FORUMS: list search recent posts

Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Craig Seeman
Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 22, 2016 at 10:48:01 am

Interesting to note that the author is only identified as "Guest Author" and is a former Apple employee.

Is something dramatic about to happen with Final Cut Pro X?
http://www.redsharknews.com/post/item/3635-is-something-dramatic-about-to-h...



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 22, 2016 at 11:47:47 am

I like Redshark news for the most part, but this is one of their typical "Big Headline - No Content" articles. You'd get more new information reading one of Andreas's old drunken rants. Since Apple already held an NDA preview at NAB, bringing up the possibility that they're going to drop X is absurd if not dishonest.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 22, 2016 at 1:55:20 pm

[Herb Sevush] "bringing up the possibility that they're going to drop X is absurd if not dishonest.
"


I don't think that was the author's intent. My understanding is that he was saying that's clearly not going to happen. That update may be big but it's so small financially, for Apple's business, it was pointless to be so secretive.

[Herb Sevush] "Since Apple already held an NDA preview at NAB"

My own guess is that he's well aware of such but the secrecy around it but it's pointless to Apple's business.

Rather, that promoting new features may do better to pull in people to a product which is well behind Premiere (depends on the market in question though) and poses no financial harm in doing so.



Return to posts index


Mitch Ives
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Aug 11, 2016 at 9:20:13 pm

[Herb Sevush] "You'd get more new information reading one of Andreas's old drunken rants. "

Strangely, I miss those... :-)

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 22, 2016 at 11:58:24 am

I hope the secrecy is because there is someone with a strong vision of what the product will be as it grows and evolves. How is this different from other companies? And didn't a bunch of folks see some of the coming features under NDA at NAB? Why release details early to start a debate before release? Does that show commitment?

As far as the article itself, I saw nothing of real importance or revealing. And, doing her/his "raise your hand" poll method, he/she is talking about a niche that is dominated by Avid anyway. And we all, at least most of us on this forum, have multiple editors on our systems. What was the point of that last paragraph? IMHO, this is a non-story that almost anyone could have written.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 22, 2016 at 1:59:51 pm

It's just an opinion piece derisive of Apple's secrecy.

There's a lot of focus on "high end" post in such "discussions." It's quite possible that in the broader market (wrongly called "prosumer" IMHO because if they're getting paid it's professional) FCPX may be doing quite well.

The question he's awkwardly trying to raise is that Apple has no real financial interest in keeping upcoming features secret.



Return to posts index


Noah Kadner
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 22, 2016 at 4:25:16 pm
Last Edited By Noah Kadner on Jul 22, 2016 at 4:36:07 pm

The author is identified a bit down the page as Clayton Moore, assuming it's https://www.linkedin.com/in/clayton-moore-08889218

That Clayton left Apple in 2009, years before FCPX was born. So, if that's the author, I would question his credentials as an insider with up to date knowledge about Final Cut Pro.

Also, if he'd done sufficient research about FCPX at NAB 2016, he could have learned about FCPWORKS' hosting of Apple NDA presentations among many other examples of a healthy ecosystem. All of which would support his #2 theory much more than his #1.

Noah

FCPWORKS - FCPX Workflow
FCP Exchange - FCPX Workshops
XinTwo - FCPX Training


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 22, 2016 at 4:39:17 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Apple has no real financial interest in keeping upcoming features secret."

On one hand, does anyone anymore?

As Scott observes above, most folks have more than one vendor's stuff, and the having-it-ness or not-having-it-ness has nothing whatsoever to do with something that was ever kept back as a secret competitive advantage. Competitive advantages are now at a very high level, abstractions really. Conceptual. This APPROACH works for this CONTEXT.

So really, at least since the introduction of the CONCEPT of FCPX, of the CONCEPT of a subscription-only business model, there hasn't been a FEATURE or feature set that has mattered in (software) generations.

And ironically, the only thing that has mattered has been the ABSENCE of the feature! Do you have HD? No? Then no sale.

Now back in THOSE days, our frenemies Senator Sarbanes and Representative Oxley first strode across the land like giants, and here's why. You can't sell people a product that doesn't exist. You couldn't say "HD is coming" unless it was coming THAT QUARTER without having to set aside the FINANCIAL VALUE of HD in escrow, not to be redeemed until you actually delivered HD.

That is, you can't "recognize the revenue" of a sale until the transaction is completed: the point at which customers HAVE this product or feature you "sold" them.

You do get a grace period of a financial quarter, so if you announce in April and ship in June, you're golden.

And what's the announced ship date for almost every new product announced at NAB? June.

But I can give you a specific historical example of how this worked out. Avid was at one time late with HDV support, and not being able to answer the question of WHEN it was coming was hurting sales at the lowest end of the product line. Customers were telling us they were waiting for it before they'd spend, or were choosing other products that met that need for them today.

This sparked two different avenues of research. One was, okay, are they telling the truth. LOL Are they REALLY holding out on upgrades or buying other products because of HDV? What are the other factors that are REALLY driving their decisions? And when a customer does upgrade or buy a new seat, how much are the non-HDV features worth to them?

The answer is of course that, in practice, almost every other feature in the world was worth more. Copy and paste were worth more. LOL But in fact, if you have an HDV camera today and can't edit that footage today, no sale. (This was before there was a practical software-only transcode to DNxHD option. ProRes was still four years away.)

This research mattered because the answer had to pass muster with customer-facing product managers, sales people (who were the ones hearing that pressure directly and, via the channel, indirectly), C-level execs, lawyers, and yes, the US Department of Justice.

The figure arrived at was $49. Everyone agreed, okay, in the scheme of things, that sounds about right -- having or not having HDV right this second is costing us plus or minus $49.

Which leads to ANOTHER set of research. How fast can we have it, for reals? No guessing. Because however long it takes, we're going to have to keep a pile of $49 transactions on the sidelines, which we'd really rather not do.

(Here's how long ago this was, btw. Avid's stock and revenue was flying high, quadrupling in the next few years, while Apple's stock had just broken out of the single digits because of the iPod as the company was becoming derided as more focused on devices than on professionals. LOL)

The answer was, we can have it by the end of Q3.

Which led to another set of discussions. Okay, since most people don't care at ALL about HDV, we don't have to hold back ANY portion of those sales. We can "recognize the revenue" for 100% of THOSE sales.

Yeah, but how do we get those people to identify themselves? Here's how. We don't sell HDV to EVERYONE. We don't even mention it, except to say, "If you want HDV, don't worry! It's coming in September! And you can reserve it now for only $49!"

Ahhhh, so you break that out as a discrete transaction! The hounds of Sarbane and Oxley are satisfied that customers are getting what they've paid for in an appropriate time frame, no promises are being made that aren't being kept. Everyone is happy.

Think about it from the flip side though, and you can probably guess how fgjking LONG IT TOOK to come up with $49 and the strategy around it -- except that you can't. It took much, much longer. Much of that work was being done by product people, who combined domain expertise with customer contact in ways that nobody else in the company did. They could have been doing so much more with their time, like guiding development of new stuff, meeting with customers about much higher-priority features, etc etc etc.

THAT's why PRODUCT people got so excited about things like subscriptions, because now they're liberated from having to assign dollar values to features and assigning them slots in the calendar. You still need to do that at a high level to try to balance development cost and opportunity cost, resources are limited, and falling behind is too risky to sustain -- but so is wobbly stuff. People will in fact stick around if your stuff is solid, and they'll bolt if it's not, regardless of the features.

So Adobe's approach is, let's keep payment moving forward, Apple's is let's stop charging for upgrades, Avid's is let's get 'em paying annually in advance via subscription OR service contract, but paying annually nonetheless.

SO WHY THE SECRETS?

Here's why. Because in Apple's case, that's the only way they have left to show love to their dearest friends. Back in the old days, they might give you some product, but really, what can they give you? A phone? Some Beats headphones? If you cared about that stuff, you'd have bought it already, and you getting one more for free won't change how you feel about Apple -- so in fact, by definition, that marketing initiative will fail, every single time, because it won't actually yield any measurable result.

That's also why Apple doesn't advertise FCPX or have a large public booth at NAB -- those things cannot possibly make Apple any NEW money that they couldn't have gotten any other way, so everything that they spend on that kind of marketing is by definition a failure.

So how do you get your most excitable folks excited? You tell 'em stuff.

This isn't cynical. It's smart. It's also kind, generous, and humane. These people ARE special to you, so you do the one thing that will make them FEEL special, which is to treat them as if they ARE special. Tell 'em stuff.

Of course, this is all theoretical on my part. I'm just guessing, because in fact, nobody tells me stuff. LOL Ever.

But I'm surely not THAT far off, am I? Agreeing that Apple has no FINANCIAL incentive to be secretive, but some STRATEGIC ones that aren't related to markets, but to friends. And you take care of friends using the means you have at your disposal, which in this case is very simply staying in touch.

Here, friend. Pull up a chair. Let's talk about some things that are important to each other.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 22, 2016 at 6:02:49 pm
Last Edited By Craig Seeman on Jul 22, 2016 at 6:04:09 pm

[Tim Wilson] "So how do you get your most excitable folks excited? You tell 'em stuff. "

But WE are the excitable folk are we not? ;-)

[Tim Wilson] "Agreeing that Apple has no FINANCIAL incentive to be secretive, but some STRATEGIC ones that aren't related to markets, but to friends."

Common Apple, tell me your secret and I'll be your BFF. ;-)

But do they have any "special" friends anymore? Seems they don't have "favored" journalists anymore. Anyone who happened to be at NAB got into the meeting without needing a secret password or byline.

It seems even the plugin pluggers and tutorial tooters who used to be exclusively FCP, aren't anymore.

Heck when it comes to their other software both iOS and macOS have public betas. Of course those updates are free once you buy the dongle. But, FCPX is now POP own forever (unless they're thinking of changing that with the new App Store Subscription model) as well.

If they announced that the next version would make an excellent baked lasagna I wouldn't stop all my projects to wait. It wouldn't impact a purchase since, for many people, there's no either/orness with NLEs anymore. There's not even a "better wait to buy more seats" motive to avoid the non existent upgrade fee.

Not only don't I see a business model for secrets, I don't see the secrets impacting the open marriages we now have with our NLEs.

Apple wont even let us be friends with benefits.



Return to posts index


Tim Wilson
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 12:28:55 am

[Craig Seeman] "But do they have any "special" friends anymore? Seems they don't have "favored" journalists anymore. Anyone who happened to be at NAB got into the meeting without needing a secret password or byline."

I think that's the definition of friend, though: that you want to hear what they have to say, face to face.

The thing about journalists is that they tend to be jaded. They're the guys in the back of the room with their arms crossed. They've heard it all before. They're too cool to clap.

Apple doesn't need those guys.

Those guys used to the mediators, the gatekeepers who explained stuff to "us" because only they had access to the news, and only they understood it. But in this context, they're old and slow and paying attention to the wrong things.

So rather than speak to the mediators, trying to break through the ice surrounding their cold, cold hearts LOL Apple is speaking IM-mediated-LY, to the hot-blooded who want to hear it.

The barrier is low enough, right? Cross the driveway, ride up the elevator, grab a cookie and sit down. Hey look! It's Noah Kadner! LOL

Okay, not a barrier so low that you don't still have to get to NAB, but that's still a low-ish barrier as far as such things go. Easier than getting into Comic-Con, that's for sure.

I like this plan a lot. It's not secrecy for its own sake. It's Apple saying, "Look, what we were doing before wasn't doing anybody any good. We were putting our message in the hands of people who didn't care all that much, who weren't helping us ANY, and god bless user groups, but that's a circus that takes more effort than we have the mental and spiritual bandwidth to manage."

It might be different if Apple had a culture of outreach. They don't. It's like, there was only ever a couple of people in the whole history of the company who were any good at stage presentations. LOL The guy who was best at it resented his audiences. LOL Didn't like customers even a little. And while there are clearly and demonstrably people within Apple who DO care about customers, there's simply not a culture there of public presentations as a core value. Certainly no history of it.

So let's get all that folderol out of the way, says Apple. "We're not presenters. We're not good with crowds and we know it. Sit down. Let's talk."

Right there, by lowering the barrier for almost everyone else, they've created enough of a barrier to keep out almost all of the "too cool to clap" crowd. "Harumph, if I can't write about it, why bother going? ANYBODY can go now."

More than anything else, I think Apple's worst impulses are rooted in arrogance, and what they're doing with the FCPWORKS meetings is the opposite of arrogance. These are advertised, they're free, they're intimate, they're personal.

I'm still a fan of spectacle, mind you, and some of you geezers who were around to see me on stage back in the day know that I was as committed to putting on a good show as anyone in the game, EVER.

And I believe VERY strongly that a commitment to powerful, effective public presentations IS a commitment to customers. It reflects critical core values. A company that doesn't care about giving good demo doesn't care enough about its customers, not for my taste, and I don't think they're entirely trustworthy -- but if that's not who you are as a company, it's not who you are.

It'd be great if Apple could manage both, but hey, there's something to be said for self-knowledge and playing to what you WANT to be your strengths, which is a quiet pitch away from the hubbub.

So on that count, I think it's fair to remove "secrecy" from the list of pathologies ascribed to Apple. And make no mistake. I think they've been pathological. I think they reflected the explicit, literal, clinical, criminal psychosis of their former leader, and am pleased by the process and progress of their detoxification.

Rather than secrecy, then, I think NDA presos via FCPWORKS as more of an offer of mutual respect. "We'll tell you some cool stuff, but please don't drag us into the circus. We're here talking to you because we've had enough of that, and we bet you've had enough of companies who won't tell you anything substantial.

Deal?"

Again noting that I don't altogether approve of this being the entirety of the outreach plan, and I think Apple has a long, long list of problems that I personally find insurmountable....but in the scheme of things, I don't see how this makes the list. Walk across the driveway from the LVCC, have a cookie, say hi to Noah, meet some folks from Apple, maybe even meet Bill Davis. That's a pretty good morning, right?



Return to posts index

Noah Kadner
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 12:59:02 am

We can only offer coffee and water. Cookies are just too expensive at these Vegas convention rates.

Noah

FCPWORKS - FCPX Workflow
FCP Exchange - FCPX Workshops
XinTwo - FCPX Training


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 7:01:09 am

Jeez... I leave town and it suddenly gets interesting. Figures.

I'll sit this one out because I'm having a ball in San Diego playing photographer with NO client to please.

Yippee!





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


Return to posts index


Ralph Hajik
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 24, 2016 at 3:07:18 pm

I'm with you Bill, but only in the Chicago land area and in my global travels.

Happy Travels
Ralph Hajik
http://www.RJTravelMedia.com


Return to posts index

Noah Kadner
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 25, 2016 at 5:47:44 am

ps a mod at RedShark confirmed the author is actually Clayton Moore, who left Apple in 2009 and not a Lone Ranger alias.

Noah

FCPWORKS - FCPX Workflow
FCP Exchange - FCPX Workshops
XinTwo - FCPX Training


Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 8:31:00 pm

[Tim Wilson] "That is, you can't "recognize the revenue" of a sale until the transaction is completed: the point at which customers HAVE this product or feature you "sold" them."

This is right on.

The way the SEC rules changed back in 2009 and were applied in 2011, if the company both creates the hardware and the software as Apple does, then you can update at will. That meant goodbye nickel and dimeing for every new 'feature'. OS updates can be 'free'.

This is how BMD gets around it too. Resolve is a 'feature' of the ultrastudios and other i/o products.

By that logic then, that would mean that any Apple made software that is only licensed to work on a mac that you own are value added features to the hardware. Technically you don't own FCP X, it's just licensed to you to use on a compatible mac that you own. (I read the terms.)

What I find really interesting is the other two "A" NLE companies have turned the idea of paying a monthly fee as a form of peace of mind that you will keep getting new 'stuff' on a regular basis. That they are working away to earn that money.

Because that raises the uncertainty needle every time there are longer gaps between updates, especially when it comes to the pro side of things.

It's the same with hardware, Intel, nvidia and AMD have all said they are slowing down and have added a year to release cycles. Since Apple switched to Intel chips that they usually refresh hardware when significant updates are possible.

The greatest win Adobe and Avid have is convincing customers that they are better off for paying forever for their products because they promise not to abandon their users.

That's more like 'protection money'.


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 9:12:46 pm

[Darren Roark] "This is how BMD gets around it too. Resolve is a 'feature' of the ultrastudios and other i/o products. "

I'm not sure that's applicable, because BMD is not a publicly traded company in the US.

[Darren Roark] "Technically you don't own FCP X, it's just licensed to you to use on a compatible mac that you own. (I read the terms.)"

You don't own any software. It is all licensed to you. Generally all software EULAs read the same. This is hardly unique to Apple.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 9:16:45 pm

[Darren Roark] "This is how BMD gets around it too. Resolve is a 'feature' of the ultrastudios and other i/o products. "

BMD is also a private company and private companies don't have to follow the same rules the publicly traded companies do (rules set to protect the investors). All the SOX stuff, for example, only applies to publicly traded companies AFAIK.

[Darren Roark] "What I find really interesting is the other two "A" NLE companies have turned the idea of paying a monthly fee as a form of peace of mind that you will keep getting new 'stuff' on a regular basis. That they are working away to earn that money. "

Avid isn't subscription only.

[Darren Roark] "The greatest win Adobe and Avid have is convincing customers that they are better off for paying forever for their products because they promise not to abandon their users. "

You don't pay forever you only pay as long as you need them. Plus the software game has changed into a race to the bottom thanks in large part to Apple. Giving away OS X and many of the polices they set in their iOS and Mac App stores (which finally they are changing some of them) has forced others to follow suit and it's devalued software. In the pro space BM is part of this too with Resolve. For example, SG is basically dead in large part because how do you compete with a free version of Resolve that functions 97% like the paid version (which itself is only $999)?

As I've mentioned multiple times before, it's not a coincidence that freemium, ad supported, subscription, etc., business models for software have up-ended the traditional "buy it, then buy the next version at a discount" business model over the last 5-6 years. Even PC and console video games are starting to edge away from it towards free to play games that are support by micro-transactions or 'platform' games where you buy it once, and then upgrades to it come out (as opposed to a whole new version/sequel two years later). Even MS is moving into the subscription and the hardware business. The old way of just selling a perpetual license for a piece of software is dying. Either you subsidize your software with hardware sales or you find an alternative business model like freemium, ad supported or subscription. I mean, in what way could Adobe compete the '$299 and free upgrades for life' business model Apple has with X?


-Andrew


Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 10:19:18 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "BMD is also a private company and private companies don't have to follow the same rules the publicly traded companies do (rules set to protect the investors). All the SOX stuff, for example, only applies to publicly traded companies AFAIK."

Yes, this is true, SOX still applies to privately held companies as it comes down to retaliation against whistleblower employees for complying with law enforcement regarding reporting fraud and other financial slight of hand. So in a way, they have to operate in a similar way to publicly traded companies.

Just because they are private, there are still private investors.

But you are right, they have more flexibility especially since they buy liquidated tech from failing companies.

[Andrew Kimery] "Avid isn't subscription only."

Again, true to a point, the support contracts essentially are, so if you want updates you either subscribe or you buy the contracts AFAIK. Since most places I deal with are stuck on v7 of MC because of ScriptSync they are in a pickle either way.

[Andrew Kimery] "Either you subsidize your software with hardware sales or you find an alternative business model like freemium, ad supported or subscription. I mean, in what way could Adobe compete the '$299 and free upgrades for life' business model Apple has with X?"

All I can speak to is what I see them doing, as soon as the outrage the FCP X launch caused they offered 'switcher deals' to FCP 7 owners, then Avid followed suit. 1/2 price CS suites and MC licenses just before they went subscription based.

Both Avid and Adobe have switched the narrative by reframing Apple's credibility for putting professional content creation tools in the hands of more people than ever as a toy company who 'seem to not care about professionals anymore.' The phrase 'feeling abandoned' was aggressively put everywhere in the twitters, blogs, press releases. Even the Conan editors got on board.

What they did is throw cocktail parties in LA with themes of "We're listening to you, we have your best interests at heart." and won hearts and minds of the influencers which keeps the aspirational market, as in the future users with the impression that "If you want to work on real stuff you should learn Avid"

And then Adobe sneaks in there with Gone Girl, Hail Caesar and Deadpool. All three films had major problems using Premiere, but nobody talks about that. The headline is "Amazing filmmakers the Coen Brothers use Premiere." (Because they didn't have to learn anything new after using FCP 7)

Adobe have Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign which are still the industry standard image design apps. They are effectively competing because it's hard to argue with that level of credibility.

The reason Avid keeps it's stronghold on the high end film and TV market is they do one thing better than the other two, and that's shared workflow. In my mind the tradeoffs to working in Avid, that one thing doesn't outweigh the modern benefits of FCP X.

It's effective and it has been working, finding an editor willing to use FCP X in LA is still three years after it was ready to do features is like finding a field of nothing but four leaf clovers in the winter.

Thankfully Apple is doing official training at MPEG at the end of the month so I'm hoping that helps that situation.


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 10:39:59 pm

[Darren Roark] "Again, true to a point, the support contracts essentially are, so if you want updates you either subscribe or you buy the contracts AFAIK."

With Avid you buy or subscribe. If you buy, you also need to get an annual support contract to get updates. If you stop the support contract, then your MC version is frozen at the point where the support contract ends. However, it continues to work.

[Darren Roark] "And then Adobe sneaks in there with Gone Girl, Hail Caesar and Deadpool. All three films had major problems using Premiere, but nobody talks about that. The headline is "Amazing filmmakers the Coen Brothers use Premiere." (Because they didn't have to learn anything new after using FCP 7)"

Since I've interviewed all of these folks, I'd be curious about the problems you are aware of. "Gone Girl" had performance and project load issues, but I don't see Kirk Baxter going to a different NLE. "Deadpool" burnt through multiple MacPros because it was heavy VFX and Apple's hardware wasn't up to snuff. To my knowledge "HC" had a reasonbly smooth run, although custom software was written to track keycode (not an FCPX strength either). So what more was swept under the rug?

[Darren Roark] "It's effective and it has been working, finding an editor willing to use FCP X in LA is still three years after it was ready to do features is like finding a field of nothing but four leaf clovers in the winter."

Avid owns the established workflow and editors know the keystrokes like the back of their hand. What's the incentive to change?

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 24, 2016 at 1:12:12 am

[Oliver Peters] "So what more was swept under the rug?"

On Deadpool they had developers working alongside the editors, since this isn't the Watergate scandal, it's just software, it's a reasonable assumption they aren't going to openly go negative in a case study article. They had dedicated developers working with them, you become close working on a movie with people.

The decision to go with this NLE or that is a reflection of the decision maker too, are they going to want to say the regret going with "NLE X" when they should have been using the industry standard Avid? It will be telling if they do PP on Deadpool 2 or switch to Avid.

A lot of it has to do with Adobe's focus on making their CC apps work well with each other and put less emphasis on leaving Premiere. Similar issues I'm having now with multicam clips and detached audio on the documentary. I'd be happy to privately discuss the specifics I was told.

The Whiskey Tango articles came out around the same time as Deadpool, only one of those productions said the NLE they chose bought them ten weeks of time.

[Oliver Peters] "Avid owns the established workflow and editors know the keystrokes like the back of their hand. What's the incentive to change?"

The same thing that always drives any big changes, cost and efficiency. What I was saying earlier is that Avid has done a great job scaring people into even trying FCP X here in LA. So in the talent pool war, Avid is still winning that one.

There are other advantages, the veteran editor I've worked with on two features has said, she misses FCP X after she goes back to Avid because her wrists hurt after a day of working in MC.

I'm working on a feature now, I know when they lock picture I have only a few hours of work to do to get it to color and sound. All the difficult work has been done, all the mics are labeled as subroles according to character lav or boom mics. Sound effects and music were given roles on import.

The best part is there is no conform to do with the Red files it's a flip of a switch back to originals. I've done a few tests with Resolve 12.5, the picture comes in to the frame accurately. This hasn't always been the case but I'm hoping it sticks for a while.

I'm not saying FCP X is perfect, it's just that even in it's current form the total sum of advantages it has outweigh the other options in my experience.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 24, 2016 at 8:16:02 pm

[Darren Roark] "On Deadpool they had developers working alongside the editors, since this isn't the Watergate scandal, it's just software, it's a reasonable assumption they aren't going to openly go negative in a case study article. They had dedicated developers working with them, you become close working on a movie with people. "

Yes, Adobe has been doing this with several films and the editors have worked on custom builds of the software. Avid and Apple both did this in the earliest days of their NLEs, but no longer. Adobe's argument in favor of doing this is that it gives them real-world situations to improve the software and by doing so, helps them develop features that make it into future public builds. I would further point out that on a large production, it's often the assistants who take the brunt of any problems and as such, the actual editor and director are often insulated from possible issues, unless we are talking about outright crashes or long load times. FWIW - the Adobe film teams have not shied away from mentioning the latter. In fact, they were running hot-rodded SSD RAIDs to improve performance.

[Darren Roark] "It will be telling if they do PP on Deadpool 2 or switch to Avid."

In the case of "Deadpool" Tim Miller (director and head of VFX house) made that call because of AE integration and he's buddies with Fincher. Julian Clarke, the editor, probably would go with Avid the next time around, but I'm not sure Tim would. In the case of the Fincher films, they seem committed to Adobe, including the editors.

[Darren Roark] "The Whiskey Tango articles came out around the same time as Deadpool, only one of those productions said the NLE they chose bought them ten weeks of time. "

Glenn, John and Jan were very happy with FCPX. However, it's important to note that "WTF" and "DP" have completely different workflows and that the VFX load on "DP" is nothing like that of "WTF" in spite of the shot count. In addition, "WTF" followed a workflow that is completely foreign to the Hollywood way of doing things, although not unknown to most of the rest of the editing world doing corporate, commercial and TV. For example, they worked with full-res ALEXA media without the ARRIRAW mess that other projects shoot. They also did all effects in-house in finished form. So yes, FCPX was efficient, but the total production also added to this and some would argue was even more consequential.

[Darren Roark] "I'd be happy to privately discuss the specifics I was told. "

Feel free to drop me an e-mail at oliverpeters (at) oliverpeters (dot) com.

FWIW - here are my interviews with the various projects, including "Voice from the Stone", a new FCPX feature:

https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2014/11/07/gone-girl/
https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/focus/
https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/hail-caesar/
https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2016/03/25/whiskey-tango-foxtrot/
https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2016/04/01/deadpool/
https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/voice-from-the-stone/

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 25, 2016 at 4:43:06 am

[Darren Roark] "Again, true to a point, the support contracts essentially are, so if you want updates you either subscribe or you buy the contracts AFAIK. "

And if you wanted an update from FCP 6 you had to buy FCP 7, but no one is going to call that a subscription. Subscription means that if you stop paying the software stops working and my perpetual license to Avid 8.4.x won't expire on me just because I don't buy another 12mo support contract.

Another big change to game is how quickly upgrades are rolled out. It used to be we'd wait 18-24 months between feature upgrades and now people start beating the drums if it's been longer than six months. This demand for a shorter product cycle is another reason the software business model has changed. We saw Avid get boinked by SOX (and eventually delisted from NASDAQ for withholding SEC filings as it sorted itself out) for releasing free bug fixes that also included feature updates/upgrades at no charge (see Tim's post about HDV for $49 for an example of the nitty-gritty of the line that Avid crossed). By going to a subscription model, or a 12mo maintenance fee, you can release feature upgrades at no charge to your heart's content w/o worrying about violating fed regulations.

[Darren Roark] "On Deadpool they had developers working alongside the editors, since this isn't the Watergate scandal, it's just software, it's a reasonable assumption they aren't going to openly go negative in a case study article. They had dedicated developers working with them, you become close working on a movie with people. "

Adobe having devs on site and creating custom fixes for problems as they came up (and those fixes eventually becoming part of the standard build) was well talked about (even in Adobe puff pieces). Is there some major problem you know about that wasn't talked about?

[Darren Roark] " It will be telling if they do PP on Deadpool 2 or switch to Avid. "

Not DP 2, but Kirk Baxter started a post house a couple years ago and I believe they use PPro (exclusively or not I do not know).

[Darren Roark] " What I was saying earlier is that Avid has done a great job scaring people into even trying FCP X here in LA. So in the talent pool war, Avid is still winning that one. "

Apple did a great job blowing up their own inroads into that market, they didn't need any help from Avid. While Avid did get some of the former FCP 7 market in LA, I'd say most of that market went to PPro (even though Avid also ran "own your software" ads once Adobe went subscription only).

[Darren Roark] "If XML and multicam editing came with v10.0 I think the conversation would be much different now. "

I agree that if X launched as a more feature-rich product the conversation would be different, but you don't get second chance to make a first impression. Many people still have the FCP X-at-launch version in their head because they are editors not tech heads and, there's not much push from Apple to wash that bad taste away. Also, much of X's functionality comes from third parties so even if you go to Apple.com you'll still get an incomplete picture of what X can do compared to going to Avid's or Adobe's sites to learn about their respective products. The third party market for X is impressive, but again if you are trying to win someone over that's just another hurdle to get by.

[Darren Roark] "Similar issues I'm having now with multicam clips and detached audio on the documentary. I'd be happy to privately discuss the specifics I was told. "

I do a lot of multicam work with detached audio (I assume by this you mean 2nd system sound?) and would love to hear what you've heard. Or is this just for Oliver's ears? ;)

-Andrew


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 11:14:51 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "The old way of just selling a perpetual license for a piece of software is dying. "

Perpetual phone licenses are dying too. We haven't really talked about that here, but it's a compelling play: keep paying monthly, and we'll make sure you have the new thing. The plan being pushed on me will allow me to reduce my payments by half, and get a new phone up to twice a year.

The fact is that most people don't take them up on the offer to change phones twice a year. Me, it takes me 6 months to finish customizing a new phone. LOL Even once a year is almost too much. But for somebody who largely sticks with the stock OS and isn't a crypto-anarchist about being tied to a carrier, it's a great deal.

More for iOS since it's all-but-uncustomizable in any meaningful way, but just as Apple was the first to introduce the end of OS sales and upgrades, I think that subscription-only iPhones will be the norm sooner rather than later.

oooooooooo, says the boomer -- you'll get the crap beaten out of you if you try to change carriers or switch from an iPhone to Android or vice versa! Uhm, why would I do that? I like my phone. All carriers suck but mine is the best in my area or I wouldn't be using them. What's YOUR excuse?

Look, we can go down the line. Apple's music sales business was decimated by monthly subscriptions (notably Spotify) in far swifter fashion than digital sales decimated physical sales. They spent $3 billion for Beats just to stay in the music game at all. Why? Paying monthly for new music is too compelling.

Netflix, anyone? Paying monthly for new movies and access to TV libraries is too compelling.

The perpetual license for cars is dying, too. Leasing now represents over 30% of new car acquisitions. Among millenials, it's even higher, and rose over 40% last year.

Why? Because paying monthly for the new thing is too compelling.

You folks insisting on permanent licenses for cars, so to speak, are missing the fact that it's now more often true than not that LEASING IS CHEAPER THAN MONTHLY PAYMENTS.

Why? Because they CAN be. A car manufacturer knows that this year's lease will very likely convert to another lease in 2018 or 2019, likely for a more expensive monthly payment because it's only a hundred or two bucks a month to SERIOUSLY upgrade....versus a new sale...when? Five years? Eight? Ten? When you have to compete from scratch against every car in the universe? When the customer may not have the $10-20,000 to go up a level or two?

Fooey. Let's sell the car to ourselves at a lower price, market new leases directly to the people who are already paying us to KEEP paying us. Eeeeeasy.

Srsly. Buying for $0 down 0% monthly interest is a sucker's deal for people who are committed to a lifestyle of depreciation and old stuff.

That's one reason why millennials are leading the way. The lie of longterm ownership being the highest economic good is being exposed as just that. A lie.

Another reason why millennials are leasing in large numbers is because they can. More than just being accessible (the average new car price is $33,000!!!), it offers real benefits. They've had enough of driving beaters that break down more often than they can afford to repair, with insurance they can't afford to keep up, stuck with a trade-in value of next to nothing because the car is next to worthless.

Exchanging that nonsense for one monthly payment + gas. The end.

Here's what many ppl have missed in your ranting about Adobe and The AWFUL TERRIBLE NO GOOD VERY BAD SUBSCRIPTION-ONLY MODEL. Adobe has more customers than ever.

Keep telling me how bad this is for you, how untenable it is for you. I believe you.

Doesn't matter. Adobe has more customers than ever. An entire class of customers has access to ALL of Adobe's stuff that was never going to have access to it before. I think it's one reason why so many of you have reported the proliferation of jobs requesting Adobe expertise. Because they can. Because there's a wave of Adobe artists both larger and more proficient than anyone could have predicted even just a few years ago.

Frankly, I'm not convinced that Adobe predicted numbers this high. Certainly exceeding any publicly announced projections.

Anybody who wants FCPX has it. Had it years ago. But there are millions of people who had no meaningful access to After Effects...oh yeah, AND ALL THIS OTHER STUFF...but can now get it for $49/month. Being "locked into Adobe" is as useless an argument as telling them that they're locking themselves into Netflix or iPhone or Spotify.

"Uhm, why would I stop paying, you bloviating boomer? Can't you see? I'm getting an insane amount of stuff for very little money, and instead of wasting my time depreciating out of date crap, I don't have out of date crap. "

I'm obviously a fan of yapping about philosophy all day long. But note that I've barely touched on philosophy here. Just boring old facts. When customers are given a choice, they are stampeding toward monthly payments.

And manufacturers in every field are increasingly less interested in handholding boomers who need the psychological comfort of depreciation as they're being lowered into their graves. LOL Monthly payments are better business, and leading to higher customer satisfaction across the board.

And hey, paying a trivial amount for FCPX and never paying again is fun too. But Apple's pretty much the only one who can sustain that model for software, and they're increasingly encouraging monthly subscriptions for the freshest phones, and are rapidly transitioning to going all-in on music and (I betcha) movies and TV too. They're done competing with Blockbuster. Time to saddle up on Netflix or say goodbye to that market forever too.

This isn't just a thing. It's THE thing. Other than mayyyyyybe the near-universality of credit cards, there has been no economic trend in our lifetimes that has moved nearly this quickly or nearly this broadly. And while this shift is obviously dependent on credit cards, the transition to subscriptions and similar non-purchase installments is also driving the economy faster and further than anything we've ever seen before from purchase-only business models.


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 25, 2016 at 2:47:16 am

Adobe is not telling how many subscription it has per cloud or per product. So we dont know what market segment they are dominating. is it the creative cloud? the marketing cloud? or the print cloud?
Which cloud is growing or stagnent?

They are very quiet on this and this speaks loudly. Their business model is fragil good when times favor it but what if there where to be another bubble burst or a repeat of 2008?.

They have painted themselves into the corner and the most of the mid to highend industry behind them. They keep on buying back there own stock and have yet to pay dividends. It looks like a wild ride to make some people rich while leaving others hanging, not saying that it is.

At this moment adobe has a captive market how long can they keep it before the barbarians knock the wall down?

As always no analogy really fits when trying to to compare it to adobes impact.

As for the subscription model? Bubbles are born everyday but burst at the most inconvient times. For some it makes sense to own nothing for other owning is freedom.

Ricardo Marty


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 25, 2016 at 4:56:17 am

[Ricardo Marty] "Adobe is not telling how many subscription it has per cloud or per product. So we dont know what market segment they are dominating. is it the creative cloud? the marketing cloud? or the print cloud?
Which cloud is growing or stagnent?"


Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but this article (and click through to the PDF from Adobe) breaks things down by Creative Cloud, Marketing Cloud and Document Cloud.


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 25, 2016 at 5:05:54 am

What pdf are you talking about?
Last febuary adobe stated they would no longer present a breakdown of subscriptions per product. Maybe you have an old copy unless they have changed their policy.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 25, 2016 at 3:11:09 pm

[Ricardo Marty] "What pdf are you talking about?"

Oops, forgot the links.

Here is the article:
http://prodesigntools.com/creative-cloud-one-million-paid-members.html

Here is the PDF that the article sourced (the PDF is dated March, 17th 2016):
http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/investor-relations/PDFs/71306102/...


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 25, 2016 at 7:49:39 pm

These are the febuary numbers when they said that they would no longer provide details anymore.

Have they presented this for Q2?

Ricardo Marty


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 25, 2016 at 3:41:37 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Why? Because paying monthly for the new thing is too compelling."

What is weird about this in a software realm is that the new thing isn't all that new.

If you ponied up for an NLE that was incompatible with itself 2-3 years down the line, what incentive would I have to keep buying myself out of my archive?

When I subscribe to a new device, I get a new device, I get the new car smell, I don't need the old one anymore.

With an NLE, I'll need the old one, or I'll need the new one to work with the old one, unless of course the company wants to blow it all up and start over every handful of years. We have a simulation model of this, and word on the street is that it didn't go well? And how often can a development company afford to do that? My guess is not very often as the risk is high.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 25, 2016 at 3:55:46 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " We have a simulation model of this, and word on the street is that it didn't go well?"

That's my favorite line of the month.

Thank you.

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: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 25, 2016 at 12:31:59 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "r you find an alternative business model like freemium, ad supported or subscription. I mean, in what way could Adobe compete the '$299 and free upgrades for life' business model Apple has with X?"

How about "sponsored modules". So Premiere could have "The Premiere title tool is brought to you by Yugo. Yugo and Adobe, partners moving forward". Or pop-up ads on each interface module. Perhaps on the color corrector there could be an ad for 4K monitors? "After Effects Key Framing brought to you buy Bausch and Lomb. We have the products to see those little damn things". Hey, it could happen! ;-)

Seriously though, I will be interested to see who raises the monthly price first. It's gonna have to happen.

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


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 25, 2016 at 1:55:27 pm

Their only claim to fame is AE and Photoshop once a viable alternative is presented imodium will be hard to find in san jose.

Ricardo Marty


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Clayton Moore(?) as Guest Author"
on Jul 25, 2016 at 3:12:02 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "How about "sponsored modules". So Premiere could have "The Premiere title tool is brought to you by Yugo. Yugo and Adobe, partners moving forward". Or pop-up ads on each interface module. Perhaps on the color corrector there could be an ad for 4K monitors? "After Effects Key Framing brought to you buy Bausch and Lomb. We have the products to see those little damn things". Hey, it could happen! ;-)"

Just like the Amazon Kindles. You could pay full price for no ads, or get a discount for having ads displayed when you open and close the program.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 22, 2016 at 9:14:36 pm

From the article: "Final Cut Pro X had been updating on a regular basis and then it just stopped. There are two reasons this happens at Apple: either it’s about to be killed off, or there is something new and better waiting in the wings."

I think that's a false dichotomy. "Maintenance" (a la Apple's productivity apps) is a completely valid third option.

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

Noah Kadner
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 22, 2016 at 9:37:27 pm
Last Edited By Noah Kadner on Jul 22, 2016 at 9:37:46 pm

Also anyone making a living predicting Apple's next move is destined to be mistaken- FACT.

Noah

FCPWORKS - FCPX Workflow
FCP Exchange - FCPX Workshops
XinTwo - FCPX Training


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 2:24:32 am

To the point of the article about whether secrecy is the winning strategy anymore, Apple's secrecy is one of the reasons why I won't trust my business model on their largess.

As a company that has always used secrecy as a hedge against being outflanked by giants like Microsoft or Samsung there is definite merit. But the market for pro apps is different to consumer fad purchase with fast turnover & redundancy. Building a business on products that can appear and disappear without any advanced warning creates nervousness not hype.

With Apple the odd one out about keeping secrets about development the writer was pointing out that the companies with disclosure like Adobe & Blackmagic are gaining more traction. Even when Blackmagic over promises on camera hardware they are going at a great pace in developments with software that are often preceded by videos from Grant Petty being frank and honest about what's planned. Maybe it's an Australian thing to say what you mean, bite off more than you can chew and then chew like hell but Blackmagic is delivering tools for me with a confidence of support that I don't feel from Apple.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 2:37:55 am

[Michael Gissing] "To the point of the article about whether secrecy is the winning strategy anymore, Apple's secrecy is one of the reasons why I won't trust my business model on their largess."

I think the secrecy was tolerable when new hardware and software was released on a pretty reelable schedule. Pro users might not have known what new features were going to be in FCP or that Apple was dropping Moto for IBM (and later IBM for *gasp* Intel) but we knew that new things would roll out on a predictable basis.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 4:19:12 pm

The trouble is that the presentation has passed the 90-day mark. Obviously a release version wasn't "just around the corner", which is usually the case when Adobe does this. That begs the question: was what was shown simply a ginned up demo version that isn't anywhere close to release? If so, that speaks pretty poorly of Apple's development effects.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Noah Kadner
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 5:03:33 pm
Last Edited By Noah Kadner on Jul 23, 2016 at 5:04:07 pm

Trouble? I don't recall a 90 day timeframe being mentioned. The words were: later this year.

Noah

FCPWORKS - FCPX Workflow
FCP Exchange - FCPX Workshops
XinTwo - FCPX Training


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 5:25:04 pm

[Noah Kadner] "Trouble? I don't recall a 90 day timeframe being mentioned. The words were: later this year.
"

I never said that they did. Merely, that when a company makes this type of presentation, it's implied the release is going to happen within a quarter.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Noah Kadner
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 5:31:05 pm

So you're saying 90 days from private demo to ship date is the industry standard timeframe. I'll bet that's news to a lot of developers.

Noah

FCPWORKS - FCPX Workflow
FCP Exchange - FCPX Workshops
XinTwo - FCPX Training


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 5:49:37 pm

[Noah Kadner] "So you're saying 90 days from private demo to ship date is the industry standard timeframe. I'll bet that's news to a lot of developers."

Wasn't the meeting where the demo happened open to the public though? Does having to sign an NDA make it a private demo? I'm genuinely curious where the line is.

I think Oliver's POV is based in what Tim talked about in his first post about publicly traded companies having to release w/in the quarter if they talk about an upgrade to an existing product or they could run afoul of SOX. This probably doesn't apply to Apple in this case since I doubt they have to worry much about when they 'recognize' the revenue from FCP X given the boatloads of cash they make from other parts of the company.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 7:36:33 pm
Last Edited By Tim Wilson on Jul 24, 2016 at 6:06:47 am

[Andrew Kimery] "I think Oliver's POV is based in what Tim talked about in his first post about publicly traded companies having to release w/in the quarter if they talk about an upgrade to an existing product or they could run afoul of SOX.

This.

And it's not that publicly traded companies CAN'T take longer than 90 days. If they slip, they just have to withhold that dollar amount equivalent to the value of that feature set until they DO ship. People do it all the time, but this the very, very specific reason why "shipping in June" has been a mantra at NAB for decades, going back long before SOX. It was sound accounting practice, even before SOX gave it teeth.



[Andrew Kimery] "This probably doesn't apply to Apple in this case since I doubt they have to worry much about when they 'recognize' the revenue from FCP X given the boatloads of cash they make from other parts of the company."

For current customers, there's NO revenue to recognize from future-facing announcements, because there's no revenue coming. Hence my prediction from the beginning that there will never be an upgrade charge for FCPX. Bookkeeping stays nice and simple, and development schedules aren't disrupted by arbitrary business cycles.

And yeah, even if Apple were to embark on a plan that required unrecognized revenue: for the amount to be withheld from sales based on promised features, the amount is trivial. That is, say the promised feature is for support for the Kellog's Frosted Codec Camera -- Apple would only have to withhold the value of that single codec, from within an already trivial fee.

But why put yourself through that kind of agony? Compliance costs generally the same for a trivial amount of money as it does for a massive amount of money, because the compliance process is irrespective of the dollar amount. Easy enough to just avoid it by having NDA briefings.


[Noah Kadner] "We can only offer coffee and water. "

That's plenty. Hydration is important. :-)


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 7:52:30 pm

[Noah Kadner] "I'll bet that's news to a lot of developers."

I'm just saying that based on my experience as a member of the press, beta tester, and high-value customer with some companies, when you show something in a preview, the actual release is usually within a quarter period. That's been true in the past of Avid, Adobe, Blackmagic Design, and even Apple, to name a few. No hard and fast rules, just common practice. Obviously Apple can do whatever they want, considering this was just an engineering preview.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 11:10:49 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I'm just saying that based on my experience as a member of the press, beta tester, and high-value customer with some companies, when you show something in a preview, the actual release is usually within a quarter period. That's been true in the past of Avid, Adobe, Blackmagic Design, and even Apple, to name a few"

Ha, maybe if you specified software only. I am fairly certain one of those companies has certainly 'shown something in a
preview' and not had an actual release for much longer than a quarter period..........*cough* Black Magic.....*cough*

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 5:05:23 pm
Last Edited By Andrew Kimery on Jul 23, 2016 at 5:05:55 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The trouble is that the presentation has passed the 90-day mark. Obviously a release version wasn't "just around the corner", which is usually the case when Adobe does this. That begs the question: was what was shown simply a ginned up demo version that isn't anywhere close to release? If so, that speaks pretty poorly of Apple's development effects."

People have said that it could have ties to Sierra and I think that's probably a safe assumption so when Sierra drops so will the X update. That means a pretty long time from NAB to release, but I think Apple felt the need to reassure/placate its users. Saying something many months early at NAB vs not saying anything at all is probably the lesser of two evils. It also could help explain the NDA.

If Apple knew that the update to X wasn't going to drop until Fall (to coincide with Sierra) then they probably didn't want users, in general, talking about the new features and start pounding on the gates for it to be released (especially since Sierra wasn't unveiled until two months after NAB) so every that got the sneak peek had to sign an NDA. Who knows, maybe some of the X team go pulled to work on Sierra and that's why X hasn't gotten much love lately.


Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 7:59:59 pm

[Andrew Kimery] " Who knows, maybe some of the X team go pulled to work on Sierra and that's why X hasn't gotten much love lately."

That's one I haven't heard in a long time since the Leopard days.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 5:08:52 pm

if I was paying monthly ransom to Adobe and Avid, yes I would be concerned about a perceived lack of development. After all, $50/month (I wonder which company will "blink" and raise the monthly rate first?) you want to see these incremental releases.

Apple said later this year, and that is cool by me. As I have stated, I have work right now that X is the best tool for. Not going to gnash my teeth (or pay monthly fees) over Apple's way of doing things.

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 5:11:33 pm

[Oliver Peters] "That begs the question: was what was shown simply a ginned up demo version that isn't anywhere close to release? If so, that speaks pretty poorly of Apple's development effects.
"


Quite a reach here, Oliver. Adobe got you on the payroll? ;-)

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 5:29:12 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Quite a reach here, Oliver."

No reach at all. I've been to more than my share of NAB presentations that were simply a canned presentation made for the benefit of the audience. Don't stray from the script or the whole app will blow up. It's called marketing.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 7:53:36 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Adobe got you on the payroll"

Naw - just a slow Saturday. Besides, Timmy needs the page views :)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 10:48:41 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The trouble is that the presentation has passed the 90-day mark. Obviously a release version wasn't "just around the corner", which is usually the case when Adobe does this."

As you have probably been seeing, the last release was not one of their best. I had to roll back the documentary I'm working on for many reasons.

[Oliver Peters] "That begs the question: was what was shown simply a ginned up demo version that isn't anywhere close to release? If so, that speaks pretty poorly of Apple's development effects."

I wasn't there, but I'm guessing it was so they wouldn't have people saying this sort of thing all over NAB. It was a very positive sign and a major step towards being more open. At every otherwise 'private' event which never seem that private they always say the same thing, NDA or not "We are listening to you and we care about what you are saying."

It amazes me that each attempt to be more inclusive gets turned around to mean the opposite.

If XML and multicam editing came with v10.0 I think the conversation would be much different now.

Personally I would rather wait until something is ready rather than find out the hard way it doesn't work, or worse damages your work. To me anyway this shows they learned their lesson from 2011, don't release something that isn't ready again.

To me this is only a good sign.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Jul 23, 2016 at 11:09:54 pm

[Darren Roark] "As you have probably been seeing, the last release was not one of their best. I had to roll back the documentary I'm working on for many reasons.
"


If you mean Adobe, this build has actually been pretty stable for me. But, yes, I'm aware that others have had problems with it.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Aug 11, 2016 at 9:26:38 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I think the secrecy was tolerable when new hardware and software was released on a pretty reelable schedule. Pro users might not have known what new features were going to be in FCP or that Apple was dropping Moto for IBM (and later IBM for *gasp* Intel) but we knew that new things would roll out on a predictable basis."

I agree Andrew. I also agree with Tim... I don't think there's an upside to this anymore. It wouldn't hurt Apple to communicate a little better and more often about where FCP X is going.

I don't need to know what they're doing with Safari, because my business isn't built around it. FCP X is a different story...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Aug 11, 2016 at 11:08:59 pm

[Mitch Ives] "I don't need to know what they're doing with Safari, because my business isn't built around it. FCP X is a different story...
"


They actually let you know whats happening with Safari as they release regular "technology preview" versions!


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Aug 12, 2016 at 11:02:05 pm

I guess my sarcasm didn't translate. Yes, I know they keep us updated on Safari, which was my point

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple, FCPX and Secrecy - RedShark "Guest Author"
on Aug 13, 2016 at 2:03:16 pm

[Mitch Ives] "I guess my sarcasm didn't translate. Yes, I know they keep us updated on Safari, which was my point
"


Should have spotted that :)


Return to posts index

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