FORUMS: list search recent posts

Beating a dead horse

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Herb Sevush
Beating a dead horse
on Jun 21, 2016 at 5:19:06 pm

Beating a dead horse should be the name of this forum.

For those who keep insisting that the Apple rollout of FCPX (as opposed to the product itself) was brilliant, Andrew Kimery, in a different thread, pointed to this interview of Mr Ubillos from last year

http://alex4d.com/notes/item/back-to-1-0-randy-ubillos-interview

the salient quote being:

"The Final Cut Pro team was trying to figure out what they wanted to do next. X was a big shift. I had a big part in convincing people it was the right thing to do. I will say that I had a different idea of the way the launch might have gone… [audience laughter]

My idea was that Final Cut 7 should stay exactly as it was for about a year, and every time you bought a copy of X you got a copy of 7. They didn’t want to hear it. I knew 16 months before the launch that I was going to have a bunch of arrows in my back. I was going to be blamed for this big transition. It’s the Apple way of doing things: ‘Feet first, jump in!’

The very last conversation I had with Steve Jobs was right after the launch of Final Cut Pro X. I was getting ready to get on a plane to go to London to record the second set of movie trailers - we’d hired the London Symphony Orchestra [to perform the music that was going to be bundled with the next version of iMovie] - and Steve caught me at home: “What the heck is going on with this Final Cut X thing?” I said “We knew this was coming, we knew that people were going to freak out when we changed everything out from under them. We could have done this better. We should have. Final Cut 7 should be back on the market. We should have an FAQ that lists what this is all about.” He said “Yeah, let’s get out and fund this thing, let’s make sure we get on top of this thing, move quickly with releases…” and he finished by asking: “Do you believe in this?” I said “Yes.” He said “then I do too.”"

So apparently the inventor of FCPX and the big Apple himself both thought the release was badly handled -- but then what would they know about it.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 21, 2016 at 6:19:13 pm

[Herb Sevush] "For those who keep insisting that the Apple rollout of FCPX (as opposed to the product itself) was brilliant, Andrew Kimery, in a different thread, pointed to this interview of Mr Ubillos from last year"

Which would be this zombie thread which I won't let go of quite yet. ;)

https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/89784


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 21, 2016 at 6:19:18 pm

[Herb Sevush] "and every time you bought a copy of X you got a copy of 7. "

Sorry, but this makes no sense. Why in the hell would you do that?

[Herb Sevush] "He said “Yeah, let’s get out and fund this thing, let’s make sure we get on top of this thing, move quickly with releases…” and he finished by asking: “Do you believe in this?” I said “Yes.” He said “then I do too.”""

Hopefully the same sentiment exists.

This is the more interesting quote: " I absolutely believed it and still do believe it was the right thing to do: that Final Cut X is a better editor than Final Cut 7 was. It’s more popular, it’s bringing more people into editing than ever were before. People who have never used an editor before find Final Cut X much easier to learn than Final Cut 7."

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


Return to posts index


Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 21, 2016 at 6:32:11 pm

More concerning to me is the current Tim Cook era. Meaning, Apple is so deep into being a "bling" company and their "cutting edge" efforts are along the lines of pushing single-port USB-C onto machines that won't even run a 4K monitor except at 30f refresh ... the concept of "pro" would seem to be lower and lower on the list. "Pro" is now almost a badge at Apple being applied in the same way "Deluxe" was used on products as I was growing up.

In that environment, the best things happening to FCPX would seem to be from small-volume third-party vendors who like the product and would like it to survive into the future. I am not convinced Apple-at-the-top management cares about this product at all. I love using it, but I have a queasy background free-floating anxiety that it will be yanked from under me at any moment. Just my own neurosis, maybe.

My son has been a good editor since 7th grade; he learned on FCP7. He is now in the job market in NYC, and hands down, the skill he has to carry with him, whether working for indie feature filmmakers or documentary producers ... is command of PPro CC.

With the ability to move in and out of Resolve Lite as a secondary skill. After Effects is third on the list, IF you are really going to hold up the "post" end of a project, and not just be an "editor-director" who is wrangling content.

FCPX just doesn't come up in conversation, in his world.

Doug D


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 21, 2016 at 6:33:05 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "[Herb Sevush] "and every time you bought a copy of X you got a copy of 7. "

Sorry, but this makes no sense. Why in the hell would you do that?"


It was to encourage users to get on board early with X while still having a fallback with Legacy to fulfill those immediate requirements that X version v1.0 couldn't handle.

[Scott Witthaus] " It’s more popular, it’s bringing more people into editing than ever were before. People who have never used an editor before find Final Cut X much easier to learn than Final Cut 7"

I understand why a software maker might care, but why would you or I care how easy or hard it was for newbie editors to learn. We're not newbies and when I hire young editors it's their problem, not mine, how long it takes them to figure things out.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 21, 2016 at 7:56:39 pm

Your vision of editing is clear, Herb.

Editing is a thing that happens in a "shop."
The "shop" determines how and what you edit, the tools you use, and sees video editors as worker cogs - it's a perfectly valid 18th century mechanical/industrial era workforce model - and yes, it still works just fine today.

The thing is that today there are OTHER business models that may work even better going forward.
And some of us, perhaps, don't necessarily see the "shop model" as the brightest possible future for the content creation industry.

Instead of "shops" some of us increasingly just see "teams."

Teams which may (or may not) be fixed in time, place, or area of focus. Instead they remain as fluid and flexible as the internet. They require a new structure. New thinking. And perhaps yes, even new tools.

Not always, but sometimes.

Your own beloved Adobe gets this. It may be precisely why (aside from the virtual price hike/recurring revenue thing) they moved to CC.

It can easily be seen as a way to enable more focus on disparate teams and less on "shops" as where videos will increasingly be created as the industry evolves.

But don't get me wrong, Adobe loves shops. So does Apple. Obviously they love ANY entity with a valid credit card - exactly like EVERY other business on the planet, bar none!

So hang in there and continue on!

Perhaps over the next 5 years you'll get even more features lifted directly from X and added to Premiere than you did in this "upgrade"!

If they work as well as they do in X, you'll really, really enjoy them, trust me!

(Sorry, just couldn't resist that last little bit - somebody puts a golf ball on a tee and hands me a club...)

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 21, 2016 at 8:55:13 pm

[Bill Davis] "Your vision of editing is clear, Herb."

To me it is, however you seem to see me as through a glass, darkly.

[Bill Davis] "Editing is a thing that happens in a "shop."
The "shop" determines how and what you edit, the tools you use, and sees video editors as worker cogs - it's a perfectly valid 18th century mechanical/industrial era workforce model - and yes, it still works just fine today."


I have worked in "shops" as you described, but the majority of my time I've been editing at home, working with virtual editing teams before the internet existed, connected by Fax and FedEx and all this back when you were still a VO guy.

[Bill Davis] "Teams which may (or may not) be fixed in time, place, or area of focus. Instead they remain as fluid and flexible as the internet. They require a new structure. New thinking. And perhaps yes, even new tools."

See above, tell me something new. For the past 10 years I have been working with a variable team of producers, editors, gfx designers and vo talent that don't live within 300 miles of each other, some of whom I've never met in person.

And new tools would be nice - actually bringing back some old tools would be nicer still. Using Apple's Chat feature I used to be able to screen a project with an editor 3000 miles away, both of us able to see both the sequence and the timeline as we talked through the edit, stopping to try out new variations as we carried on our virtual editing session. Apple gave up on this many years ago, unfortunately, and I don't find Skyping nearly as efficient - so please, let's go forward by bringing back the past, and then maybe Avid editors will get ScriptSync back.

[Bill Davis] "Perhaps over the next 5 years you'll get even more features lifted directly from X and added to Premiere than you did in this "upgrade"! If they work as well as they do in X, you'll really, really enjoy them, trust me!"

I would hope so. Many innovative features eventually show up in competing software. Maybe, some day, X will have built in Spectral Analysis. You'll really enjoy it, believe me.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 2:26:45 am

[Bill Davis] "Perhaps over the next 5 years you'll get even more features lifted directly from X and added to Premiere than you did in this "upgrade"!
"


Because X was the first software ever to have Proxies?

And hate to point out the obvious but keyword here is "upgrade".

When was the last FCPX one? The 3 other NLE's are growing at a crazy rate these date, yea even Avid.

I'm worried Apple wont be able to keep up with the rest of the pack.


Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 2:56:31 am

[Neil Goodman] "I'm worried Apple wont be able to keep up with the rest of the pack."

I've spent the day with the new version of Premiere, they fixed part of the issue with unlinked multicam audio disappearing when it is 'flattened' without linking to some other multicam clip. That's progress.

As far as keeping up, how are they behind? Adobe's best new features they added aren't new to me.

The open captions are nice I guess. They are creeping in to having shared workflow, that's my #1 hope that if FCP X gets that, it will finally begin to push the needle.


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 6:16:57 am

[Neil Goodman] "I'm worried Apple wont be able to keep up with the rest of the pack."

Well, when I was poor and in college, I used to worry a bit about random break ins.

I no longer do.

Rational risk assessment has moderated my thinking.

I suspect Apple has the resources and talent (plus the focused interest!) to do just fine in keeping up with where modern editing might be going.

Time will certainly tell, Neil.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 21, 2016 at 9:27:49 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Sorry, but this makes no sense. Why in the hell would you do that?
"


So you could officially stop selling 7 at the drop of a hat w/o pissing off a boatload of customers so bad that you have to start selling 7 again, but the damage was already done. Randy lived through this once with the iMovie '08 redesign, launch and backlash and he was keen to not make the same mistake twice. Unfortunately his warning apparently fell on deaf ears.

You also get X into the hands of users that might not have purchased X otherwise.


[Charlie Austin] "Our fearless moderator here has a different opinion... too lazy to find the thread. Also... who cares. ;-)"

I linked to the thread in my previous post (right under Herb's first post) and since when does caring/not caring prevent us from debating about something in here. ;)


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 21, 2016 at 9:42:36 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "and since when does caring/not caring prevent us from debating about something in here. ;)"

touché :-)

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 21, 2016 at 10:13:36 pm

For the rock 'n roll fans that are into beating dead horses...







Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 21, 2016 at 10:24:40 pm

I prefer this, right at the 3:40 mark







Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 21, 2016 at 11:50:33 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "So you could officially stop selling 7 at the drop of a hat w/o pissing off a boatload of customers so bad that you have to start selling 7 again, but the damage was already done. "

You are missing the point. I am not saying stop selling 7, but why would you give a version of 7 to everyone who buys X? I mean, would Adobe do that now? Avid? "here is our new software, and if you buy it, you get a free version of the old software". Terrible. You introduce the new software and phase out the old. Of course the new software has to be better than the mid-beta crap that was X at its first release. But to give an old version when you buy the new version is just a bad idea.

[Andrew Kimery] "Randy lived through this once with the iMovie '08 redesign, launch and backlash and he was keen to not make the same mistake twice."

I have all the respect in the world for Randy. I make my salary on his work. But the idea above is simply not good business. The key is to have a product that is ready to replace the old product before release. X was not.

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


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 12:11:56 am

[Scott Witthaus] "You are missing the point. I am not saying stop selling 7, but why would you give a version of 7 to everyone who buys X?"

Because it's feature incomplete but you want to nudge people towards it. Apple did the same thing with iMovie '08 and iMovie HD. HD was mature and feature rich, '08 was completely redesigned and feature bare. People got pissed so Apple gave away HD to everyone who bought '08. I think a year or two later they released another version of iMovie that hard largely replaced the missing features in '08 so they discontinued the offer.

Someone at Apple was afraid that continuing to sell FCP 7 would hinder the adaption rate of X so they chose to stop selling it. Bundling an 7 license w/X would've been a better compromise (and one that had worked for Apple in the past).

[Scott Witthaus] "I mean, would Adobe do that now? Avid? "here is our new software, and if you buy it, you get a free version of the old software". "

Adobe basically does that w/it's subscription model and when I bought my Avid 8.x perpetual license it also gave me access to Avid 7 and Avid 6.

[Scott Witthaus] "I have all the respect in the world for Randy. I make my salary on his work. But the idea above is simply not good business. The key is to have a product that is ready to replace the old product before release. X was not."

Ideally yes, but how much longer would that have taken before X matched features with 7. 12 months? 24 months? The FCP Legend natives were already restless thanks to the lame 2009 update so expecting users to wait until 2012 or 2013 would've been the greater of two evils, IMO. Releasing X in 2011 was the right call, Apple just dropped the ball on the launch (starting with the last minute take over of the Supermeet).


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 12:20:55 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Because it's feature incomplete but you want to nudge people towards it."

No. The fact is that nudging people towards it makes a company continue to develop two products. One of the historical problems with Avid development was their insistence to upgrade older versions of the product while trying to convince people to buy the new version. Made no sense at all. Once a new version is released, any development of older versions should cease. So, you can introduce X and still sell 7 for a while, but make it clear there will be no further investment in the development of 7 after X is released. And in reality, that's what happened.


[Andrew Kimery] "Adobe basically does that w/it's subscription model"

Do tell. I just upgraded my CC and it overwrote the older software versions.

[Andrew Kimery] "Apple did the same thing with iMovie '08 and iMovie HD."

Talk to Symphony users when Avid announced that DS would be it's HD solution. Talk about a "backstroke" after that!

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 12:33:53 am

[Scott Witthaus] "Do tell. I just upgraded my CC and it overwrote the older software versions."

1) You can uncheck Remove Old Versions [link] in the Creative Cloud's Advanced Options. I understand the consensus here that removing the previous version is a curious default. I also understand that NOT removing previous versions bucks the common user expectation updates happen in place, and don't typically leave you with two different versions of your software sucking up disk space on your incredibly tiny SSD. This is a rock-and-a-hard-place decision for Adobe; no matter which option they choose, it's wrong.

2) You can install previous releases [link] from Creative Cloud, and they will peacefully co-exist with whatever later versions you also have installed.

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

Walter Soyka
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 12:12:59 am

[Scott Witthaus] "why would you give a version of 7 to everyone who buys X? I mean, would Adobe do that now? Avid? "here is our new software, and if you buy it, you get a free version of the old software". "

Adobe does do that. A CC subscription includes every release of all the Adobe apps going back to CS6.

Why ship 7 with X? Remember the original premise for FCP X's spiritual predecessor, iMovie '08:

"Randy came back from a diving vacation and going through his footage realized that the standard UI paradigm of Avid/Premiere/Final Cut/Vegas/Liquid/etc. (all somewhat similar in media management) were not an ideal environment for the very first step in post-production: organizing raw footage.

"So Randy starting writing an app: “First Cut”, a professional-level “feeder” app for Final Cut Pro. You would launch First Cut, import all your raw footage, then quickly skim through, keywording, organizing, marking as good or rejecting, and finally building a rough edit.

"Then you would “Export to Final Cut Pro”, and import the rough cut XML into Final Cut Pro to fine-tune edits, color grade, add titles and effects, composite, key, mix sound and do your final mastering. First Cut was born for one purpose only– to make plowing through and organizing mountains of footage efficient and even enjoyable."


(Citation: http://dvcreators.net/2011/06/23/what-does-the-guy-who-led-the-original-fin...

With this model in mind, and with a lot of finishing features still missing from FCP X at launch, I think there's at least a reasonable argument for shipping both together.

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

Scott Witthaus
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 12:47:23 am

[Walter Soyka] "of finishing features still missing from FCP X at launch,"

This is the problem that Apple had; X was not ready for release when it was released. Had it been, this thread might be irrelevant.


[Walter Soyka] "Why ship 7 with X? Remember the original premise for FCP X's spiritual predecessor, iMovie '08:"

Once again, had Apple "baked" X to a point where it was ready for release, any idea of shipping X with a version of 7 makes no sense. Is 7 a feeder for X? Is X a feeder for 7?

What I would like to see from that interview is why X was released in the shape it was in. It was mid-beta at best. Can Randy explain that to us?

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 12:51:56 am

[Scott Witthaus] "This is the problem that Apple had; X was not ready for release when it was released. Had it been, this thread might be irrelevant."

Software is never finished, so how do you decide when it's ready?

What version of FCPX was the first you consider release-ready? What would have happened in the NLE market if Apple waited another year or two between 7 and X, with no releases for either one during the interregnum?


[Scott Witthaus] "Talk to Symphony users when Avid announced that DS would be it's HD solution. Talk about a "backstroke" after that!"

Too bad, right? Imagine what DS could have been if it had gotten the attention and resources it needed.

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

Scott Witthaus
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 11:47:50 pm

[Walter Soyka] " Imagine what DS could have been if it had gotten the attention and resources it needed.
"


Tell me about it!

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 2:13:00 am

[Scott Witthaus] "Once a new version is released, any development of older versions should cease. So, you can introduce X and still sell 7 for a while, but make it clear there will be no further investment in the development of 7 after X is released. And in reality, that's what happened. "

Where did I say anything about continued development of 7? There's no reason for that (which is why I never suggested or implied that course of action). Apple didn't continue developing iMovie HD when they introduced '08. Avid didn't keep developing Avid 6 or 7 even though they came 'bundled' when you bought a perpetual license for MC 8. Adobe doesn't continue developing the last 4 (5?) versions of their apps even though they are all available to download if you are CC subscriber.

I've always said it was a mistake for Apple to immediately pull 7 when they launched X. Keeping it available for sale until all copies were gone would have been the best option. Making it only available with purchase of X would've been the next best option. Pulling it like they did was the worst option.


[Scott Witthaus] "Do tell. I just upgraded my CC and it overwrote the older software versions."

Weird, I have like 6 different versions of CS/CC installed on my laptop (mainly because there's no penalty for keeping them installed).


[Scott Witthaus] "This is the problem that Apple had; X was not ready for release when it was released. Had it been, this thread might be irrelevant."

So when is it 'done enough'? 2012? 2013? 2014? How many years to you expect FCP 7 users to wait around as Apple develops the next version in complete secrecy? I can only imagine situation if both FCP and the MP laid dormant for years until 2013 rolled around.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 6:09:39 am

[Scott Witthaus] "What I would like to see from that interview is why X was released in the shape it was in. It was mid-beta at best. Can Randy explain that to us?"

Why in heaven's name should he?

Remember, the whole world all got the exact same information about X at the exact same time.

People who filtered that info largely by virtue of their rigid prior experiences - got messed up badly.

It was going someplace they weren't used to - so they bailed on it. Whether or not it's papa had concerns from time to time is old news. More important are the neighbors who kept judging it so harshly and bashing it. They kept those blinders firmly on for YEARS and wasted huge amounts of time in negative land.

Again, this is NOT arguing that there weren't things missing. There surely were. Kids have flaws. Part of the deal.

But from the beginning it had scads of interesting new ideas to explore. Ideas dope enough that the other kids in the area are just now adopting them with 5 years gone!

Those of us who instead filtered what we were seeing and hearing in the light of Apple telling us about where they thought editing might be going - and figuring we could trust in their talent and track record? Some of us were given a gift.

A big fat head start.

Magnetism. Metadata I can almost touch. Tedious actions automated. Old friction (like constantly waiting for rendering to complete!) banished. Re-imagined and awesome multi-cam. Roles driving automation into export. The list goes on and on - gleefully with no end in sight. And it's not like there weren't increasingly numbers of guys like me vocally out there who did out best to explain what it was becoming - loudly and often.

Randy doesn't have to explain anything. All he did was create yet another great NLE.

Plus, pretty much ALL software gets rev'd like X today. Code, release, update, perfect. Pretty sure it's the new normal.

Put it out into the market, pre-pubescent zits and all and let it grow up in public school.

The thing is, X complexion is pretty clear now. And as it grows up - holy heck, it's mighty good looking right now and time will tell if it further matures into a real stunner. But it's got the pedigree - and it's being very well tended by it's folks in Cupertino.

Sorry, that you didn't make friends with it when it was a gangly, unpolished kid - but that isn't exactly anyone elses' fault, is it?

; )


I know, I know. Points off for hyperbole AND anthropomorphic excess. But it was kinda fun to write. So there's that.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 6:35:51 am

Yeah Scott, stop dissing FCPX!


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 7:02:56 am

[Bill Davis] "They kept those blinders firmly on for YEARS and wasted huge amounts of time in negative land. "

Or they just moved on with their life and career and that's why their lasting impression with X was their first impression from 2011. Not everyone spends an inordinate amount of time following the iterations of various NLEs and subsequently discuss said iterations extensively on the internet (says the person posting at 11:59pm on a Tuesday).

Much to my chagrin, as someone that enjoys talking and learning about the nuts & bolts side of things, I've met so many talented and successful editors that are surprisingly technically illiterate that it makes me question why I bother to learn anything beyond the bare minimum when it comes to the tech side of things (it's not like Fincher is going to pick me over Kirk Baxter just because I started using PPro before he did). Me and my stupid desire for knowledge for the sake of having knowledge....


[Bill Davis] "A big fat head start. "

Does the head start come with cookies or a t-shirt or some sort of bonus I'm not aware of 'cause to best of my knowledge I've never been anywhere close to v1.0 of any software or hardware I use yet somehow I'm still gainfully employed.

Oh, wait, no I got one. I got in with Apple Color at version 1. Yes, I know that's kinda a cheat since Final Touch existed for years before Apple bought it technically it was a v1.0 product from Apple. That... that didn't do much for me though since as soon as Apple killed Color everyone moved over to Resolve in a heartbeat. I also got in kinda early with Final Cut Server (again I know not a 'real' v.1) but that proved even less useful than Color. Man, I'm apparently really bad when it comes to getting in the ground floor of things...


[Bill Davis] "X was plenty good enough on day one to change the trajectory of my whole professional practice.

For the better. As I've long argued, if I could see that from the hinterlands of Arizona, anyone, anywhere also could. "


I doubt many people besides you were equipped to judge whether or not X at launch was good enough to change the trajectory of your whole professional practice. X was no where near good enough on day one to change the trajectory of my whole professional practice, but as you say YMMV.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 7:26:51 am

[Andrew Kimery] "X was no where near good enough on day one to change the trajectory of my whole professional practice, but as you say YMMV."

X on day one was good enough to make me buy a fresh copy of Media Composer and Dive into Premiere. lol I couldn't do a thing with it (besides try to figure it out) until 7toX, EDL X, and X2Pro appeared. Thing is, I'm glad It worked out that way. I definitely have a favorite, but the more tools I can use the, uh merrier? :-)

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 12:42:35 pm

[Bill Davis] "Remember, the whole world all got the exact same information about X at the exact same time.
"


And in my opinion (and mine only) X was not ready for the whole world at it's release. Not dissing X as a software or new concept (it is my workhorse now at the same rate as any other software) but its' release was a big CF. But even then I saw some really cool things about X. I remember e-mailing my friends working at Avid saying "you better keep an eye on this thing. It's not ready now, but don't ignore it..." I think I posted that on the Avid Forums as well.

I don't know about you all, but I have done a fair bit of beta testing in my career for DS (softimage and Avid) and Media Composer. Those of you who have beta tested know the levels of beta, gold candidates and release candidates. I felt X was a mid beta with so many features missing (from 7) and things not working. So yes, Apple made some big mistakes in EOL'ing a proven software solution and then trying to force a half-baked replacement on us. Free version of 7 with every purchase of X? No, that is a silly idea. But keep selling FCP7 for a year or so while rolling out X would have been a better choice. Maybe better beta test pool? I don't know...

As for Randy, I respect the hell out of him and I am not dissing his software. I make a living with it and I am thankful he put all the work in that he did. But I do feel it is fine to ask questions about the history of the software and why things were released the way they were. Seems like a fair question to me...of course IMHO....

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 4:03:48 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "But I do feel it is fine to ask questions about the history of the software and why things were released the way they were. Seems like a fair question to me...of course IMHO....
"


I think it's a fine question too, and my guess is that Apple was feeling the heat from users and didn't think they could stay radio silent on FCP for another year (or perhaps longer depending on when you think X hit the 'good enough to launch' point). The takeover of the NAB Supermeet at the last minute always struck me as a desperation move to try and reassure users that a new FCP was almost here and that was only a few months before the launch. If they felt enough pressure to do that I can't imagine them keeping it secret for another year as they fleshed out development.

I certainly think if the version of X from 2013 launched in 2011 it would have gone much better, but Apple couldn't afford to wait until 2013 to get X out the door. Releasing it as a beta might have been another way to temper expectations, but that doesn't seem like a very Apple thing to do.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 4:16:00 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Not dissing X as a software or new concept (it is my workhorse now at the same rate as any other software)"

I was being sarcastic with the "dissing" comment :) Everyone knows you're an FCPX advocate, I was a little surprised that Bill jumped on your post so hard!


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 21, 2016 at 8:12:26 pm

[Herb Sevush] "So apparently the inventor of FCPX and the big Apple himself both thought the release was badly handled -- but then what would they know about it."

Our fearless moderator here has a different opinion... too lazy to find the thread. Also... who cares. ;-)

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 21, 2016 at 9:07:35 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Our fearless moderator here has a different opinion... too lazy to find the thread. Also... who cares. ;-)"

Tim and Bill are the two biggest proponents of the "it was a brilliant roll-out argument" in this neck of the woods - this thread was sort of aimed in their direction.

The reason it comes up is that it is the answer to a question that often arises around here - "why do people who've never used it hate on X so much" and it's corollary "why is X so slow to catch on in the broadcast/feature niche of the industry?" One of the reasons, I contend, is because of how botched up the release was and how much unnecessary additional antagonism it stirred up. Bill and Tim say nonsense - the release was perfect (from Bill this is an extension of the idea that everything from Apple is perfect.) I figure if the two most significant guys in the FCPX project (that's Randy and Steve, not Tim and Bill) were discussing how botched up the release was, then at least that small part of the never ending argument can be put to rest.

As to who cares? - well nobody with anything better to do, that's for sure. I'm waiting on client notes - what's your excuse?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 21, 2016 at 9:12:00 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I figure if the two most significant guys in the FCPX project (that's Randy and Steve, not Tim and Bill) were discussing how botched up the release was, then at least that small part of the never ending argument can be put to rest."

I think, privately, more people up there than just those 2 feel the same way.

[Herb Sevush] " I'm waiting on client notes - what's your excuse?"

lol... the same actually.

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Claude Lyneis
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 5:12:35 am

What we will never know is whether with a better launch strategy, FCPX would have captured the majority of the FCP7 crowd. The reality is the transition from 7 to X even today, is more difficult the from 7 to PPro. I think the existing market just went the way that required less learning and less of a change in philosophy. I hear this attitude today at the local film school. OK, I had the time and took the challenge and enjoy FCPX a lot. But finding local editors using X is rare, so I am learning how to edit in x and still collaborate with PPro. I am now learning Pro Tools, that is a trip in itself. Seems to be both powerful and archaic.

My favorite response to FCPX launch was Hitler's response.





Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 6:03:05 am
Last Edited By Darren Roark on Jun 22, 2016 at 6:04:43 am

[Claude Lyneis] "Seems to be both powerful and archaic."

We could also replace powerful and archaic with "respectable".

Like John Huston's pitch perfect delivery in "Chinatown".

Skip to 01:28 if you are into the whole brevity thing.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 6:27:22 am

[Herb Sevush] "(from Bill this is an extension of the idea that everything from Apple is perfect.)"

Swap "perfect" for "interesting" and you've got it correct.

Remember, they're the folks who, as Mr. Ubillos noted in Alex's article - amazingly don't worry overmuch about "sunk cost."

Which means if it's not very good, no matter whats been spent creating it - it doesn't go out the door.

X was plenty good enough on day one to change the trajectory of my whole professional practice.

For the better. As I've long argued, if I could see that from the hinterlands of Arizona, anyone, anywhere also could.

And so it goes.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 1:13:18 pm

OK Bill OK - you're a visionary. And FCPX is not only the best thing since sliced bread - it is the Master Loaf.

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 9:05:14 pm

[Joseph W. Bourke] "OK Bill OK - you're a visionary. And FCPX is not only the best thing since sliced bread - it is the Master Loaf."

Damn.

Finally FCP X gets some praise in the group -
and it centers on BREAD!?!
At a time legions are regularly imagining every bellyache is the result of the evils of Gluten?

Figures.

; )

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 9:12:43 pm

[Bill Davis] "Finally FCP X gets some praise in the group -
and it centers on BREAD!?! "


As long as it's not a sliced loaf, too much like tracks!


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Beating a dead horse
on Jun 22, 2016 at 11:55:00 pm

[Bill Davis] "X was plenty good enough on day one to change the trajectory of my whole professional practice.
"


I saw plenty of potential on day one...but I kept my work on 7 for a good long time.

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


Return to posts index

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