytime soon either... but I do wish they would sell Shake to someone who's interested in reviving it for Windows, Linux and OSX. If BMD wants to be the new Autodesk, they'll need more than one compositing application, just sayin'. :-)"

I been wishing that Blackmagic Design would acquire Shake or some other node based compositor and they have!

I think what could be potentially disruptive to the pro market is if Blackmagic bundles Fusion with their cinema cameras and URSA cameras much like they do with Resolve and Ultrascope. Could a Lite version be in the works with free updates? That could change the landscape. What if they have a Lite version as well? Very interested in what others think.

camera operator | editor | production assistant

Remember kids, tracks are you friends when you charge by the hour. Track Tetris, game on!


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:19:24 am

[David Mathis] "I think what could be potentially disruptive to the pro market is if Blackmagic bundles Fusion with their cinema cameras and URSA cameras much like they do with Resolve and Ultrascope. Could a Lite version be in the works with free updates? That could change the landscape. What if they have a Lite version as well? Very interested in what others think."

I have to be honest, I really have mixed feelings about this. It's great to have an inexpensive, deep color pipeline from capture to output. But it kills me to see high-end software at fire sale prices. Are we starting to see the end of pure software companies that can offer perpetual licenses? Is the future of post production software, buy an Nvidia product to get Maxwell, or subscribe to NextLimit Cloud to get Realflow?

Shawn



Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:37:00 am
Last Edited By David Mathis on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:39:46 am

[Shawn Miller] "I have to be honest, I really have mixed feelings about this. It's great to have an inexpensive, deep color pipeline from capture to output. But it kills me to see high-end software at fire sale prices. Are we starting to see the end of pure software companies that can offer perpetual licenses? Is the future of post production software, buy an Nvidia product to get Maxwell, or subscribe to NextLimit Cloud to get Realflow?"

Mixed feelings here as well. I feel for that studios that invested large sums of money only to find out that there has been a significant price drop putting the high end tools into the hands of the masses. Two prime examples include what Apple did with Final Cut Studio (before switching to a totally different way of approaching how one goes about editing) and Resolve after being acquired by Blackmagic Design, followed by others making a budget friendly "alternative" to Photoshop and Illustrator.

This does benefit a small post house but now there are those that have no real skill set. All of which is why I chose to say "disruptive to the pro market". All of which begs the question, "Do we win or do we lose?"

camera operator | editor | production assistant

Remember kids, tracks are you friends when you charge by the hour. Track Tetris, game on!


Return to posts index


Shawn Miller
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 3:35:25 am

[David Mathis] "This does benefit a small post house but now there are those that have no real skill set. All of which is why I chose to say "disruptive to the pro market". All of which begs the question, "Do we win or do we lose?""

IMO, we most likely lose in the long run. Software development is difficult and expensive. Companies that make applications for a living have to charge what it costs to make their applications, hardware companies that subsidize their software, don't. Larger companies can afford to hold out and find other ways to compete, smaller developers can't. So, what's the future? Who knows, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if all creative software became subscription or subsidy-ware(tm), with a handful of poorly supported freeware apps. Hopefully, I'm wrong. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:03:55 am
Last Edited By Ricardo Marty on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:05:46 am

maybe apple is making space for adobe once they purchas. it from the future defunct cloud. just saying

ricardo marty


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:20:55 am

[Ricardo Marty] "maybe apple is making space for adobe once they purchas. it from the future defunct cloud. just saying"

Are you hoping for less choice?

Shawn



Return to posts index


Marcus Moore
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:29:38 am

I think there was a time around 2005 when Apple would have had enough money and possibly the inclination to buy Adobe- but I think those days are long gone. They still have the money to do it, but no will to do so- and that's if Adobe was even willing.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 5:30:25 pm

[Marcus Moore] "if Adobe was even willing."

Or hostile takeover.


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:31:20 am

hey i didnt drop "pro apps" from apples presentation.


Return to posts index


David Mathis
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:24:07 am

That would be something!

camera operator | editor | production assistant

Remember kids, tracks are you friends when you charge by the hour. Track Tetris, game on!


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:36:29 am
Last Edited By Ricardo Marty on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:37:57 am

yup, they buy adobe then stop windows development and the world is theirs.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 3:05:09 am

[Ricardo Marty] "yup, they buy adobe then stop windows development and the world is theirs."

I think the world of post is a bit bigger than you might imagine.

Shawn



Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:56:08 am

[David Mathis] "I will move over to Linux and keep a close watch on what BMD does with Fusion and Resolve"

I presume you are being facetious, but you do know that Resolve on Linux runs $50K? Right? But, you do get that 747 cockpit of a control surface!

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 15, 2014 at 10:45:12 pm
Last Edited By Marcus Moore on Sep 15, 2014 at 10:49:49 pm

Much hay will me made, I'm sure...

The statement is geared towards the most public face for the company- proportionally ProApps is a smaller piece of the pie as the pie gets larger.

But I think there's a circular logic that keeps Apple in ProApps, pretty much the same one that got them into it in the first place. Even though Mac marketshare has grown substantially since I first started using them in the mid-90s, as still a "minority player", they're probably still worried that without Apple exclusive apps, they're at the mercy of 3rd parties like Adobe and AVID in terms of support.

APERTURE is migrating to PHOTOS, and we'll have to see how that all shakes out.

To my understanding LOGIC still holds the same strong post-audio market position it always has, not suffering the same "X" stumble Final Cut went thru...

and FCP X, I think, is well past the depths of the X transition and is now on regaining some marketshare as Legacy support and mindshare continues to erode.

* EDITED TO ADD- MOTION which has been my go-to motion graphics application for going on 3 years now, holds A LOT of untapped potential. I think many editors who feel they NEED AE could probably get along just fine with Motion even with only it's existing feature set. In much the same way that programs like Acorn or Pixelmator are capitalizing on the umbrella under CC subscriptions to build marketshare.


We have seen changes in the public face of Apple in the last year or so- how it communicates and handles information. I would like to see a return to the mid-00's ProApps marketing- where they get out there in public more. Participate. And although I know Apple is very stingy with public facing events, nothing would please me more than ProApps oriented live-stream events to announce new releases or updates.

In short, a company as large and profitable as Apple should have no problem walking and chewing gum at the same time for as long as it chooses to.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 15, 2014 at 11:28:46 pm

[Marcus Moore] "
* EDITED TO ADD- MOTION which has been my go-to motion graphics application for going on 3 years now, holds A LOT of untapped potential. I think many editors who feel they NEED AE could probably get along just fine with Motion even with only it's existing feature set. In much the same way that programs like Acorn or Pixelmator are capitalizing on the umbrella under CC subscriptions to build marketshare."


Curious to know why Motion has not been developed further. This program has a great potential but other than change in the color scheme of the interface with a slightly different location of tools, there has been a few things that could add to the value of the software, just not implemented as of yet.

It would be nice to have expressions for the power user base. Would love to see scopes and waveforms when doing color correction and have custom curves available. A three way color corrector would be nice as well. I do love Motion and the ability to create custom stuff for use in FCP X, just want to see it developed more. I will say that the UI is much more approachable then After Effects, and groups are much more fun to work with then the pre-comp way of doing things.

camera operator | editor | production assistant

Remember kids, tracks are you friends when you charge by the hour. Track Tetris, game on!


Return to posts index


Marcus Moore
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 15, 2014 at 11:47:26 pm

I don't know-

You're right, other than a the UI update and the FCP X integration, no serious feature additions have been made to Motion since Version4.

I think much of Motions functionality could come from 3rd parties, if Red Giant or Trapcode plug-ins could make their way over I think it would fill many gaps.

The big hole in my mind right now is a really well integrated 3d motion tracker. SynthEyes is probably the best solution, but it's not well integrated.

I need broadcast monitoring back as well.


Return to posts index

Russ Haskell
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:48:02 am

Aperture users said roughly the same thing during an extended period where Lightroom got progressively better and nothing substantive was added to Aperture.

There has been a long period of neglect of Motion that makes me fear the worse. Hope I'm wrong.

Russ


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:51:47 am

I would agree, except that Motion has become a defacto graphics engine for Final Cut- so I think it's too tightly integrated (even without round-tripping- grrrrrr...) to be EOL'd at this point- the only other option I see is if it's abandoned as a standalone product and wholly absorbed into FCP X.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 3:03:09 pm

[David Mathis] "Curious to know why Motion has not been developed further. This program has a great potential but other than change in the color scheme of the interface with a slightly different location of tools, there has been a few things that could add to the value of the software, just not implemented as of yet."

I think Ron Brinkman's thoughts vis-a-vis Apple and Shake are relevant here:

http://digitalcomposting.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/x-vs-pro/

Particularly this idea:

"Apple isn’t about a few people in Hollywood having done something cool on a Mac (and then maybe allowing Apple to talk about it). No, Apple is about thousands and thousands of people having done something cool on their own Mac and then wanting to tell everyone about it themselves."


Why would Apple develop Motion all that much further? It already does what thousands and thousands of people need to do something cool on their own Macs.

Why spend more effort the extra effort to develop for the needs of only a few?

(By the way, this is why you should be concerned about the disruption of developers of high-end software by mass-market vendors.)


[David Mathis] "It would be nice to have expressions for the power user base."

Behaviors are deceptively powerful, especially when combined. Is there something specific you're looking to do that you feel cannot be done? I'll volunteer Simon to help you out!

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 3:39:35 pm

[Walter Soyka] "(By the way, this is why you should be concerned about the disruption of developers of high-end software by mass-market vendors.)"

Very well said.

[Walter Soyka] "Behaviors are deceptively powerful, especially when combined. Is there something specific you're looking to do that you feel cannot be done? I'll volunteer Simon to help you out!"

Haha!

Of course, I'm always delighted to wade in on anything to do with Behaviors - they really are crazy powerful and can fill quite a few of the more obvious requirements of anyone using Expressions in other apps. In fact, they can sometimes make the equivalent expression-based solutions looked excessively convoluted.

But not always!

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 6:22:09 pm

I am beginning to have mixed feelings about Eyeon Fusion being acquired by Blackmagic Design. Granted this will most likely mean a significant drop in price (unsure of subscription model at this point), giving many more access to a very well rounded node based compositor. On the other hand this could disrupt the pro market.

Not too long ago Apple added Color, formerly Final Touch, to the Final Cut Studio Suite lineup. Shortly thereafter, Resolve comes along. Not to mention the Lite version which is free. Then we have tools such as Nucoda, Baselight and Scratch which are significantly more expensive.

Perhaps this could be on reason some companies are going subscription only? Hard to say, especially since I have concerns about the subscription only model.

Very interesting times ahead.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple drops RETAIL STORES from it TOO!
on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:39:00 am
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:39:32 am

[Andrew Kimery] "This week they dropped the words 'professional applications' from their definition:""

Holy heck, and the new definition also has eliminated any mention of the retail stores!!!

Apple is obviously going to shut down their entire retail operations and go "all on-line!"

Book those Genius appointments STAT!

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

David Mathis
Re: Apple drops RETAIL STORES from it TOO!
on Sep 16, 2014 at 1:06:25 am
Last Edited By David Mathis on Sep 16, 2014 at 1:14:34 am

Say what? Ya mean no more brick and mortar store?


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Apple drops RETAIL STORES from it TOO!
on Sep 16, 2014 at 1:16:31 am

I think (hope?) Bill was being facetious. I didn't go all the way back, but the bricks and mortar stores haven't been part of the definition for years. The focus is on the stuff that Apple has innovated in, and for all that their stores are shiny, they're no more innovative than the Bang & Olufson stores that popped up in the 80s. Apart from the color scheme, their design aesthetic is virtually identical.

So I wouldn't expect the stores to show up in the description, ever, nor would I expect the stores to go away, ever.

Kremlinology is fun, but Kremlinologists are by definition looking for shadows that may not be there. They all eventually go insane too.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Apple drops RETAIL STORES from it TOO!
on Sep 16, 2014 at 1:21:56 am

[Tim Wilson] "Kremlinology is fun, but Kremlinologists are by definition looking for shadows that may not be there. They all eventually go insane to"

I hope I did not go off the deep end. Just a sudden and minor panic attack perhaps? :)


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:55:36 am

I'm really sorry to hear that. It feels very direct Kremlinology phrase excision. Deprecated terminology hints nearly. A lot of people were getting on board here too. It's weird apple would signal it.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 1:09:03 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Deprecated terminology hints nearly"

I'm not sure it really hints at anything. Apple simply is not a company that particularly caters to professional users. That ended with the demise of Xserve, Xserve RAID and Final Cut Server. That doesn't mean though that some divisions aren't focused on certain enterprise segments. My guess is that they feel the separation between what a "pro" uses versus what a "non-pro" uses is pretty blurred these days. Clearly a tool like Logic Pro X cuts across all market segments. I'm sure they see FCP X the same way.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 1:09:57 am

[Bill Davis] "Apple is obviously going to shut down their entire retail operations and go "all on-line!""

Online and vending machines like at the airport!

I think this change will have about as much real world significance as when Apple dropped "computer" from the company name.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 8:48:57 pm

me neither really, X is making proper clear strides - you'd just wonder at the the board level thought process and discussions leading to the removal of professional applications from apple's core statement. It's not like any PR appartchik gets to rewrite that statement.

on some level there has to be kremlinology around the removal. A lot of senior people have to be happy in order for that to go: basically why remove those few words?

Funny story: when a major american UK based broadcaster were looking to move on, they reached out to avid, adobe and apple. Adobe won it, avid put a lot of work in, and apple directed them to their website. true story.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 9:55:27 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "on some level there has to be kremlinology around the removal. A lot of senior people have to be happy in order for that to go: basically why remove those few words?"

Nope. I've been in high level boardrooms and have seen this kind of sausage being made.

It could just as easily have been:

Bigger Boss: "Hey Carol, we want to revise our corporate statement to include the iWatch - but lets try to keep the statement roughly the same length."

Wordsmith involved: "Okay, I'll draft something we can kick around. Is there something you want to come out so that I can fit the new language in?"

BB: "No, you're the writer, start with what you think works and we'll have time to massage it before we run it by the executive committee."

LATER:

Wordsmith: "I had to drop a few things including the ProApps reference for space, is everybody going to be OK with that?

BB: "Yeah, probably, the other stuff is more critical and ProApps is doing fine. Heck, FCP X has already sold enough to support the entire ProApps development budget for like 100 years, so it can just cruise along. No worries. "

And so it goes.

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 drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 10:46:38 pm

surely they still shouldn't have done it bill. I'm not even saying they wouldn't have if steve was still there, but it's noticeable they're now making 16karat gold watches where the operating system craps out in 36 months. Chunks of the board now come from places like burberry. Apple after jobs seems to see in the mirror a luxury object brand. That is a lobotomy perception of Apple's core. Someone needs to break that mirror.


FCPX ran the tour de france, its being adopted by the BBC for news editing, and the panel you were on had the editor for a hundred million dollar feature - and apple still just pulled professional application generation from their core statement.

The apple watch section of the website looks like gucci b*llshit.

also, for kicks, how likely are broad society to send their heartbeat to other members where the mode of transport is a median price 500 dollar watch (leaving out the gold watch) - what part of steve jobs or wosniak would be gladdened by that crass mercantile horror?

is that watch the macintosh for all of us? And how likely is pro apps newly off the mission statement likely to prosper in a company selling solid gold consumer wrist electronics?

lets do that again:

a company selling solid gold consumer wrist electronics?

can someone explain how apple aren't gone to gucci hell inside two years flat under cook. they must feel so smart.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 11:22:49 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "b*llshit"

You can say "bull" here on the cow. It's OK.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "16karat gold watches"

I, personally, think this has everything to do with Mr Ive. Keynote Cook was wearing the sport watch on his wrist, not the bling.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 12:41:47 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I, personally, think this has everything to do with Mr Ive."

that crass distortion of apple has absolutely nothing to do with Jonathan Ive. He's a socially averse Dieter Rahms and he's having a bad enough time already. They just forced him to sound like himself on purpose narrating the story of a stupid gold watch. where the gold is twice as strong as gold.

Jonathan Ive will not be in the company inside 16 months. he will not stay to sustain the new gucci gold watch apple web page.
I would bet literally anyone all of the available money on this.

the second jobs died all cooks inclinations lead him to luxury products with a luxury board and they started smelting solid gold watches, he also created the most naff moment in rock history and singularly destroyed U2 as a musical force. to the point where apple is now laying out instructions to remove unwanted U2 albums for customers.

apple, as were, explicitly died the second they made a gold watch to share rich people's heartbeats and their sushi invitations.

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 12:54:21 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "apple ... died the second they made a gold watch."


Aindreas,

Someone has to make retirement gifts.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 1:05:44 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Someone has to make retirement gifts."

Aindreas' gold watch will look great with his Beats headphones ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 8:01:22 am

I honestly can't believe that so many smart people here are being so rediculously blind and deaf about the iWatch. Treating it as if it's "watchness" is its essential nature. How much more explicit does Mr. Cook have to be? It's designed to be a wearable technology hub. It's going to run something like apps for heavens sake!

Please, please don't be like the iPad idiots who came out and opined that it was dumb because tablet computers has been lame up until then. Thats what Apple LOVES. Reinventing what others can't seem to see. Then they transform the landscape of computing. I knew the iPad was going to change everything when my wife used mine for 5 minutes and demanded one for herself. She uses it every day for consuming digital content on the fly. I'll bet large dollars that the iWatch is going to do precisely the same thing.

I GUARANTEE the first time she sees one of her peers answer a call or check an email or text alert on an iWatch without having to waste time digging around inside her purse for her iPhone, she'll start politicking for an iWatch as well.

Wearable technology isn't about timekeeping. It's about easing personal information management via something placed on your person that is insanely easy to access instantly. Time is just a tiny, tiny part of that.

Mark my words.

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 1:40:36 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "that crass distortion of apple has absolutely nothing to do with Jonathan Ive. He's a socially averse Dieter Rahms and he's having a bad enough time already. They just forced him to sound like himself on purpose narrating the story of a stupid gold watch. where the gold is twice as strong as gold. "

Mmmhmm.

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/BID/3475884855x0x689391/03c7ce75-8fb...

Classic Aindreas.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 1:45:57 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] " he also created the most naff moment in rock history and singularly destroyed U2 as a musical force. to the point where apple is now laying out instructions to remove unwanted U2 albums for customers."



My wife and I chose to honeymoon in Ireland in 1985 meaningfully related to our love of U2, and we've taken no pleasure from the tedium of their 21st century releases...but indeed, their naff-ness has been well underway. This was prompted by an overwhelmingly underwhelming reaction to their first 2 singles this year, which failed to chart at all in most of the world. They could barely even give one of them away, as the offer of a free download wasn't enough to motivate people to go get it.

So they asked Tim Cook for advice for how to sell U2 albums to people who no longer care about new U2 albums (ie, apparently damn near all of us), and Tim said, let's just stick it in their iTunes without asking. Anyone who left their iPhone sync in the default state of automatically downloading new purchases would have it magically appear.

Bad, bad idea.

In addition to the picture above -- one of my favorite recent additions to the internet, a tumblr called WhoisU2 has been archiving tweets around the theme of "Who are these people and how are they spamming my phone?" Hilarious, but do note, considerable NSFW language.

The unfortunate bit is that I think it's their first good album in 17 years. It's really good....but its deployment is indicative of Apple's out-of-tune opulence. They paid U2 a reported $100 million for the privilege of infuriating more people than had ever heard of the band before.

Still, I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple do something similar again. For example, if they'd first done this with a Beyonce album, I suspect the world might have thanked them....but with this much cash on hand, no need to spend any of it wisely....


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 3:47:28 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Bad, bad idea."

Bad idea? Not really. What Millennial does not want free music?

It was simply, perhaps, the wrong demographic.

Beyoncé is a good one, but she has (old) Samsung ties, as does Mr Magna Carta, who also had his music voluntarily injected to Samsung phones to quite the privacy controversy.

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/1568801/jay-zs-magna-carta-app-r...

http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/12/4517506/was-jay-zs-and-samsungs-magna-car...


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 4:25:55 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Bad idea? Not really. What Millennial does not want free music?"

I don't think the free part was the bad part. The bad part was how it was added to everyone's account and then pushed to people's devices (assuming the devices were setup for auto-download). It's a glaring reminder that we, the users, do not control the devices that have become central to our first world lives and that's the underlying cause of the uproar. Apple, Amazon, Google, etc., can add/remove content at will and even brick our devices but there's an unwritten agreement, some sort of technological don't ask/don't tell, that was violated here. Don't overtly control my device and I'll pretended not to know that you can overtly control my device.

Give all iTunes users a link (or code) to get the album for free and everything would've gone swimmingly. By pushing unrequested content onto users' Apple poke a hornets nest that is still buzzing over device and cloud security concerns. Just a really tone deaf move, IMO.

Would I be happy if Domino's sent me a coupon for a free pizza? Yes. Would I be happy if the Domino's guy snuck into my house without my knowledge and left a free pizza I didn't ask for on my kitchen table? No.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 7:02:00 pm

For the record, I like this U2 album A LOT, and I'll be buying the expanded physical edition. After thinking they were done making good albums forever, I'm delighted.

[Andrew Kimery] "Don't overtly control my device and I'll pretended not to know that you can overtly control my device."

I think that's exactly right....but still sideways to the point. Nobody is surprised by bricking or deauthorizing illicit tracks. That's an appropriate response, and even the most casual jailbreaker knows it's not only a possible outcome, but a likely one.

This is fundamentally different.

Unsolicited mail used to be illegal, and people flipped out when it first became legal. Spam feels nefarious because it is in fact often nefarious: sent by criminals for criminal purposes. There was a time when spam didn't exist, but when it arrived, people flipped out.

People's phones and iPods have been spammed for the very first time, and they're flipping out.

And this is different.

Mail and email are open-ended systems at the front. Anyone can now send anything. The idea of sync is CLOSED. Sync = MY STUFF, so this feels far more like a violation than junk mail. YOU are not supposed to be SENDING me ANYTHING. NOBODY is. This is MY STUFF.

The people who seemed to have freaked out hardest weren't the ones who saw the folder sitting among other folders, and after grumbling, casually deleted it. It's ones who just heard the music appear in shuffled playlists. It was not only not welcome, it REALLY felt like a violation when it appears unbidden between in the middle of your brain via your earbuds Beats headphones. People do personal things with their personal music. No telling what activities Apple might have interrupted with this.

The fact is that there was no precedent for this kind of violation of MY STUFF. I'm quite the fan of sites that delve deep into the iTunes terms of service. What's in there is hilarious, but the most paranoid and antagonistic of them has never pointed out that Apple has the right to dump their crap on you, and you can't opt out.



[Andrew Kimery] "Give all iTunes users a link (or code) to get the album for free and everything would've gone swimmingly."


Except for U2. This all started because they literally couldn't give away their last 2 singles -- even after playing the Super Bowl and the Oscars, the two biggest TV events in the world. I don't think Tim Cook had to twist their arms to take $100 million in exchange for Apple having the privilege of spamming half a billion unsuspecting people.

But even calling it spam trivializes it. The break-in simile is absolutely right. A pizza on the table is not benign, no matter how much I like pizza. Somebody BROKE IN to MY STUFF. There's not a person on earth who knowingly consented to this.

So there we go. Apple innovation. Finding new ways to violate its customers trust.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 8:13:57 pm

[Tim Wilson] "I think that's exactly right....but still sideways to the point. Nobody is surprised by bricking or deauthorizing illicit tracks. That's an appropriate response, and even the most casual jailbreaker knows it's not only a possible outcome, but a likely one."

Not to get too tangental... what am I saying, this thread is already all over the place. haha

I agree that people skirting the rules should always expect repercussions if they get caught, but those playing by the rules do not, yet the are both potentially subject to the same forces. For example, remember a few years ago when Amazon erased the eBook version of "1984" from the account/device of every Amazon customer that purchased it? That situation was also handled poorly because Amazon just zapped the book in secret (like no one would notice?) instead of notifying customers about the legal problems surrounding the book and saying they will refund the purchase price of the book.

We give up an uncomfortable amount of privacy and control to have our digital lives and for the most part we all try not to think too hard about it and just believe in the benevolence of our corporate overlords.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 5:28:27 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Bad idea? Not really. What Millennial does not want free music?"

Ha ha, I know a few. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 6:49:52 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Ha ha, I know a few. :-)"

And they are buying 180g vinyl, right!?!?!?!


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 7:06:33 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Shawn Miller] "Ha ha, I know a few. :-)"

And they are buying 180g vinyl, right!?!?!?!"


Yes, how did you know? :-) Seriously though, I know more than a few kids(?) that were pissed because they just didn't like U2.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Paul Neumann
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 11:36:14 pm

They're the number one Global Brand. They're notoriously media and message savvy. It's pretty dang unlikely that that wording was changed on a whim or for lack of space.

I own a macbook air, macbook pro, imac, 3 ipads, 2 iphones, FCPX, Motion, and Compressor. So, I'm sold on what they're selling. But to think that this corporate statement wasn't painstakingly and meticulously crafted is silly. It's not there for some reason. What that is I don't have any idea. Well worth the discussion.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 11:38:14 pm

[Paul Neumann] "They're notoriously media and message savvy. It's pretty dang unlikely that that wording was changed on a whim or for lack of space. "

Yet they still managed to botch the launch of FCP X from the standpoint of marketing.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Paul Neumann
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 3:28:25 am

Yeah, but nobody knew what it was going to be until they showed. (Excluding the NDA testers) Pretty good information managing there.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 1:53:41 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Yet they still managed to botch the launch of FCP X from the standpoint of marketing."

That's the one thing they got right: easily the most successfully marketed software launch in company history.

Now, we can have another discussion about the product management aspect vis a vis FCP 7...but not the marketing. Marketing creates demand, and the teeming (relatively small) throng couldn't possibly have been more greatly amassed to download that thing. Read through the quite literally second-by-second reports in the Creative COW archive, as people were waiting in line. Did you get it yet? I can't download it yet. Have you gotten it yet?????? We were getting 10 posts a minute for all of that day, occasionally higher.

Once people received the download, we also got a bit of traffic if I recall correctly....

Marketing task, though: 100% completed, with the greatest conceivable success.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 2:20:48 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Now, we can have another discussion about the product management aspect vis a vis FCP 7...but not the marketing. Marketing creates demand, and the teeming (relatively small) throng couldn't possibly have been more greatly amassed to download that thing."

OK. I would agree. My perspective was from the product side.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 3:06:42 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Sep 17, 2014 at 3:30:02 pm

"That's the one thing they got right: easily the most successfully marketed software launch in company history."

If you go by the saying that all publicity is good publicity you would be right but that idiom just isn't true. Yes it was being talked about but the context was almost entirely negative and the software is tarnished by its terrible launch (and marketing of the launch) to this day.

I don't see how you can all that successful. "Newsworthy" maybe. But that does not equate to successful marketing.

It would have been much better to have been totally transparent about its state of development from a marketing point of view. The result of failing to do so was to disenfranchise very loyal customers.
The only honest thing was Larry Jordan letting it slip that "the software is not ready for professional use" at the seminar. Nothing in the marketing material of equal honesty if I recall correctly

I wonder how many Premiere users switched in the year to two years since FCPX launched? Or to Avid. To many it was a knee jerk reaction. The professional community started thinking Apple had turned its back on them. Clearer more effective transparent marketing could have prevented that.

Then Adobe stepped in and offered half price to anybody moving over from FCP7. Now I think that WAS good marketing.



Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 3:36:31 pm

[James Ewart] "I think the marketing was a total disaster."

No, you think the product life cycle management of FCP 7 was a disaster. Things like withdrawing the previous version had nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing to do with marketing.

Let me say it again: marketing creates demand. There was a figurative line around the block for the launch of the FCPX. There is absolutely no standard on earth by which this is not marketing success.

The use of the word "success" has nothing to do with notoriety or controversy. It has to do with the word "marketing." The goal was to get people to download the software. People did.


[James Ewart] "It would have been much better to have been totally transparent about its state of development from a marketing point of view."

At the risk of raising old ghosts, Apple has never included transparency about anything as part of its marketing programs....

....but WAS transparent about is future exactly ONCE, in its first presentation of FCPX.


I'll say it again: pre-release marketing creates demand. The end. Nothing more. That's ALL it does. Did Apple have to beat the drum to get people to download the software once it was available? NO.

The nature of the software, and other Apple policies related to the release, as well as people's response to it, have nothing whatsoever to do with marketing.

This isn't a trivial distinction. This basic misunderstanding of the nature of marketing, and the fundamental nature of Apple re: transparency from the day it was founded, created entirely unnecessary friction in the early days of trying to make sense of all of this. People like Larry muddied the water so thoroughly that I wondered (and still do) if they did it on purpose. Otherwise, I'd be left with the conclusion that he, and they, simply don't understand the basics of what words mean and how Apple has always worked. Or that they don't care.

I may well have the lowest opinion of Apple of anyone anywhere in the COW, and it pains me to say anything nice about them -- but they absolutely stuck the landing with the marketing of FCPX, the role of which was to drive downloads, and which it did in fact accomplish.

Did people download it? Yes. Did LOTS of people download it? Yes.

Success.

And for that matter, the marketing very specifically said that FCPX represented Apple's future. Did FCPX in fact represent Apple's future? Yes, absolutely and unequivocally.

The largest outrcy was, and is, the timing for which FCPX represented Apple's exclusive present.

That's not a marketing issue. CONCEIVABLY it's a PR issue...

...but to approach this from the other direction, could any amount of marketing fix the issues that people had with the release? NO. The only changes would have been, a) a different product upon its arrival, b) the previous version not immediately departing.

Neither of which are marketing issues.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 3:58:13 pm

Your definition of success is fatally flawed in my opinion.

Getting people to 'download software' not fit for purpose is not successful marketing. One should not measure the success of a marketing campaign in such short term timescales.

If Ford launched a car and the marketing material resulted in loads and loads of sales but none of the cars were actually road legal would you call that successful because the marketing led to lots of short terms sales?

I wouldn't.

Apple's level of commitment to FCPX and the professional market is still pretty uncertain. That's all down to poor communications and marketing.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 5:40:21 pm
Last Edited By Shawn Miller on Sep 17, 2014 at 5:47:21 pm

[James Ewart] "If Ford launched a car and the marketing material resulted in loads and loads of sales but none of the cars were actually road legal would you call that successful because the marketing led to lots of short terms sales?"

Yes, absolutely! The resultant lawsuits are for 'legal' to sort out. If you can prove (as a marketing organization) that your campaign led to hitting a financial target, you will be lauded for your effort, and most likely rewarded for meeting or exceeding expectations for that quarter. Seriously, it doesn't matter if the product is faulty or flawed in way, your task is to make sure that people; a. know about it, and b. buy it. Quality of product and design are not your concern.

Shawn



Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 6:08:35 pm

"Yes, absolutely! The resultant lawsuits are for 'legal' to sort out."

I couldn't disagree with you more.

This is buck passing sales target driven "get the bonus in" short term marketing. It's not by any stretch of the imagination successful because it is not in the even medium term interests of the company.

Marketing "Hey we sold the units it's not our fault it doesn't work"
Product Designers "But we told you it didn't why did you say it did"
Marketing "Well we slipped it in subtly so hardly anybody noticed but at least that means they can't sue us"

it doesn't half create a lot of bad feeling though does it. Is that good successful marketing?

If they had been more transparent it would have been far more successful, led to more downloads and nobody asking for their money back and good PR down the road.

I think they could have sold double or treble or more without the ensuing negative publicity resulting from being "economical with the truth"

Good successful marketing would have meant nobody jumped ship to Adobe or back to Avid. Everybody would have been on board helping develop it and it would have been fit for purpose much sooner and driven software and hardware sales higher much sooner.

All about definitions probably. And possibly cultural divides.

cheers

James


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 7:57:26 pm
Last Edited By Shawn Miller on Sep 17, 2014 at 8:25:52 pm

[James Ewart] ""Yes, absolutely! The resultant lawsuits are for 'legal' to sort out."

I couldn't disagree with you more.

This is buck passing sales target driven "get the bonus in" short term marketing. It's not by any stretch of the imagination successful because it is not in the even medium term interests of the company."


With respect, James I think you're being naive... following your faulty car example: http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/01/news/companies/car-sales/index.html

Do you think any of the marketing folks at GM were fired for the recalls, or do you think they were rewarded for making targets? There are too many examples like this to cite.

[James Ewart] "Marketing "Hey we sold the units it's not our fault it doesn't work"
Product Designers "But we told you it didn't why did you say it did"
Marketing "Well we slipped it in subtly so hardly anybody noticed but at least that means they can't sue us""


Yes, this is often how things work, it's hard to believe that anyone is surprised by this in the 21st century. Marketing isn't all deception and lies designed to cover substandard products and non-functioning features... not most of the time anyway. Trust me when I say, all flaws however large or small in a product WILL be repositioned as a strength, or hidden by omission by marketing folks, that's what they do, ALL of them. Multi-button mice are too hard to use... heard that on before? :-)

[James Ewart] "If they had been more transparent it would have been far more successful, led to more downloads and nobody asking for their money back and good PR down the road.

I think they could have sold double or treble or more without the ensuing negative publicity resulting from being "economical with the truth"


What would transparency have gotten them? One way or another, FCP Classic was dead. Those not liking the new FCP, weren't going like it any more or less due to how they found out about it (IMO).

[James Ewart] "Good successful marketing would have meant nobody jumped ship to Adobe or back to Avid. Everybody would have been on board helping develop it and it would have been fit for purpose much sooner and driven software and hardware sales higher much sooner."

Hmmm... still not sure how marketing could have helped folks accept the loss of FCP Legacy... maybe I'm being thick. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 18, 2014 at 5:57:13 am
Last Edited By James Ewart on Sep 18, 2014 at 1:33:17 pm

"still not sure how marketing could have helped folks accept the loss of FCP Legacy"

I think modern, enlightened marketing is about engaging your customers and telling the truth.

We're going to be winning different clients you and me!.

(Joke..no offence intended BTW)


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 18, 2014 at 6:10:00 pm

[James Ewart] "I think modern, enlightened marketing is about engaging your customers and telling the truth."

So do most folks who work in marketing... many of them just have a more nuanced understanding of what it means to be truthful.

[James Ewart] "We're going to be winning different clients you and me!."

Ha ha, I'm just a staff post guy... so I won't actually be after anyone's clients. I do wish you the best of luck with yours though. :-)

[James Ewart] "(Joke..no offence intended BTW)"

No offense taken, thanks for the conversation!

Shawn



Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 18, 2014 at 6:12:31 pm

No such thing as a "just" anybody in my opinion.

best

James


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 18, 2014 at 6:19:35 pm

[James Ewart] "No such thing as a "just" anybody in my opinion."

Quite right! We'll see if my manager agrees after my EOY review. ;-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 18, 2014 at 6:50:30 pm







Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 5:25:57 pm

[Tim Wilson] "I may well have the lowest opinion of Apple of anyone anywhere in the COW, and it pains me to say anything nice about them"

I've worked in corporate marketing groups for a long time, so I completely agree with you Tim, the launch of FCPX was a success from a marketing standpoint. I'm curious to know though, what is it about Apple that you personally dislike? Totally understand if you don't want to get into it here. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 1:18:02 am

[Andrew Kimery] "This week they dropped the words 'professional applications' from their definition:""

Fortunately they kept iMovie in there. ;-)

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

~ 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

Scott Witthaus
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 10:58:59 am

Content is king. Acquisition, edit, share. Apple knows what it's doing. Software like FCPX and iMovie (and Premiere and Avid, for that matter) are just tools in the content loop. Look at Avid Everywhere. It's no longer about selling software, it's about managing content. Same with Adobe Anywhere. Control the content.

Besides an iPhone that shoots 240fps, would anyone be surprised if Apple creates or buys a higher end camera for the start of the content loop?

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:43:00 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Besides an iPhone that shoots 240fps, would anyone be surprised if Apple creates or buys a higher end camera for the start of the content loop?"

I would be very surprised. Apple seems to work bottom-up, not top-down.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 5:27:31 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I would be very surprised. Apple seems to work bottom-up, not top-down."

I too would be very surprised to see Apple get into the high-end camera game. That seems like the kind of low volume, high maintenance niche they've never really been comfortable being a part of.

IMO if anything big is missing from Apple's post ecosystem right now it's a multiuser environment to compete with the offerings from Avid and Adobe.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 5:53:34 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "IMO if anything big is missing from Apple's post ecosystem right now it's a multiuser environment to compete with the offerings from Avid and Adobe."

And that seems like hardware -- apple's thing. I expect something to compete with Drobo.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 6:39:47 pm

Have you not been following the IBC stuff about how FCP X is starting to really develop in the "growing content" realm? The EVS and Softron announcements were particularly transformative.

To me, that's a HUGE potential future path to monster success for X.

While the other A's are trying to essentially find places in the traditional "sit down and edit" suite based collaborative model, Apple appears to be pushing rather handily into the "It's happening NOW - lets' get it live to market" space.

Not to say X can't play just as well in the sit and edit realm, but there's a lot more to "collaborative workflows" than just the hollywood movie style gig.

My trip to Petaluma recently was kinda eye opening. PixelCorps is working around the globe now, webcasting from the Vatican one day, and then from Rawanda the next. Doing live streaming of huge global events and it appears that the ability to work in real time with "growing files" is WAY more important in that arena than - say, the ability to send OMF files out to another shop for audio work.

Again, the more important question might actually still be what is the whole industry moving towards. Not just "how can we do what we're traditionally been doing - but better."

YMMV.

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

Richard Herd
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 7:05:13 pm

[Bill Davis] "the "growing content" realm? "

Yeah, that why they need to compete with Drobo. Gotta put my free U2 album somewhere.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 7:54:35 pm

[Bill Davis] "Have you not been following the IBC stuff about how FCP X is starting to really develop in the "growing content" realm? The EVS and Softron announcements were particularly transformative.

To me, that's a HUGE potential future path to monster success for X. "


Not really, been under deadlines. I don't need the nitty gritty but in broad strokes what does X get you w/regards to growing files that you can't already get when working w/growing files in Avid, PPro (or even FCP7)?


[Bill Davis] "Not to say X can't play just as well in the sit and edit realm, but there's a lot more to "collaborative workflows" than just the hollywood movie style gig. "

There is. I've worked on a lot of web content that certainly could've used a more effective collaborative workflow than the sneaker net model, but budgets are budgets. Anything involving more than one person can be improved by establishing a standardized workflow and anything involving more than one person need access to the footage can be improved by a standardized workflow centered around shared storage (and even more improved when using software that's designed to for multiuser environments).


[Bill Davis] "Again, the more important question might actually still be what is the whole industry moving towards. Not just "how can we do what we're traditionally been doing - but better.""

What's this "whole industry" you speak of? ;) I think various parts of the industry are expanding and contracting but I don't think anything as a whole is "moving" (which to me implies a fixed situation where as B gets bigger A gets smaller by the same amount). For example, the increasing number of web videos hasn't led to a proportional decrease in the number of TV shows.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 10:07:09 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Not really, been under deadlines. I don't need the nitty gritty but in broad strokes what does X get you w/regards to growing files that you can't already get when working w/growing files in Avid, PPro (or even FCP7)?"

I'm ignorant of the fact that those programs do that.

They actually allow the editor to mark and work with a stream of incoming content WHILE the files are actively growing? I thought that traditional NLEs required both beginning AND end of file markers to be in place before they'd consider a clip to be importable. Am I mistaken?



[Andrew Kimery] "For example, the increasing number of web videos hasn't led to a proportional decrease in the number of TV shows."

No, but it HAS led to a general downtrend in the ratings for those TV shows. Eyeballs are eyeballs, and they're not watching your prime time drama if they're glued to an iPad game.

Which in turn begs the question as to how many eyeballs it takes for success in the new model compared to the old.

Narrowcast verses broadcast. And that IS changing.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 10:09:17 pm

[Bill Davis] "They actually allow the editor to mark and work with a stream of incoming content WHILE the files are actively growing?"

Avid in the news environment with Avid hardware has been doing this for years. Quantel as well, even before Avid.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 6:15:41 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Avid in the news environment with Avid hardware has been doing this for years. Quantel as well, even before Avid."

Well of course.

The high dollar "newsroom" systems have had it. But to be fair, that's a far cry from a $299 app running on stock hardware providing access to something like the same functions.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 9:45:04 pm

[Bill Davis] "that's a far cry from a $299 app running on stock hardware providing access to something like the same functions"

I don't believe it's X doing it, but rather Softron tied to expensive storage as well as I/O hardware. X simply has the ability to tap into the files. So not a $299 app running on stock hardware.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 10:21:43 pm

[Bill Davis] "They actually allow the editor to mark and work with a stream of incoming content WHILE the files are actively growing?"

Bill,

Premiere Pro since CS6 (2012) I think. I haven't used the feature.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 7:06:57 am

[Bill Davis] "No, but it HAS led to a general downtrend in the ratings for those TV shows. Eyeballs are eyeballs, and they're not watching your prime time drama if they're glued to an iPad game.

Network TV ratings certainly have declined since the days of it just being NBC, ABC and CBS on air. Cable took out a bite. FOX took out a bite. Video games took out a bite. Browsing the Internet took out a bite. There's more content, of all kinds, being created today than ever before yet the potential audience hasn't expanded in kind and is more fractured/distracted than ever.


Which in turn begs the question as to how many eyeballs it takes for success in the new model compared to the old.


I think the answer to that is that it's all relative. A popular prime time drama on network TV will pull down much bigger ratings than a popular prime time drama on cable but both can be considered successful because cable just doesn't do the same numbers as broadcast. As overall viewership rises and falls then the benchmarks for success will rise and fall too. Numbers that equalled 'success' for a YouTube personality in 2010 are probably much lower than that what would be considered successful today because many more people are watching YT today than in 2010. Ultimately successful means sustainable so it boils down to how much does it cost to produce vs how much revenue does it generate.

All forms of media (music, video games, books, movies, etc.,) seem to be suffering a similar fate in that there is a polarization happening where more and more projects are either of the big budget, AAA/Hollywood Blockbuster kind or the low budget indie kind. The 'middle class' projects which used to make up the bulk of the projects is shrinking and has been for years.


Narrowcast verses broadcast. And that IS changing."

Distribution certainly is changing, but that's much more of a concern for people involved in distributing the content than for the people creating the content. I mean, would the process of writing, shooting and editing Alpha House (Amazon) or House of Cards (Netflix) be significantly different if those shows were on broadcast or cable TV instead of streaming? I highly doubt it.

I've worked on web projects, TV projects and "I hope someone will buy this when we're done" projects and other than a few technical things here and there my process as the editor or AE on the project wasn't impact by the distribution method of the finished piece.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 1:08:35 pm

[Bill Davis] "... it HAS led to a general downtrend in the ratings for those TV shows."

[Andrew Kimery] "Network TV ratings certainly have declined since the days of it just being NBC, ABC and CBS on air. Cable took out a bite."

Bill, Andrew,

Last I read broadcast viewership was still on the rise - at least that is the premise driving decisions at youtube. You have new info?

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/24024#24055

Franz.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 6:20:03 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "
Bill,

Premiere Pro since CS6 (2012) I think. I haven't used the feature.

Franz."


Fair enough. I trust you so I'll stand informed and corrected.

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

Dennis Radeke
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 18, 2014 at 9:36:17 am

Hi Bill,

You can find more details here: growing files


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 11:40:22 pm

[Bill Davis] " I thought that traditional NLEs required both beginning AND end of file markers to be in place before they'd consider a clip to be importable. Am I mistaken?"

Fcp7 could do it with third party add ons. A growing file is streaming media. You don't need the end of the file before you can play it.

X has had the capacity for growing files since 10.0.3.

My guess, and this a big hunch, is that we will soon see this capability with MXF files inside of X. It's crucial to live/broadcast workflows, and with the beeb's recent "announcements", and mxf4mac suddenly taken offline, as well as the VizRT/Namblet announcements, EVS saying that they are getting behind AVFoundation (via fcpx support) the era of the QuickTime kit will be reserved for our dead homie legacies sitting on archival storage.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 11:30:09 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "anything involving more than one person need access to the footage "

And apparently the very difficult problem is when we add "at the same time" to your sentence.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 11:35:38 pm

[Richard Herd] "And apparently the very difficult problem is when we add "at the same time" to your sentence.
"


I'm blaming the poor grammar and truncated thought on trying to get in one last post before rushing out the door.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 9:31:26 pm

[Bill Davis] "While the other A's are trying to essentially find places in the traditional "sit down and edit" suite based collaborative model, Apple appears to be pushing rather handily into the "It's happening NOW - lets' get it live to market" space.

Not to say X can't play just as well in the sit and edit realm, but there's a lot more to "collaborative workflows" than just the hollywood movie style gig. "


I would tend to agree with this. Having worked in Avid collaborative systems as well as other non-Avid approaches to shared storage, I can certainly attest to the fact that there are lots of ways to skin the cat. Any and all success that FCP 1-7 had in shared environments will attest to that. Most collaboration is really just "start in one place" and "pick it up later in another". It's much less about several editors banging away at the same sequence at the same time.

FCP X is still a bit rough around the edges when it comes to collaboration, but it's not far off, especially with the shift to libraries. I can easily see sharing projects (without media) via iCloud, just like a Pages document.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 7:07:10 pm

"And that seems like hardware -- apple's thing. I expect something to compete with Drobo."

Remember, they got out of that business and the engineering team left Apple.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 7:18:27 pm

Apple is more into enabling connectivity than the hardware.

Thunderbolt continues to take lumps because it's not as popular as USB3.... well DUH!

But here we are with Mac with a 20Gbps I/O, and next year it's going to be a 40Gbps.

And iCloud is still finding it's legs, so if a collaborative solution is going to sit on the back of that- we may still have a while to wait.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 7:38:40 pm

[Marcus Moore] "And iCloud is still finding it's legs, so if a collaborative solution is going to sit on the back of that- we may still have a while to wait."

Today's iCloud aggressive pricing announcements might make that future a bit stronger, tho.

http://www.apple.com/icloud/

20 gigs for 99 cents a month is cool - as is a full terabyte for $20 a month.

If they can succeed in the consumer space, those economies of scale will keep cloud storage prices very low for a very long time, methinks.

I do wonder how hard would it be to re-brand part of the unused capacity as iCloud Pro someday?

Wouldn't the event folks salivate if there was a huge cloud distribution system with credit card processing in place for customer orders and hooks into the iTMS where song publishers could elect to allow a limited sync license for a wedding shooter to license and use a pop song for a few bucks.

I tell you, mark my words, this whole internet thing is going to be changing stuff for years to come!

(sarcasm mode off)

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

Gary Huff
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 9:22:34 pm

[Bill Davis] "Today's iCloud aggressive pricing announcements might make that future a bit stronger, tho. "

Has to be aggressive since we know that your nude selfies aren't secure.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 10:00:40 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Sep 16, 2014 at 10:09:52 pm

[Gary Huff] "Has to be aggressive since we know that your nude selfies aren't secure."

Security being an elastic need. You only need security if the content demand is greater than zero - something your example does NOT imply. (if the term "your" above actually referred to me.)

; )

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

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 9:32:40 pm

[Marcus Moore] "Thunderbolt continues to take lumps because it's not as popular as USB3.... well DUH!"

Although it's being added to HP and Dell systems as an option now.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 7:28:21 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Remember, they got out of that business and the engineering team left Apple."

I remember.

That bit of internal gossip, it would be nice to know what actually happened.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 7:38:03 pm

I wonder of Thunderbolt had anything to do with it? With with lower-cost, higher bandwidth storage no longer the realm of fibre-channel arrays, could Apple have seen solutions like Xserve becoming an increasingly small niche?


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 8:01:39 pm
Last Edited By Andrew Kimery on Sep 16, 2014 at 8:01:53 pm

[Marcus Moore] "I wonder of Thunderbolt had anything to do with it? With with lower-cost, higher bandwidth storage no longer the realm of fibre-channel arrays, could Apple have seen solutions like Xserve becoming an increasingly small niche?"

I don't think Thunderbolt specifically had anything to do with it, but I do think you are on the right track about market changes. The big growth area is in mobile devices (not desktops and laptops) and mobile devices don't get tethered to large clusters of hard drives.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 8:08:47 pm

I wouldn't equate it to anything to do with mobile. It's an entirely different market.

Only Apple knows it's numbers for sure, but it seems certain that Xserve was never a big player in the server space overall, and I don't think the specialized hardware provided enough of a benefit over burgeoning technologies like Thunderbolt, which was announced on the first Mac not long before or after Xserve was EOL'd.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 8:56:14 pm

[Marcus Moore] "I wouldn't equate it to anything to do with mobile. It's an entirely different market."

Apple is in the hardware business though, not the desktop or laptop business (hence the official name change from Apple Computer to just Apple). If they see laptops and desktops as dead-ends in terms of growth how do you think they feel about ancillary product lines to be used in conjunction with laptops and desktops?

I agree that Apple ditched Xserve because it was a niche product in a played-out, niche market that they didn't perform all that stellar in but I don't think it was a ThB vs Fibre thing.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 9:14:34 pm
Last Edited By Richard Herd on Sep 16, 2014 at 9:17:11 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "ThB vs Fibre thing"

I imagine the financing and accounting departments ditched the project as having too low of return, and that is a different point of view than, say, selling units, or being techno-advance (even if it's branding only from Apple *coughing in my fist: HP*). If a unit costs $1 to make and you sell it for $100, then that's a business you want to keep. But if a unit costs $1 to make and you sell it for -- what? 5% margin, 10% margin -- what is that Apple number? -- well they will ditch it.

Looking at storage for iTunes, Apple TV, iPhone, iPad, and Pro Apps, Apple has to figure folks have to store their stuff somewhere and access it remotely (I think that's Bill's point).

That does not mean I cannot create my own cloud SAN, and I hope Apple makes the thing that competes with Drobo. OR is it reasonable to believe they will make iCloud.com storage stuffs?

To my eyes, there seems to be an obvious market in that prosumer area for Drobo-like SAN (photographers, graphic designers, musicians, video...there are many people here).

EDIT to add a detail: Today when I downloaded the free U2 album from iTunes, I logged on to my iTunes account and it downloaded to my authorized computer at work. Even we assume the iCloud.com storage would expand, it still (at least currently) means the media has to play from a local machine. To change that means to change the EULA, I believe. It would make the media "radio" and not "licensed."


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 9:26:54 pm

[Richard Herd] "To my eyes, there seems to be an obvious market in that prosumer area for Drobo-like SAN (photographers, graphic designers, musicians, video...there are many people here)."

I think this is already happening if you need it.

SANs aren't just hardware. The hardware part is fairly easy, it's the software that is much more difficult. You have to make sure that people can't have read/write access to the same files. If they do have read/write access to the same file, then you have to make sure that one person can't destroy the other person's work.

But if you are looking for a small SAN setup, there are many vendors who are offering it these days for affordable prices, more affordable than ever, really. You will also notice that many SAN vendors are coming out with their own hardware packages as well.

Apple's file system (HFS+) is not best suited for a SAN architecture, which is why XSAN has it's own file system, and most SANs run off of some sort of NTFS subsystem.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 9:48:26 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " The hardware part is fairly easy"

And dirt cheap. Easy for Apple simply to send you to Promise, G-Tech or LaCie. No value-add or profit margins for Apple.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Apple's file system (HFS+) is not best suited for a SAN architecture"

While this is totally true, there are quite a few facilities in the world that are using Apple File Protocol over Gig-E and 10Gig-E as roll-your-own NAS/SAN installations. Use a Mac Pro or Mac Mini as a server. Connect storage to it locally (now via Thunderbolt 2). Network your edit workstations to the Mac Pro/Mac Mini server using standard ethane networking protocol.

Excluding video and looking at project files, documents, photos and sound, it would seem that Apple is building out the iCloud structure to support this type of collaboration. There are also a number of companies moving into the "cloud" media model - Sony Ci, Frame io, A-frame, etc.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 9:53:37 pm

[Oliver Peters] "While this is totally true, there are quite a few facilities in the world that are using Apple File Protocol over Gig-E and 10Gig-E as roll-your-own NAS/SAN installations. Use a Mac Pro or Mac Mini as a server. Connect storage to it locally (now via Thunderbolt 2). Network your edit workstations to the Mac Pro/Mac Mini server using standard ethane networking protocol."

I'm not saying it can't be done, obviously it is being done. When you buy a SAN system today, most likely, the file structure will not be HFS+, and the controller won't have to run OSX.

[Oliver Peters] "Excluding video and looking at project files, documents, photos and sound, it would seem that Apple is building out the iCloud structure to support this type of collaboration. There are also a number of companies moving into the "cloud" media model - Sony Ci, Frame io, A-frame, etc."

Right. It's the Google Docs model. Still, with video, it's going to be hard to do so unless you can upload a wad of proxies. I agree that FCPX's structure with and a little more time and effort, could be very well poised for this workflow should the necessity present itself.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 6:33:00 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Right. It's the Google Docs model. Still, with video, it's going to be hard to do so unless you can upload a wad of proxies. I agree that FCPX's structure with and a little more time and effort, could be very well poised for this workflow should the necessity present itself."

The way X can instant-switch from the Original Pool to the Proxy Pool with a click makes a WHOLE lot of sense now, down't it.

Who cares where the content pool(s) live? Since the Proxies carry all the metadata needed to apply any user decisions to the host app, you can travel with or download them at will, edit away, then re-target when you get wherever you need to be to switch the pointers to a higher rez content pool when you have better access..

Which may be a the office, Back at inthe hotel room on a drive in your suitcase - or at a remote "light pipe" drop location somewhere. Kinda sensible seeming, huh?

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 8:02:43 pm

[Bill Davis] "The way X can instant-switch from the Original Pool to the Proxy Pool with a click makes a WHOLE lot of sense now, down't it. "

You don't have to convince me, but you do have to keep in mind that this capability just arrived in version 10.1.3 (having proxies/optimized outside of the library).

It is most welcomed, and in a local situation, (like a bunch of users using the same media) allows multiple users to use the same pool of proxy (or optimized) media without too much hassle. But, this is really new capabilities in X.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 18, 2014 at 1:53:58 am

Agreed it's MUCH more valuable now with the Libraries model.

But to be fair, the basic plumbing construction of pointers to matching tho different rezzed pools of content - Optimized and Proxy - was there from FCP X V1.

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

Richard Herd
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 10:34:41 pm

[Oliver Peters] "a few facilities in the world that are using Apple File Protocol over Gig-E "

I am one of those facilities. 3 apple trash cans, and 3 cheese graters, with 2 Xraid. I afp through a switch into the cheese graters also in the switch as necessary. I playback in CS6 at full rez (AVCHD mostly but there is some APR422 -- which we have moved away-from). And I set my AE common folder to a shared folder on one of the cheese grater's internal but not used drive.

As luck would have it a good friend of mine is a network engineer at the local research university. Wow. The stuff he plays with is amazing. He carves out blocks of processing and SAN so medical researchers can do whatever it is they do with the data they collect. It's absolutely mind blowing. We barely scratch the surface.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 9:41:02 pm

[Richard Herd] "That bit of internal gossip, it would be nice to know what actually happened."

I'm not sure about gossip. Apple had a very robust, enterprise-grade operation, with a very active enterprise-level sales team. I'm talking not just sales, but engineers who would design and spec out an installation to bid. This was headed up by Alex Grossman. If you ever saw the Apple NAB booth in that time frame (FCP3-6), the IT infrastructure was very impressive. This was the era when various universities were building supercomputers by linking multiple G5 Xserves, most notably Virginia Tech.

Apple decided to get out of that type of enterprise business and shifted the sales effort to resellers and VARs. Grossman and some of the team left to found Active, which ultimately was folded into Quantum. FWIW - the lead Va Tech guy is the brains behind the Devil and Demon computers that Ted Schilowitz (formerly of RED) is associated with.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 11:28:45 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Apple decided to get out of that type of enterprise business"

I recall those events. But the one I selected above is what I called the internal gossip. What was said and calculated during the "Apple decided" phase?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 11:36:26 pm

[Richard Herd] "But the one I selected above is what I called the internal gossip."

Who knows?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 1:41:11 am

[Andrew Kimery] "IMO if anything big is missing from Apple's post ecosystem right now it's a multiuser environment to compete with the offerings from Avid and Adobe."

Do they really need to? There is so much more visual content out there to deal with. Why try to fight for the long-form broadcast and film niche? X is plenty good for short-form broadcast and pretty much everything else. Maybe they will just let Adobe and Avid fight it out for that niche? Granted the niche is high profile, but still a niche. Just musing here...

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 2:06:11 am

"Why try to fight for the long-form broadcast and film niche? X is plenty good for short-form broadcast and pretty much everything else"

I personally think the multiuser collaboration is overstated. This is used to a maximum level in the reality TV world. When you take about dramas and feature films, it's generally one editor and one to three assistants. The latter are handling collateral aspects of the edit (I/o, logging, exports, temp sound effects, reports, etc.). It's less a situation of multiple editors working on the same timeline. As such X is perfectly functional right now in just about any SAN environment. There are several high-end features that have already proven that.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 7:51:24 am

[Scott Witthaus] "There is so much more visual content out there to deal with. Why try to fight for the long-form broadcast and film niche?"

No different than fighting for any of the other niches that collectively make up 'the industry'. Multiuser workflows exist in a lot of places but the thing that separates them is whether or not they have the budget to properly setup and execute a multiuser workflow (is it ISIS or is it sneaker net?). I've seen multiuser setups for everything from from high end TV shows and movies to fitness DVDs to web videos to behind the scenes featurettes to promos/trailers.

I spent 6 years working with 12 other editors in a primarily new media/web content shop with FCP Legend and Xsan and we made it work but it wasn't pretty. After that I got a gig working on a TV show which was 8(?) editors using Avid MC w/ISIS. Getting back to a proper multiuser workflow was such a breath of fresh air that I also hugged MC and its I-came-from-the-90's GUI. I'm not holding my breath for Avid to release a budget version of ISIS but I'm hoping that in time the cost of building an Adobe Anywhere rig will drop significantly.


[Oliver Peters] "I personally think the multiuser collaboration is overstated. "

I don't think it's an end all/be all feature, but if shared store and multiuser collaboration was more affordable (an Avid ISIS or Adobe Anywhere rig aren't anywhere close to cheap) I think more people would utilize it but the cost is a big barrier to entry. I never really thought of collaboration as multiple people working in one timeline at the same time (which just sounds chaotic) but multiple people working out of the same project at the same time. It's just a much more elegant solution than each editor having their own project, trying to keep the projects properly managed/all assets in sync across all projects, and exporting XMLs or 'one off' projects to share cuts, media, etc., between users.

There have been rumors (patents, bits of codec, etc.,) that point to multiuser project sharing in FCP X and I hope that comes to fruition.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 1:25:25 pm

Well I just downloaded the Pro Apps updates for Yosemite so maybe not.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 1:42:29 pm

What's included? Anything interesting?


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 3:04:23 pm

Not that I've noticed to be honest. I just blindly downloaded it and the system seems a little more stable now. Also just downloaded 10.10 Beta. First two iterations I had were just called Beta (somewhat unstable) and Beta 2. I think it must be nearly ready to ship. FCP7 still "seems" to run okay also by the way but I have not been using it in anger so don't take my word for it.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 3:14:11 pm

I haven't opened FCP7 in 2 years, so no issues there...

If history holds, Yosemite will be out in late-October after a Special Event for iPads, Macs, and anything else Apple want to announce for the holidays.

If there's going to be another FCPX update this year, I wouldn't expect it until after that, maybe even December again like 10.1.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 3:56:42 pm

[Marcus Moore] "If there's going to be another FCPX update this year, I wouldn't expect it until after that, maybe even December again like 10.1.
"


I'm going to go with an update less than a week after Yosemite launch.

I like my optimism half full of glass....oh wait.


Return to posts index


Marcus Moore
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 4:25:50 pm

I think if there's an update with that quick of a turnaround, then 10.1.4 will be another maintenance update for Yosemite compatibility.

I did this post a couple months ago on when 10.1.3 might be released. Took all the maintenance update intervals and it came out like this-

http://disproportionatepictures.blogspot.ca/2014/08/final-cut-pro-x-whats-n...

Apple ended up being pretty much smack dab on the average.

So I'm prepping another post on when we might see 10.1.4, presuming it's a feature update, using past dates.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 9:20:56 pm

[Marcus Moore] "Apple ended up being pretty much smack dab on the average."

Wasn't "quicker updates" something the evangelists were preaching in year 1?


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 9:53:18 pm

Yes, and they have been.

Even if you discount maintenance updates (which in many ways are as important than new features), FCP X has been updated much more frequently than in the Legacy days.

10.0.0-10.0.1 91 DAYS
10.0.1-10.0.3 133 DAYS
10.0.3-10.0.6 266 DAYS
10.0.6-10.1.0 428 DAYS
10.1.0-10.1.2 190 DAYS

10.1 took seemingly forever, and is well out of line with the rest of the updates. I think maybe there was a lot of debate about scrapping the Event/Project structure, who knows... And I have heard rumours that 10.1 may have been sitting around waiting for the MacPro to launch. Regardless, 428 days is still less than the 2yr + cycle of the Legacy days.

With 10.1.2 reversing the trend of ever-expanding intervals, I certainly hope they can keep to a roughly "twice a year" update cycle, in much the same way Adobe had with Premier CC updates.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 2:06:48 am

[Marcus Moore] "Even if you discount maintenance updates (which in many ways are as important than new features), FCP X has been updated much more frequently than in the Legacy days."

I always thought that comparison was to the other competing apps, not to Legacy.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 2:18:57 am

I haven't found the quote yet, I don't even remember exactly where it came from; but my recollection was they were positioning the appStore as allowing for more frequent updates, not specifically in relation to anyone else- the inference to me was they they were only comparing it to Final Cut's history.

But in 2011 the new model WAS faster than competing products... Apple was updating every 3-5 months for the first year and a half.

Before Creative Cloud, Adobe horded features for a "once a year" paid update at NAB. It's only since the subscription service that they've moved to a more frequent model.

And AVID is typically only updated once a year, right?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 2:21:25 am

"And AVID is typically only updated once a year, right?"

Actually no. They are currently on about the same schedule as Adobe.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 2:23:31 am

Ok, so everyone's seemingly moved to a bi-annual update cycle. But that definitely wasn't the case 3 years ago.

But again, I don't think Apple was comparing themselves against anyone else.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 4:38:46 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Sep 16, 2014 at 4:41:02 pm

Here is a screenshot. Actually I don't know if this was just for the benefit of Yosemite Beta testers or everyone...probably my bad. Sorry if that's the case.



Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 4:44:12 pm

I have not yet tried the beta version of the new OS X but my guess that update is probably for Yosemite, going to do the usual update check and see what is available.

I think that 10.1.4 on the FCP X side of things will include some features, then again it could be the usual maintenance update. I am not a betting man, never had luck with slot machines.

camera operator | editor | production assistant

Remember kids, tracks are you friends when you charge by the hour. Track Tetris, game on!


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 16, 2014 at 10:41:08 pm

[Bill Davis] "[Aindreas Gallagher] "on some level there has to be kremlinology around the removal. A lot of senior people have to be happy in order for that to go: basically why remove those few words?"

Nope. I've been in high level boardrooms and have seen this kind of sausage being made. "


Not at Apple, man. There's never been a company in the history of history that has ever managed its messaging more thoroughly. Quite a bit has changed in the TC era, but not this. Boilerplate like this looks boring, but has profound implications for all kinds of things, some of them legal.

Additionally, Apple has moved its PR internally, and the team is shockingly small. Something like 20 people I think. (It came up in another thread. I'm counting on one of you to find it.) Nothing "slips" through a team that small.

It's one thing to leave off a whole sentence, but somebody performed surgery, to remove specific words, in a specific place.

That's why Apple is the one and only company that's worth performing Kremlinology on. They care all the way down to the punctuation, they make remarkably few changes over time, and they take a very long time to deploy everything.

I guarantee that if some underling made a change to Apple's self-description unbidden, the debris from their vaporized corpse would be changing the color of the sunset.


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 1:50:05 am

Even if you come to the conclusion that it's omission was not accidental. There remains the more significant question of why it was removed. No one knows what that is. It could simply be, it was too long so we had to cut out something. My guess is the reason portends nothing about FCP X or any other ProApp.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 8:25:23 am

Fu*k, then that means they ARE closing down the retail operations since there's no language about the retail stores in the new press release Corporate definition statement?

I'm so confused.

IIRC they also didn't mention iCloud and it's been a while since they dropped listing markets like education, engineering and the like. But somehow they keep serving those.

This all makes my head hurt.

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

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
on Sep 17, 2014 at 2:11:42 am

[Andrew Kimery] "This week they dropped the words 'professional applications' from their definition:""

As I pointed out, they kept iMovie in the blurb. And honestly, after spending the last week or so working in FCP 7 and/or Pr CC, I think I'd rather work in iMovie. :-/

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

~ 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

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