APPLE FINAL CUT PRO: Apple Final Cut Pro X FCPX Debates FCP Legacy FCP Tutorials

Re: Apple are hilarious

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index   •   Read entire thread

Walter Soyka
Re: Apple are hilarious
on Apr 20, 2012 at 4:23:29 pm

[Chris Kenny] "So in both the consumer and enterprise markets, Apple was in many ways trying to bend the market to the product, rather than the other way around."

And in this regard, FCP1-7 was the departure from the Apple norm. It was a product that was built specifically for the needs of a targeted market.

FCPX is more in line with Apple's product design philosophy -- built a good product the way Apple thinks it should be done, and let people buy it and do with it what they will.

See Tim Wilson's Steve Jobs - A Personal Calendar Entry [link] for more.

I've been trying to explain this as the difference between a product that a professional can use, and a product that's built for professional use. It's a subtle distinction that may ultimately only be important in a small fraction of use cases -- but for that small fraction, it's very important.

[Chris Kenny] " It's not like Apple is completely off in its own bizarre world here. Yes, FCP X abandons some established conventions and standards. But Apple has the clout to establish new standards -- classic FCP's XML files were no more of an actual standard than FCP X's XML files, after all -- developers had to add support for that format just for Apple, and now they're supporting FCP X's equivalent."

They kind of are off in their own bizarre world. No one else has a parent/child timeline model, and that's the critical factor here in interchange.

Of course I understand that Apple invented XMEML, then it became an industry standard. (I theorize that they originally developed it for internal interchange among FCS software, then released it for public use because it is vastly richer than EDL.) However, XMEML ran alongside traditional EDL I/O, so FCP was usable in all kinds of workflows that didn't directly support FCP. In order to work collaboratively with FCP, other apps just had to support existing common industry standards. In order to work with FCPX, other apps must develop specific FCPX support.

I have no problem with developers originating new standards. This is how progress is made. I just think that Apple could have smoothed this process out for us as users by taking responsibility for support of existing industry standards, too, or by involving third parties in development earlier.

Apple may have the clout to force a new standard on an industry, but anyone from Voltaire to Stan Lee will tell you that with great power comes great responsibility. The iPhone was new, so treating it as a blank slate with a minimalist beginning (web apps only!), then adding functionality later didn't disrupt anyone.

FCPX, replacing FCP7, is a bit of a different case. The furor over the innovations -- skimmer, range-based keywording, the magnetic timeline -- has largely evaporated. The furor over the 7/X transition and future direction of the product continues, as all FCP7 users are tasked with migratation (whether to FCPX, Pr, MC, or whatever).

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events

Posts IndexRead Thread 

Current Message Thread:

© 2018 All Rights Reserved