FORUMS: list search recent posts

John Siracusa on FCPX

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Andrew Richards
John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 5, 2011 at 4:06:00 pm

Yeah, he's late to the party, but he has a developer's perspective on the popular "Apple Hates Pros" narrative on the latest episode of his Hypercritical podcast. John covers the Apple beat (among other things) for Ars Technica.

Jump to about 57:30 into the show to hear the bit on FCPX.

Hypercritical ep. 24

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Ronald Lindeboom
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 5, 2011 at 6:30:20 pm

Interesting take on things from someone who has clearly never been an editor. Some of his arguments are good but he clearly does not understand why some cornerstones of editing practice and procedure are cornerstones in the first place.

Much of what he says applies to people working in one-man shops but has absolutely no relevance to professional editors working in work groups.

Best regards,

Ronald Lindeboom
CEO, Creative COW LLC
Publisher, Creative COW Magazine

Creativity is a process wherein the student and the teacher are located in the same individual.

"Incompetence has never prevented me from plunging in with enthusiasm."
- Woody Allen


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 5, 2011 at 7:07:36 pm

I'd argue his comments are more to the point about Apple's typical development agenda and attitude in producing "pro" products in general and not a critique on FCPX's present and admittedly incomplete feature set. The community around here seems to read Apple's motivations through a pessimistic lens that is often treated as fact when it is only group-think speculation (granted, Apple's culture of secrecy and diverse product strategy leaves an information vacuum that makes such speculation the only thing left to discuss). The idea that there is a pattern to Apple's behavior that "proves" they are forsaking high-end pro video is usually cherry-picked and is always speculation. I merely seek to present an alternative lens worth considering when speculating on Apple's product plans and motivations.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index


Ronald Lindeboom
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 5, 2011 at 7:25:00 pm

It was interesting, Andy. And his point about Apple dragging the market where they want it to go, rather than programming for standards that Apple views as counterproductive and therefore worth gambling on that they can come up with a better idea and not lose most of their audience in doing so -- was worth considering.

But I couldn't shake the cold slap of reality that kept hitting me as he talked and it became markedly clearer with each word that he had no idea whatsoever as to how professional workflows and workgroups function -- and why.

Thank you for adding the viewpoint, Andy.

Best regards,

Ronald Lindeboom
CEO, Creative COW LLC
Publisher, Creative COW Magazine

Creativity is a process wherein the student and the teacher are located in the same individual.

"Incompetence has never prevented me from plunging in with enthusiasm."
- Woody Allen


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 5, 2011 at 7:48:16 pm

[Ronald Lindeboom] "But I couldn't shake the cold slap of reality that kept hitting me as he talked and it became markedly clearer with each word that he had no idea whatsoever as to how professional workflows and workgroups function -- and why."

Indeed, he is speaking from an insulated perspective of not having a dog in this race, and he did say as much. This is a guy who still complains about Apple's fundamental changing of how the Finder presents the filesystem in OS X vs OS 9 (see episode 19 for that discussion)!

If Siracusa is correct about Apple's attitude on FCPX, that they think they can drag the postproduction world away, kicking and screaming, from its entrenched workflows, they are either crazy with hubris or crazy with foresight. We won't know which for a least a little while.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 5, 2011 at 8:19:04 pm

I think that Apple are simply letting the top end go, they clearly have a strategy and FCPX is moving towards whatever their vision of the future is. I honestly don't think that film and mainstream broadcast editing is something they are targeting, that much is obvious.

Steve Connor
Adrenalin Television

Have you tried "Search Posts"? Enlightenment may be there.


Return to posts index


Andrew Richards
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 5, 2011 at 9:20:35 pm

[Steve Connor] "I think that Apple are simply letting the top end go, they clearly have a strategy and FCPX is moving towards whatever their vision of the future is. I honestly don't think that film and mainstream broadcast editing is something they are targeting, that much is obvious."

Your opinion gets to the core of why I opened this thread. Apple "clearly [has] a strategy and FCPX is moving towards whatever their vision of the future is"? When did Apple articulate that strategy? You are certainly free to assume they have such a strategy based on your observations, but unless you are privy to some high-level Apple internal communications, it remains speculation, and nothing more.

I would speculatively agree Apple is not interested in a feature battle with every other software NLE platform out there. They are however unequivocally interested in selling Macs. What's the only thing selling $9,000 Mac Pros and returning their big, fat, per-unit margins? Apple's Pro Apps. Final Cut Pro more than any other. So what if Apple doesn't bake in every niche feature themselves? If third parties can support the niche workflows, what's the difference?

Compare the nascent FCPX situation with the iPad and iPhone in the enterprise. Apple built a platform in iOS with the minimum system-level guts to be supportable in enterprise IT settings; security, VPN, Exchange email, etc. Everything else is going to be third party. WebEx. Cisco VoIP. Oracle eAM. Apple is confident it is winning in IT with this model.

Now look at FCPX. Apple leaving formerly built-in features to third parties when it comes to niche markets looks very familiar, no? FCPX has 32bit float color rendering just like Resolve. It has database-managed media collections just like Avid. It has very rich extensible keyboard customization like any serious NLE should. Its guts are primed for top-end pro work, it just needs the skin.

So on one hand, Apple's release of FCPX missing obvious high-end features could look like a clear signal they don't want to participate in the high-end. On the other hand, maybe it just suggests they are trying to apply a riff on their iOS enterprise strategy to Pro Apps servicing film, broadcast, and other demanding niche workflows.

Either argument is just speculation based on incomplete evidence and broad assumptions about how Phil Schiller and Steve Jobs are thinking about these things.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Robert Brown
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 5, 2011 at 10:24:22 pm

[Andrew Richards] "Now look at FCPX. Apple leaving formerly built-in features to third parties when it comes to niche markets looks very familiar, no? FCPX has 32bit float color rendering just like Resolve. It has database-managed media collections just like Avid. It has very rich extensible keyboard customization like any serious NLE should. Its guts are primed for top-end pro work, it just needs the skin."

That is interesting. Part of me wants to download it just to test it for performance. They should do the 30 day thing like everybody else. Performance and feel is very important to me coming from years working with Sony Digi Beta which was the best overall VTR ever made IMO. It's just a shame they had to try to force this new timeline down everybody's throat, and instead of fixing old essential features, they just canned them.

But I'm actually happy about transitioning to something else since coming from that linear environment, I always thought FCP came up short. Why is the DVE so bad? How come output to tape is +/- a frame when my GVG 251 nails it every time with it's 186 chip? Why is the KF editor so bad? The slo mos with interlaced material look like crap. The chroma keyer is an absolute embarrassment.

It always seemed to me that they felt they could bypass the entire evolution of video and by doing so never realized a lot of important things had been figured out quite well in the past. This new release seems like more of the same from a company that never got it in the first place.



Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 1:39:20 am

[Robert Brown] "They should do the 30 day thing like everybody else."

Against App Store rules, unfortunately. They need to change this. If ever a new application cried out for a demo, it is FCPX.

[Robert Brown] "It's just a shame they had to try to force this new timeline down everybody's throat, and instead of fixing old essential features, they just canned them."

I actually like where they are heading with the new timeline. Very flexible, but it still needs some tweaks.

[Robert Brown] "I always thought FCP came up short. Why is the DVE so bad? How come output to tape is +/- a frame when my GVG 251 nails it every time with it's 186 chip? Why is the KF editor so bad? The slo mos with interlaced material look like crap. The chroma keyer is an absolute embarrassment. "

The effects engine in FCPX is very powerful, as it is shared with Motion 5. Motion 5 actually lets you build your own effects plugins for use in FCPX. It's pretty cool. The sloppy tape ops on the old FCP are all the more reason to leave that stuff to the AJAs and BMDs of the world. Keyframes are handled very differently in FCPX, but I don't have a strong opinion on them. Chroma keying is apparently very strong too, and for really heavy duty compositing you can use Motion.

[Robert Brown] "This new release seems like more of the same from a company that never got it in the first place."

Or maybe they know where to stop digging. I'm hoping for a deep API for FCPX that leaves it to the niche specialist companies to deliver the niche specialist features. The underpinnings of a really powerful tool are there for them if Apple opens the door. Again we wait.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index


Robert Brown
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 4:47:28 am

Maybe they'll prove us all wrong, but for now I'm going with the guys who are obviously headed in the right direction instead of maybe. I'm not really upset anyway. I already buy Adobe CS every time a new one comes out but EDL out, and OMF out are important to me so I'm glad Adobe has that all working. And I much prefer AE over Motion anyway so for me this is a good thing.



Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 4:53:30 am

Premiere Pro CS 5.5 is the FCP 8 a lot of people wanted all along. Anyone who does a lot of AE work and is coming from FCP would be nuts not to give PPro a shot. And lots of people already own it anyway.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 5, 2011 at 10:49:26 pm

Andrew -

You call it speculation, I think of it as drawing inferences. And one of the best articulations of the "Apple is changing direction" theory is right at the top of this forum -

A Final Cutter Tries Out Premiere Pro
by Helmut Kobler
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/8805

He lists the following to consider:

Apple took nearly 2.5 years to upgrade Final Cut Studio from version 2 to 3 (and v.3 was only a moderate upgrade at that). Until then, updates had come at a much more aggressive pace.

Apple cancelled the popular Shake, promising to replace it with a new tool that never came.

Apple got lazy with its Logic Pro app as well, letting development creep along with an upgrade about every two years.

Apple stopped updating the Pro page on its web site long ago. There hasn't been a new item posted in almost two years: http://www.apple.com/pro/

Apple took more than a year to fix a glaring Final Cut 7 bug that made its Close Gap command unreliable. To break a core Timeline feature like Close Gap and not fix it for 14 months was offensive and inexcusable.

Apple cancelled its Xserve RAID then its Xserve hardware.

Apple started taking longer and longer to release Mac Pro workstations, and absolutely phoned in the latest upgrade last July. 511 days in the making, the newest Mac Pro was one of the most un-inspired hardware upgrades I've ever seen from Apple.

Apple pulled out of industry trade events like NAB.

Multiple rumors (and confirmation of rumors) of significant layoffs in the Pro Apps division.


Then you get to FCPX and you can add (and this not counting any missing features that might be re-installed)

Lack of backwards compatibility.

Removal of FCS3 sales and support without notice.

A non customizable single screen design obviously not created with Mac Pro's in mind.

Apple's admission that they will not implement any of the missing "pro" IO but instead will leave that to third parties.

I don't think an inference that Apple is getting out of the Broadcast / Film business is a reach. I think you'd have to be delusional to think otherwise.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index


Andrew Richards
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 2:15:18 am

[Herb Sevush] "Then you get to FCPX and you can add (and this not counting any missing features that might be re-installed)

Lack of backwards compatibility.

Removal of FCS3 sales and support without notice.

A non customizable single screen design obviously not created with Mac Pro's in mind.

Apple's admission that they will not implement any of the missing "pro" IO but instead will leave that to third parties.

I don't think an inference that Apple is getting out of the Broadcast / Film business is a reach. I think you'd have to be delusional to think otherwise."


I already argued that pro I/O would be better handled by a third party, so I actually see this as an advantage. What difference does it make if Apple writes your Log & Capture window or if Blackmagic does?

I totally agree Apple has left the Broadcast/Film market. I said as much. They left it to third parties because a few thousand niche users among millions of FCPX users is a distraction they don't need to service themselves. Apple invested a decade cultivating an entire economy of third party partners to be able to stop doing everything themselves. They get to consolidate their software development and still be a desirable platform for creative work. They still need to prove some things with the upcoming FCPX API and the third parties need to do their thing, but I see no reason to believe they won't given all the public statements to the contrary from all parties involved. A lot of editors are insisting their FCP days are behind them, but the way things are going, who is going to have only one NLE installed on their workstation?

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 2:43:15 am

[Andrew Richards] "They still need to prove some things with the upcoming FCPX API and the third parties need to do their thing, but I see no reason to believe they won't given all the public statements to the contrary from all parties involved."

Jeeze Andrew, if I'd just landed here from another planet and read your words above, I would think that the word "all" in your statement above implied both a number of (i.e. many) statements and possibly many involved parties, or that Apple had actually made some substantive statements would in some way account for the missing numbers of those represented by the word "all."

But, I'm from this planet.

What exactly are "all the public statements" and who are "all" those involved parties you referencing? I feel as though I've missed something.


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

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

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


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


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 3:06:30 am

[David Roth Weiss] "What exactly are "all the public statements" and who are "all" those involved parties you referencing? I feel as though I've missed something."

Apple on releasing an API. But you knew that.

AJA committing to further driver support. See the last page for the pledge to develop further.

Red Giant on delivering plugins. Beta coming in August.

GenArts on delivering plugins. Also shooting for August.

Digital Rebellion on all their tools. One is "coming soon" and the other is waiting on Apple's XML API to drop.

Automatic Duck, of course, already has a product on the market for OMF export.

By all means, remain skeptical, it isn't a product till it ships. But which third parties are you thinking of that haven't made a statement of intent on this stuff? Blackmagic and Matrox haven't posted any press releases that I can find to link to, but I seriously doubt they will stay on the sidelines and yield the FCPX field to AJA.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index


David Roth Weiss
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 7:07:13 am

[Andrew Richards] "Apple on releasing an API. But you knew that."

I guess that that's supposed to be makeup sex from Apple for all the other stuff they've simply failed to mention over the last 5 months and beyond?

And the other companies coming round to sell what appear to be dumbed-down versions of their plugins and drivers doesn't exactly make me feel warm and fuzzy either. Heck, you don't even have any way to to determine if fields are reversed now. But, maybe if most editors don't know what a field is the issue of reversed fields will just go away?

Actually Andrew, the best thing you've said today in your unwavering support of bad decision making at Apple is when you said "Apple isn't doing fluff jobs for pros anymore." The problem is, It's only people like you saying that, but there's nobody manning-up to that from Apple.


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

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

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


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


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 12:13:12 pm

When have I defended Apple's decision making? They totally dropped the ball yanking FCP7 off the market and their typical silence only made things look worse. Maybe they anticipated this and were always willing to accept it, but it seems out of character for ancompany usually obsessed with PR.

I'm rejecting the idea that Apple's corporate culture of secrecy and shift in marketing focus make it inevitable that FCPX will never grow up and never be capable of supporting anything resembling a broadcast workflow. It may never grow up, we won't know for at least a year, probably more. But to say with certainty today that it could never happen without Apple feeling beholden to broadcasters like it used to in 2004, that's presumptuous. That's been the point of this thread all along. Today's FUD is not a leading indicator on how FCPX will develop over time.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 3:41:06 am

I totally agree Apple has left the Broadcast/Film market... because a few thousand niche users among millions of FCPX users is a distraction they don't need to service themselves

We are totally in agreement here. The only question I have is why would anyone do business and invest money in a company that doesn't value them? Yes, I could make a race car out of a Toyota Prius if enough third parties could modify it for me, but wouldn't I be better off starting with a Porsche. And If the Broadcast/Film market doesn't believe in FCPX, I don't see AJA, Blackmagic and Matrox investing a lot of resources creating drivers. The youtubers don't use Mac Pros.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index


Andrew Richards
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 4:14:19 am

[Herb Sevush] "The only question I have is why would anyone do business and invest money in a company that doesn't value them? Yes, I could make a race car out of a Toyota Prius if enough third parties could modify it for me, but wouldn't I be better off starting with a Porsche. And If the Broadcast/Film market doesn't believe in FCPX, I don't see AJA, Blackmagic and Matrox investing a lot of resources creating drivers. The youtubers don't use Mac Pros."

If FCPX required serious capital investment, your business logic would be very sound. But what risk is there in FCPX? $300? $400 if you spring for the companion apps? I've spent more on sheets of paper for a tiny trade show this month. We aren't talking about an Avid circa 1997 here. I guess if you don't buy a Mac for your next workstation, that is a real barrier to carrying FCPX. But it is safe to say for the time being that Macs are still very common in creative businesses, if not the dominant platform. FCPX represents very little business risk. It isn't like you can't also have Premiere Pro and Media Composer on the same workstation if you want. This stuff is so inexpensive now, having only one NLE in your Applications folder will become a business liability.

If Apple is giving them a way to make drivers for FCPX, AJA, BMD, and Matrox will absolutely make drivers. They aren't going to waffle on the sidelines and psych themselves out of a potentially huge market based on Internet speculation that all pros that ever wanted baseband I/O for FCP won't ever use FCPX or want to do so with a proper I/O device. There is negligible risk for them to develop a driver. A little developer time? It isn't like they need to build custom hardware or anything truly expensive or risky. They aren't going out on a limb to support FCPX.

I guess if you are so offended by Apple's handling of this (and it has been very callous indeed) you can choose to shun them in all ways moving forward, but you do so for emotional reasons only. There is very little sound business justification that can be used to defend such a move.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 4:49:08 am

Let's talk about these negligible costs and my emotional decision making.

But what risk is there in FCPX? $300? $400 if you spring for the companion apps?

That's a load of crap and you know it. Automatic Duck alone is $500. The true cost of FCPX for Broadcasters, will be around $700 - $1000 once all the necessary third parties are accounted for. Again, not that big a deal - oh except maybe once your talking about 3 seats, now we're at 2000 - 3000. Still not the cost of a decent RAID, but not peanuts either.

In January 2012 my business plan calls for me to upgrade 2 of my computers. FCPX was specifically designed NOT for Mac Pros - it was designed for laptops, Imacs, and I'm sure Ipads will be next. None of those computers can do the work I need done. Am I being irrational when I say I can't see investing $8000 - $10000 in computers made by a company with Apple's recent track record and direction, I don't think so. (you can refer back to Helmut Kobler's article here - I notice you had nothing to say about his comments.)

But most costly is my time. Retraining for a new workflow will be the biggest cost in migrating platforms. And FCPX is the least compatible system to FCP7 on the market.


I've spent more on sheets of paper for a tiny trade show this month.

Apparently you use a lot of paper.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 5:31:25 am

I started picking apart Helmut's weaker tea leaves regarding Apple's motivations, but I scrapped it since I decided I would ultimately be agreeing with you that Apple is not chasing broadcasters anymore. There is really no question Apple is disinterested in fluffing the "Pro" anymore.

I guess you will be opting for Windows for your 2012 workstation purchases? I wouldn't use Windows on a dare, but that is just my personal preference. The creative pros I know feel the same way. But to each his own. You can buy a Dell or HP instead, everyone knows how much they care about broadcast posproduction.

Retraining is a big deal. Very true. That is the only reason you need, IMHO, to avoid FCPX. Thus I assume you are en route to Premiere, the next closest thing to FCP8.

Kinkos double sided color adds up fast....

By the way, FCPX has dual display support. Albeit not the tearaway tab support of FCP7 or Premiere, but dual display support nonetheless. Yes, Apple considered laptop users when laying out the GUI. Most FCP users, by far, primarily use laptops. And the single window thing is Apple's direction for all apps moving forward. Makes fullscreening in Lion practical. Maybe you hate it, but that's where they are going. It has nothing to do with the "pro-ness" of it. Just their new UI guidelines being put into practice.


Return to posts index

Alex Hawkins
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 6:33:22 am

I don't get it.

[Andrew Richards] "I would ultimately be agreeing with you that Apple is not chasing broadcasters anymore."

So why would I use their software?

Simple.

And as I have heard my Aussie compatriot Peter Corbett say before: In this business if you're standing still, then you're moving backwards.

Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 11:53:42 am

[Alex Hawkins] "So why would I use their software?"

I don't know about you, but I chose tools based on the work they can accomplish and not on whether or not the company making them feels compelled to make my use case the centerpiece of their marketing campaigns. The sentiment I keep reading is that Apple has permanently lost customers because of all this. I don't follow the logic. Don't use the software if it doesn't suit your needs today. But if it does in the future, will you ignore it out of spite just because the company making it doesn't feature your industry in their marketing campaigns anymore?

I guess I don't see an aggressive marketing campaign and a capable product as being mutually dependent. Maybe Apple won't ever push FCPX beyond its first iteration limits. That would be a shame. But I'm not writing it off forever just because Apple has a new girlfriend. I'd still like to see Apple compete in this space even if we don't get blockbuster booths from them at NAB anymore. I see great potential in FCPX and I'd hate for it to never bubble up to the big time.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Alex Hawkins
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 1:40:37 pm

[Andrew Richards] "I chose tools based on the work they can accomplish"

Agreed.


[Andrew Richards] "Don't use the software if it doesn't suit your needs today."

Thanks, I won't.


[Andrew Richards] "if it does in the future, will you ignore it out of spite"

No, of course not.


[Andrew Richards] "I'm not writing it off forever"

Neither am I. Just for now, that's all.


[Andrew Richards] "I see great potential in FCPX"

Look, when I start reading a plethora of posts and blogs singing its praises from editors I've been listening to for the last 10 years then I might be convinced, but for now, meh.

Regards,

Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 5:11:15 pm

Meh for now, indeed. Fair enough.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 6:37:13 am

[Andrew Richards] "Retraining is a big deal. Very true. That is the only reason you need, IMHO, to avoid FCPX. "

You must have made a typo here. Right?


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

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

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


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


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 12:01:01 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "You must have made a typo here. Right?"

Not at all. For established shops, retraining isn't a trivial thing. That is a perfectly valid business case for going to Premiere over FCPX, for instance. I won't presume to know how onerous it would be for his shop to learn an all new NLE. We were debating business logic and this is a sound business decision, IMO.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 4:31:17 pm

[Andrew Richards] "For established shops, retraining isn't a trivial thing."

You missed the point of my post Andrew.

[Andrew Richards] "Retraining is a big deal. Very true. That is the only reason you need, IMHO, to avoid FCPX. "

The underlined portion is the part I very much take exception with. Personally, I can think of many more reasons than simply training to avoid X, and it's clear that I'm in league with many.

And, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting FCP X has no parts worth keeping. But it's pretty much and early beta at this point. And, with no clear path substantively outlined by Apple, the expense of training personnel to use it is but one of many reasons to avoid it if you have a business to run.


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

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

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


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


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 5:09:19 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "You missed the point of my post Andrew. "

Likewise. I meant leaving all the unknowns aside, retraining alone is a reasonable enough justification to avoid FCPX. I get your point though, and I don't dispute it.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 12:48:34 pm

I wouldn't use Windows on a dare, but that is just my personal preference. The creative pros I know feel the same way

I guess I'm not creative enough for Apple then. I'm totally platform agnostic. My only prejudice is to deal with companies who value me as a customer.

You can buy a Dell or HP instead, everyone knows how much they care about broadcast posproduction.

They don't care about broadcast, they care about business. No business would allow themselves to be abused the way Apple treats it's customers. Everything in the PC world is backwards compatible, it's one of the givens. It's only a company with 5% of the computer market and no appreciable corporate presence that would tell it's own customer's to eat s**t and then expect them to come back in a year for seconds.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 2:36:26 pm

I have yet to run in to a facility or broadcast setup where the Avid's were not PC based. Also, I'm pretty
sure Pixar does not make its movies using MacPros. But I guess those places aren't creative enough either.

bigpine


Return to posts index

James Mortner
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 1:42:35 pm

[Andrew Richards] "I already argued that pro I/O would be better handled by a third party, so I actually see this as an advantage. What difference does it make if Apple writes your Log & Capture window or if Blackmagic does?
"


I would be fine with that if it were integrated properly. As it stands, you have to use an ancient stand-alone bit of software. That's not cool.

Yes, I realise that it will get better. Yet it feels utterly broken at the moment.

Its not a good look


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 1:59:07 am

[Andrew Richards] " What's the only thing selling $9,000 Mac Pros and returning their big, fat, per-unit margins?"

What if there are other pro apps that sell those $9000 Mac Pro rigs? Photoshop. After Effects. Avid, Maxon, Autodesk. Does Apple really need a ProApps division anymore, especially when their largest sales and profit centers are decidedly non-pro? Perhaps, but the question is definitely a discussion point these days.


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 2:27:18 am

[Dennis Radeke] "What if there are other pro apps that sell those $9000 Mac Pro rigs? Photoshop. After Effects. Avid, Maxon, Autodesk. Does Apple really need a ProApps division anymore, especially when their largest sales and profit centers are decidedly non-pro? Perhaps, but the question is definitely a discussion point these days."

All of those applications you listed will run on either Windows or Linux on (often) less expensive commodity PC hardware. Apple only does software to sell hardware. That has been their business model since Jobs returned. The Mac is still a huge chunk of Apple's revenue stream, and they don't sell as many Macs without compelling software that only runs on Macs. OS X, iLife, Pro Apps, all of these exist to move iron-ahem-aluminum. Maybe a lot of pro users would still prefer to run their cross-platform creative tools on a Mac for love of OS X alone, but Apple apparently would just as soon sweeten the deal by putting what they surely hope is must-have software on those Macs as well.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Alex Hawkins
Re: John Siracusa on FCPX
on Jul 6, 2011 at 3:31:13 am

I'm sorry but I just got angry listening to that.

Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia


Return to posts index

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