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

Re: FCP-X and misrepresentation

COW Forums : Creative Community Conversations (was FCPX Debates)

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

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP-X and misrepresentation
on Dec 4, 2013 at 3:28:11 pm


One of the main topics of discussion on this Debate forum is the growth and viability of FCPX in major facilities handling high end productions - features, broadcast, commercials. Examples of such use are still relatively rare and when examples are produced they are big news here, in this little pasture of the Cow. Radical Media is one of the main examples of this high end acceptance because of the very public statements you have made about it and because you are featured prominently in Apple's marketing of X.

The fact that Radical Media has not been using FCPX for over a year is therefore big news in this environment. It is a surprise, to say the least. The fact that you so publicly chose to champion your use of FCPX and then so privately decided it was really not ready for use in your facility is a reasonable subject for conversation. The fact that this conversation is public and not private was dictated by your choices.

[Evan Schechtman] "In the future if you have a question you can email me or call me like many strangers who read the article or who saw me speak do. I do not seek publicity- I do not sell products or even consumer services- I have no way to benefit by pulling the wool over anyones eyes."

How can you say you do not seek publicity - did Apple hold a gun to your head? Did the guys at Tekserve drag you to their store by force? What you obviously don't seek is bad publicity - but sorry to tell you that is part of the price for all the good Pub you've gotten from that Apple article. I realize you make nothing for your demo's, that they are in effect a public service, and I know that Apple doesn't pay you a penny for your testimonials, but that does not mean you do not benefit by them. You do, anybody in your position does.

I believe that you are honest and sincere with your opinions, I do not believe you set out to deceive anyone with your statements, and I have no reason to doubt that you will be switching your facility over to X in a few months time. But for the past year you have knowingly allowed Apple to mislead people by using your example. It must be embarrassing to be put in that position and for that position to then be made public. But don't shoot the messenger.

[Evan Schechtman] "You are essentially asking me to publish a retraction of an article that was written, not by me."

I wasn't asking you to do anything, but if I were to advise you I would say you have three reasonable choices:

You could ask Apple to pull the article until such time as you have switched back to FCPX.

You could write a piece about why you stopped using X at the time you did, even though you fully intend to switch back. The details of what worked and what didn't would be very informative and helpful to editors and facilities who are still exploring making these kind of changes.

You can do nothing and go about your business knowing this tiny tempest will blow over before your next cup of coffee.

(Personally I would prefer number two.)

But what is not reasonable is to come on here all hurt and upset that someone actually noticed that what you had been doing did not match what you had, very publicly, been saying.

[Evan Schechtman] "I wrote a response telling the entire story. If that doesn't satisfy you and get you to drop it, then thats your damage at this point."

Looking back through the first series of postings I will admit to being more than a bit snarky and for that I apologize. But for the tone, not for the content.

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

Posts IndexRead Thread 

Current Message Thread:

© 2020 All Rights Reserved