APPLE FINAL CUT PRO: Apple Final Cut Pro X Creative Community Conversations FCP Legacy FCP Tutorials

FcpX 10.5?

COW Forums : Creative Community Conversations (was FCPX Debates)

VIEW ALL   •   PRINT
Steve Connor
FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 18, 2020 at 11:56:00 am

Come on Apple I'm starting to feel a bit neglected now, love FCPX and I use it almost every day but watching PPro and Resolve users get constant updates makes me think FCPX might be at the end of it's development path or is there a huge update waiting to be revealed soon?


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 18, 2020 at 1:00:37 pm

Personally I think Apple's policy of silence is it's own worst marketing enemy.



Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 19, 2020 at 8:35:33 pm

That goes back to JOBS. I think he did not want other companies to steal his ideas. But it never was very good for end users. What was worse? EOLing apps instead of updating them or until a new app truly replaced them. What happened to Photos replacing Aperture? They said it would replace Aperture and iPhoto. That was an interesting idea. There is no reason that a hobbyist can't use pro apps. Pro apps, and equipment for that matter, are easier not harder to use. Pro apps are designed to work, not limit what it can do to be easy. More hobbyist and pros in the industry, who were not pro editors, used FCP than full time pro editors. The learning curve is about the same and by using pro apps you will be using concepts and vocabulary that will exist a lot longer and you'll be using a vocabulary and techniques that will work with a lot of gear and apps not just a given one. Take Photos instead of the Photos that was going to replace Aperture. There is no problem with its RAM processing or how the app functions; but it very limited in features. Apple literally tells people to use Creative Cloud. Aperture and what we expected from Photos was never going to replace Creative Cloud; but it was a great alternative. I was really looking forward to Photos. Creative Cloud to me is more like digital painting than photo editing. It obviously can do both; but I don't need to paint. I just want to edit and store my shots. Aperture was getting old. I expected better. Particularly since Apple did get FCP X way better than when it first came out. Now its a great deal. Too bad Apple helped Adobe make lots of $$$ by FCP X not be ready for prime time and Aperture not be updated and then EOL. It has allowed monthly payments to be a norm. The school where I teach Video Production wants to offer it to all the students. I think its a bad idea. What happens when they graduate? Many of them won't be able to afford it.

Imacs (i7), Canon C300, Canon 5D Mark IV, Panasonic ENG HPX250P, , FCP X, teach video production in L.A., Cool Light Productions, Producing series of multimedia Portraits of creative women in the production arts.


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 19, 2020 at 10:01:00 pm

[Craig Alan] "That goes back to JOBS. I think he did not want other companies to steal his ideas. "

I fully expect Apple to be secretive about new technology but in many cases, FCPX is adding features that already exist elsewhere. Knowing those are coming may keep people engaged.

Of course, given the span of time that's elapsed since 10.4 came out, it's possible we're going to see another radical revisioning and Apple wants to avoid a repeat of 2011's pre-screening.



Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 20, 2020 at 12:10:50 am

I just want some of the annoying bugs fixed.
I am in no rush for a big update that could cripple it.
Adobe does a great job with that IMHO.
But yet, I still live with it (as well as Avid MC).


Return to posts index

Jay Soriano
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 23, 2020 at 1:18:09 am

What bugs are you experiencing with FCPX?


Return to posts index


Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 20, 2020 at 3:34:46 pm

I have the feeling that FCPX 10.5 hangs together with WWDC 2020, and a possible transition there being announced of going to ARM processors (didn't Apple announce the switch to Intel also before they did it to all the hardware), and Apple's Pro software being released for iPad Pro's.

I don't know why I think this, it's a combination of Apple now giving a 3 month trial of FCPX, them bringing out Mouse/Trackpad support and a Magic Keyboard for the iPad Pro, and Richard Taylor said that Apple's training certification programs for the current edition of FCPX ends in June, which is when they do WWDC.
The website of fcp dot co also has a guy writing articles for them now who used to be in the FCPX team, and I think (I don't know if I remember this correctly) he wrote almost a year or 1.5 years ago that although he really didn't have inside knowledge on it, he thought going more mobile would be a next logical step.

https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 20, 2020 at 4:33:09 pm

P.S. To add to that, I just saw a tweet of Jon Prosser, who has been getting a lot of Apple Rumors correctly the past months (including dates of release), who said there is evidence of Xcode being in iOS 14, so it opens the door to Pro Apps coming to iOS.



https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 21, 2020 at 11:01:00 am

I really hope Apple haven't been devoting all their development efforts on just giving us an IOS version of FCPX!


Return to posts index


Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 21, 2020 at 12:02:23 pm

I understand that notion. I also want to have feature updates after 2 years of very little in term of new features for FCPX, but I do have other conflicting thoughts about it as well.
Let's, for a second, hypothesize on Apple spending all their efforts the past years of making their Pro Apps for the iPad, why we haven't gotten a lot of feature updates:

1. Won't it make the whole FCPX platform a lot more attractive for editors? Luma Fusion doesn't have a professional NLE on the desktop. Adobe doesn't have full featured apps on a mobile platform. BlackMagic doesn't. If Apple has this, it is a competitive advantage in a world where a lot of director's, editors etc. *have* iPads and love them for their portability, 4G connectivity and flexibility (pencil, tablet-only, now with mouse support, optional keyboards, etc...)

2. If Apple is going for a switch to ARM for all their computers, (which a lot of sources have said would start hardware-wise in end 2020-mid 2021) isn't this something they have to prepare for anyway? Like they have to write an ARM-version of FCPX anyway, so why not start it already 2 years ago, and make sure you can make a splash announcement at WWDC 2020 where all of this comes together? To tell a full story, which we all know Apple loves to do at their keynotes, especially for developers: "This is iPadOS 14. We want to transition all our computers to ARM. We already have MacOS ready for ARM processors, and we got a gain of XX procent in battery life on a Macbook Air, XX procent of computing render speed differences on our own chips in comparison with an Intel i5. And to top it off, with iPadOS 14 we are introducing all our Pro Apps, FCPX, Logic Pro X and Xcode for iPad OS to show you all it's possible, our team did this."

3. If Apple would release all it's pro apps for the iPad, it's also a goalpost for other developers, including 'indies' like Pixelmator and Affinity, but also big companies like Adobe: the iPad is a pro device. A big part of our future (see point 3 above about the ARM transition). "We (Apple) are taking the limits of the iPad one by one, and you should as well." ?

- Will the whole rewrite, a small decade after the introduction of FCPX, make new features easier to implement? Taking advantage of CloudKit, having both your own chips and your own software, etc. ...?

https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 21, 2020 at 4:04:38 pm

I'm a little disappointed too. NAB was supposed to have started Saturday the 18th.

I know COVID has upended all of it, but if there were no COVID, would Apple not be issuing a release for NAB? They usually release something in the Spring not necessarily tied to NAB, but not even that has happened.

Seems odd that there is nothing after the official MacPro deployment as well.

With everything going on, it would absolutely suck to try and move to a new NLE platform in the middle of trying to figure out how to get everything working remotely.

There's the stress of changing of workflow in a familiar environment, and then there's the stress of changing of an entire philosophy when the forum has moved to Constantinople.

FCPX on iPads? Does that mean we will have a better Proxy workflow, because that would be amazing right about now.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 21, 2020 at 4:14:21 pm

I don't really understand the sentiments expressed here. On one hand, the regulars constantly express their satisfaction with FCPX over any other NLE, but on the other hand lament that there's no update. What do you want?

FCPX is not an NLE that targeted the professional editor as its primary customer. Sure, Apple wants that customer and has built features into FCPX to attract and satisfy that customer; but it has never seemed to be the main focus of the app. It's more of an app for the independent creative who shoots and edits and most likely is doing it with some type of DSLR. So I don't think you can have it both ways?

As far as the Mac Pro, do you really think these are selling right now? I doubt it, given the push to work from home.

If there were FCPX for the iPad Pro, who here would shift to that version exclusively?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 21, 2020 at 4:30:45 pm

[Oliver Peters] "What do you want?"

An update.

"When do I want it?"

Now-ish?

[Oliver Peters] "If there were FCPX for the iPad Pro, who here would shift to that version exclusively?"

Not me, I couldn't. But I would hope it would come with a Proxy workflow that isn't so restrictive.

I was expecting a Spring FCPX release. It has happened nearly every year since release.

2012, 13 , 15, 16, 18, 19

[Oliver Peters] "but on the other hand lament that there's no update. "

I don't need a big overhaul. I need the ability relink mxf to mp4 and back in this time of crisis.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 21, 2020 at 7:19:39 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I was expecting a Spring FCPX release. It has happened nearly every year since release.

2012, 13 , 15, 16, 18, 19"


... mathematically, the next number in this series is 21, not 20.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 21, 2020 at 9:10:37 pm

[Herb Sevush] "... mathematically, the next number in this series is 21, not 20."

When I typed it, I saw that pattern too, and I was hoping no one would point it out.

But since this was noticed, I am glad it was you that pointed it out.

Hope you are yours are all good over there in NY.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 21, 2020 at 11:40:27 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Hope you are yours are all good over there in NY."

All good here, hope all is going well for you in the windy city.

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


Return to posts index

Eugeny Korkhin
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on May 20, 2020 at 7:36:50 pm

Hi, Jeremy
You must be speaking about mp4 proxies for mxf?
Why not to use mxf proxies instead? Then there won't be any difficulty to relink.
Or am I getting it wrong?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on May 20, 2020 at 8:00:57 pm

[Eugeny Korkhin] "Why not to use mxf proxies instead? Then there won't be any difficulty to relink."

This workflow is using files that our server creates for the asset management system. There is not a way to tell the server to make MXF proxies from MXF files, unfortunately. The server makes mp4 files, and renaming the .mp4 to .mxf doesn't really work as the files become 'unreadable' in the Finder and by any video application.

So, you aren't wrong, it's just that these proxy files are automatically generated by a server, so it owed be great if FCPX could relink to them and the high res, and back.


Return to posts index

Eugeny Korkhin
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on May 20, 2020 at 8:39:31 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "these proxy files are automatically generated by a server, so it owed be great if FCPX could relink to them and the high res, and back"

I see. That would make life easier for sure. And I see no reason why it is such a problem in fcpx. While you can relink files manually one by one, no way to batch relink...


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on May 20, 2020 at 11:09:37 pm

[Eugeny Korkhin] "While you can relink files manually one by one, no way to batch relink..."

Correct. Which makes me think that it’s (hopefully) a fixable bug.


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 21, 2020 at 4:45:48 pm

[Oliver Peters] "If there were FCPX for the iPad Pro, who here would shift to that version exclusively?"

Who talked about exclusively?

If I'm on the lookout now for a new app, for instance, a writing app. If they don't have a mobile app, it decreases the attractiveness for me to buy into the 'platform' of the app, if there is competition that has it.

I use FCPX exclusively for editing on my iMac. I'm happy of my iMac, and I'm not planning to get rid of it. To the contrary, if it fails tomorrow, I'll buy another iMac. BUT that doesn't mean that if I could do editing on an iPad with the platform I'm already used to, I would be an attractive bonus AND I can imagine it being an interesting selling feature for people on the lookout to a new NLE, if they are comparing.

It is indeed also a question that IF Apple would release FCPX for iPad, if there would also be a rethinking of proxys, iCloud, collaboration, etc. ... If this would all hang together or if it would be just an FCPX lite for iPad. Who knows. It is fun to speculate.

I also am happy with FCPX like it is now, and the magnetic timeline, the way of organizing, I couldn't go back to anything else, IMO. That doesn't mean you don't want some feature updates after almost 2 years. It's a bit of a weird logic that because you are happy in general with a software package, you don't want some feature updates. You can be happy with a software package and still think it's not perfect or complete.

https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 21, 2020 at 4:58:45 pm

[Mathieu Ghekiere] "It's a bit of a weird logic that because you are happy in general with a software package, you don't want some feature updates. You can be happy with a software package and still think it's not perfect or complete"

Maybe you should have that conversation with our friend Bill ☺

For the record, there are tons of things I'd like to see added to or changed about FCPX. But I also use other NLEs and see the things missing in the FCPX workflow. Better (more useful) relinking, collaboration, roles-based mixing, a behaviors group, etc. - I'm not optimistic.

Since there is no NAB this year and therefore no ancillary events, there is also no pressure on ProApps to release an update with that timing in mind. I'm sure something will come, but it will take as long as it takes. For all we know, Catalina is just as much of a mess for ProApps as it has been for other companies.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 21, 2020 at 5:15:51 pm

Well, that's why I actually think it could very well be that an FCPX update is waiting for their big story at WWDC about the ARM transition. Then they have a whole story 'coming together': ARM transition for Macs, a lot of shared code for iOS and MacOS, and with iPadOS becoming more full-featured, we are also announcing our own Pro Apps for iPadOS, including Logic, FCPX and Xcode.

It would all fit nice in one. We'll know in June if that's a way too optimistic speculation or not.
P.S.: Logic was also shown in leaked screenshots from Apple's education website to have some features that at this point only Garageband or Garageband for iOS has. Knowing that a lot of the underlying code of Logic and Garageband is the same, as well as with iMovie and FCPX, maybe it also fits with the speculation above.

Whatever the case, the last times we had to wait so long for an FCPX update, we got big substantial updates with both a lot of new features, and features that had more to do with how the program worked underneath. (FCPX 10.1 was huge with the whole new Event/Projects structure, 10.3 was huge as well with the Roles Based timeline).

https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 21, 2020 at 5:37:07 pm

But remember that Apple is also operating under a "work from home" situation. And that company for sure does not function well in that sort of environment. You simply can't leave the building with certain things. So maybe it's as simple as nothing is happening right now, because there is simply no urgency for it.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Patrick Sheppard
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 21, 2020 at 7:56:40 pm

It seems very highly unlikely to me that Apple would be ending FCPX development, especially with the release of the new Mac Pro. I think that FCPX will not only continue to be developed well into the future, but also be optimized to fully take advantage of the new MP's horsepower.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 21, 2020 at 9:24:33 pm

[Patrick Sheppard] "I think that FCPX will not only continue to be developed well into the future, but also be optimized to fully take advantage of the new MP's horsepower.
"


Maybe, but I think it's a mistake to think of the two as causally related. Or even casually related. LOL FCPX isn't even close to requiring the heaviest horsepower that Apple offers. Apple's whole effort has been to make it lighter and lighter weight, which is why every major visual representation of FCPX has been on a laptop. Even when Apple was crowing the most about support for film workflows, they pictured an ARRI Alexa with FCPX on a Macbook Pro.

Not that FCPX-ers don't like heavy iron, or that the people here don't like both FCPX and heavy iron. But I disagree that the Venn diagram has much of an overlap at all in Apple's eyes. Think of the number of Mac users of Creative Cloud, plus Nuke, plus Media Composer and others in our space, plus science apps, enterprise apps, servers, on and on -- I doubt that FCPX is more than single-digit percentages of Apple's Mac Pro opportunity.

That's why I think that Apple developing FCPX on iOS is the single most critical thing for the vivacity of FCPX's future. What makes the difference is NEW seats of FCPX that would never have been sold any other way.

Certainly no number of new Mac Pros is going to do squat for sales of FCPX. There may not be any person left on the planet who said, "I've been putting off taking FCXP seriously until Apple gets their computing act together. What's that? A new Mac Pro? Woo-hoo! FCPX, here I come!" LOL No. Not a chance.

What's far more likely is that there are a bunch of people like Herb, or our old friend Marco Solorio. Herb bought a new Mac Pro to run Adobe stuff. Not FCPX. Marco sold his HP Z workstations and spent $25,000 on a new Mac Pro to run Blackmagic stuff. Not FCPX.

I guarantee you that Apple isn't losing sleep over the $299 of "lost" FCPX money to either of those dudes....and I don't know about Herb, but I bet that Marco spent the money on FCPX just to see it for himself anyway. The money's the money.

Which is also to make my first point conversely, that I think it's a mistake to think that FCPX accounts for more than single digit percentages of new Mac Pro sales. Plenty folks here running on old Macs, iMacs, laptops and such. The future of FCPX and Mac Pros have nothing to do with each other, because the revenue streams have so little effect on each other.

That's why the key to FCPX's future is NEW sales of NEW seats of FCPX. Apple already knows how many or how few new sales of FCPX that they get with every new computer release. They've had plenty of cycles to suss this out, and I'll wager that their prediction models land within a few units of the target every time. Although honestly, the number is so small that it might fall within the margin of error anyway.

The main thing is, when I think about FCPX on iOS, I think, "Why the heck not?" It seems insane that they're NOT doing it. Not because anybody thinks that an iPad is the best way to do FCPX, but because getting it right would require getting a bunch of other stuff right, which would also benefit people working on Mac Pros. Not least of which is proxy workflows, for sure!

It's definitely not an either-or, though. Yeah, SOMEBODY is going to go all-iPad, all the time, for FCPX, and if they can, why not. But I sure don't think that too many people who CAN use FCPX on an iPad will sell their Mac Pros...and even if they did, Apple won't care. They've already gotten paid for those Mac Pros. LOL

And THIS is why anyone who cares about the future of FCPX needs to have all their fingers and toes crossed that Apple IS planning to bring FCPX to iOS, and hope that it works like magic: this is exactly the kind of thing that will make Apple new money for both new iPads and new seats of FCPX that they might never have gotten any other way.

That's the thing. The ONLY thing funding new development is new revenue, and nobody who has bought FCPX already is making Apple any new money that Apple wouldn't have gotten out of them otherwise.

Heck, they've made more money out of Herb and Marco switching back to a Mac Pro -- just those two guys by themselves -- than they've probably made from everyone else in this forum for new FCPX revenue since you first bought it years ago.

No matter how much you might want to equate FCPX sales with Apple sales for heavy iron because it argues for the relevance of our market in Apple's eyes, they're not even connected a little, which is exactly why THIS part of this market hasn't been a major part of Apple's strategy.

Honestly, even the message that you CAN run FCPX on an iPad would be enough to move the needle, I think. Doesn't matter if anyone actually DOES. The point is to get NEW people buying NEW seats of FCPX.

Surely most people who are suddenly inclined to look at FCPX for the first time will do some research and find that it would be better for them to run it on nearly anything else BUT an iPad, but they'll at least be looking at FCPX when they hadn't before.

And of course another major revenue stream for Apple is services. Having FCPX run on iOS now opens it up more directly to the rest of Apple's ecosystem, maybe an upcharge for extra iCloud storage, who knows. You'll all be able to come up with ideas for this better than I would....

...but the ball to keep your eye on is NEW sales for FCPX. That's what Apple needs in order to fund new features and new releases. Nothing that Apple is doing with new heavy iron (or even MBP or iMac-weighted iron) is moving the needle enough, but iOS might really make a huge differerence.

There's also a lot to be said for hybrid workflows that have iPads on set doing assistant editor/DIT/pre-grading kinds of work, feeding directly into full-scale editing back in the suite. No need to develop a separate logging or grading application when they've already got the feature set they need. Running it on the processor that they need to, and enabling it on the devices they need to, will immediately extend their workflow in ways and locales that nobody can think of matching for a very long time, and they get it more or less for free.

There's nothing bad about doing this, and everything bad about not.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 22, 2020 at 12:51:27 am

NAB as an event seems to be a deadline for a lot of new releases and updates. I'm sure that's why Adobe just released Productions, because they had timed it for NAB. Blackmagic should, by all previous history, have launched resolve 17b1 by today and maybe something about their camera range. The fact they went early with the ATEM Pro suggests the focus changed with the cancellation of NAB and they have held back and pushed things that are more strategically important at the moment.

Indeed a point release of Resolve was dropped yesterday 16.2.1 so my guess is they put a few improvements from the impending 17beta back into 16 and are going slower with the next release. Not a bad thing.

I see no significance in whether Apple offer any X updates right now. I think we have become so used to the big NAB drops that we are left wondering why not much has happened this week. It's a bit like Christmas has been canceled. It must be frustrating for X users but Apple must be much more concerned about getting their new iPhone made and distributed.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 22, 2020 at 8:03:43 am

[Tim Wilson] "Honestly, even the message that you CAN run FCPX on an iPad would be enough to move the needle, I think. Doesn't matter if anyone actually DOES. The point is to get NEW people buying NEW seats of FCPX."

Or they could say "hey guys, pretty sure you've all had a lot of value out of that £299 FCPX license now, here's FCPXI it's faster, packed with loads of new features and we'd like another £299 for it please"


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 22, 2020 at 1:16:25 pm

I have no desire to edit on an iPad let alone MacBook these days.
I guess its the luxury and that I'm forced to stay at home half the days.
At both ends of my workday, I have access to Apple Cinema 30s and Dell 4K displays.
My old tired eyes thank me for that ☺

On another note, I want to thank Apple for the best bang for our buck offering.
Best $350 CAD we have ever spent back in 2011 😉
I say we since it's on five different workstations.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 22, 2020 at 4:53:40 pm

[Steve Connor] "Or they could say "hey guys, pretty sure you've all had a lot of value out of that £299 FCPX license now, here's FCPXI it's faster, packed with loads of new features and we'd like another £299 for it please""

They could, but I don't think they would. They've had nearly a decade to kick that idea around, and it hasn't bubbled up yet, I think because the downside would be higher than the upside. Every headline would be negative, to say the least. "Doubled the price for early adopters" or some such.

They also can't do it for at least the next year. Imagine the squawking about the insensitivity of asking for more money when nearly the entire production community is curtailed if not shut down altogether "when they haven't even fixed basic issues in the original."

Where they could maybe get away with it is an iOS-only version, but they'd hang themselves with that too. Any price more than a pittance would freeze the potential to sell new, muscular iPads to current FCPX users who can imagine the usefulness of some remote-production features with an iPad.

No, the only way they sell either new seats of FCPX and new iPads is to keep the message the same as it has been: one price, all in.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 22, 2020 at 5:36:45 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Apr 22, 2020 at 5:39:08 pm

[Tim Wilson] "They could, but I don't think they would. They've had nearly a decade to kick that idea around, and it hasn't bubbled up yet, I think because the downside would be higher than the upside. Every headline would be negative, to say the least. "Doubled the price for early adopters" or some such."

I think one thing that skews this argument is Apple itself. You are using metrics that make sense for a normal company. I really doubt Apple cares much whether or not their applications make a profit.

I'm sure they do, but for Apple, selling applications is a marketing expense, based on their unified accounting system across all sections of the company. I could be wrong (and I have no inside information), but from everything that's been written about Apple, I highly doubt that ProApps runs its own P&L accounting.

Whatever decisions are made are solely based on what makes sense for Apple as a whole. That's why FCPX on an iPad Pro makes a lot of sense. It improves the posture of iPad Pro as a "computer."

That's why ProApps is not like Filemaker, which to my knowledge is Apple's only branded applications subsidiary.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 22, 2020 at 8:04:14 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I think one thing that skews this argument is Apple itself. You are using metrics that make sense for a normal company. I really doubt Apple cares much whether or not their applications make a profit.

I'm sure they do, but for Apple, selling applications is a marketing expense, based on their unified accounting system across all sections of the company."


I agree with that in general. My point is that the ONLY reason to prime the pump and say "Pay us" is if they want to be paid. And if they want to be paid, a substantial shift in their "pay once, you have it all" strategy is exactly the wrong one.

It's not that they care about the noise from the yammerocracy, per se, but they do to the extent that it affects their ability to do business. Never forget that the most aggressively anti-customer CEO in history, the guy who proclaimed from the rooftops to anyone who would listen that only idiots listen to their customers, was forced to concede that "You're holding it wrong" was an insufficient reply to the yammerocracy. WE MADE HIM take a billion dollars out of Apple's pockets and pay for iPhone bumpers that he was adamant that we didn't need.

Then proved he was right when he didn't spend a penny to fix the very obviously malfunctioning antenna on the next release, and indeed, nobody screamed for a bumper or case. Of course, by that point, we'd been sufficiently trained by Apple not to expect an iPhone capable of making or holding a call, and that anyone who bought an iPhone needed to expect to use it in a case for even the substandard level of service of iPhones at their best.

They obviously sorted this out later, and iPhones hold calls no better or worse than anyone else, but the point is that in the short term, Apple found that the drag on the business was more intolerable than the notion of a billion dollar set of shiny keys to distract us.

None of that is the case this time of course, and I completely agree with you about the relative insignificance of Pro Apps to Apple. I've gone even further than this of course, and argued that Pro Apps USERS don't contribute to any meaningful part of Apple's hardware sales, either. Apple gets far more business from everyone else by definition, because the universe of Mac users of other apps is so much bigger.

But Pro Apps does exist, and is responsible for SOMETHING. Obviously not a separate line on the P&L, but it's not like the self-proclaimed "hobby" of the Apple TV device, where any revenue was treated as a happy surprise.

So we're back to the starting place -- what's the most effective way for Pro Apps to fund the next round of development? I'm planting my flag on new users. It HAS to be new users. Not existing ones. Apple going back to current users with their hands out will not only piss off the large number of current users who aren't [fill in mini rant of your choice here], but it will be the first time that many potential new users will hear, LOUDLY, "Oh, so THIS is what it's like to buy Apple's pro software. No thanks. I'll stick with iMovie."

Again, the only reason to ask for money is if you WANT money. And the only money Apple wants from its customers, other than the odd subscription here and there, is for NEW stuff. Not upgrades.

This is why, when they release the new version of IOS-enabled version of FCPX, it's only going to run on the newest iPads. This is Apple's par for the course with every update, of course, and the cornerstone of how they preserve "the Apple experience." The big friction is almost always when you try to combine new software with old hardware (and software). See also: every Catalina thread at the COW and every forum, blog, and article across the web.

Apple wants NEW customers for FCPX, and they already know that no substantial number of new ones comes from new computer releases. The market isn't growing organically as much for Apple anymore (no disrespect intended; just an observation that I trust is non-controversial, but VERY germane to this conversation), so what's going to move the needle?

New ways of working, new locations for working, new devices in the mix, new attractiveness for people who would never have considered it, AND a reason for a few thousand people to buy new new iPad Pros.

Let's do a back of the envelope calculation. One percent of 2.5 million FCPX users is 25,000, times the $1000 price of a mid-range iPad Pro, that's $25 million gross. In the world of Apple's overall revenue, that's small, but I think that anything in the eight figure range enters the conversation at some point....

....especially when you try to imagine the last time that the universe of current FCPX users dropped $25 million cash in Apple's pocket. And that's if only 1% of FCPX users think, "Yeah, you know what, it's been a while since I got a new iPad. I'll use it for a bunch of other stuff, so might as well check it out."

But they won't get those iPad Pros if they're annoyed at having to pay for basically only this new feature, or this plus some other new features that for the past nearly decade, they've been getting free.

Whatever else Apple has learned since the iPhone antenna debacle, it's to avoid unnecessarily standing in the way of cash flow. Creating a brand new, udderly unique upgrade message NOW would do exactly that. They'd stop the software business dead in its tracks, would take the opportunity for new iPad Pro sales to those customers for nothing. Not one possible advantage.

The ONLY way FCPX grows is with a strong iPad Pro-enabled release. That's it. There's nothing else.

You may not want it on iPad. You may hate Apple for its i-focus when they're ignoring what you need from them to do your job with your all-Apple office. Doesn't matter. It's FCPX on iPad Pro or bust.

I'm not casting a vote here. I'm not a customer, no matter what. I'm just looking at the business case, and everything you guys are telling me is only making me more certain I'm right. LOL


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 22, 2020 at 8:24:20 pm

[Tim Wilson] "The ONLY way FCPX grows is with a strong iPad Pro-enabled release. That's it. There's nothing else.
You may not want it on iPad. You may hate Apple for its i-focus when they're ignoring what you need from them to do your job with your all-Apple office. Doesn't matter. It's FCPX on iPad Pro or bust."


I think we both agree on that. I would even venture to say that quite possibly this might even be free to people who already own FCPX. After all, it would only run on the newest iPad Pro, which you would have to buy anyway. But what would really seal the deal is a viable method of sharing - possibly only synced Libraries and proxy media via iCloud. Money comes in via an in-app purchase of more cloud space.

Clearly Apple sees the pro side of the iPad, which is why Adobe, Affinity, Pixelmator and others are being coaxed into bringing more heavy-weight apps to the iPadOS environment. So if you are Apple, do you want pro editing tools on iPadOS defined by Rush and LumaTouch?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 23, 2020 at 11:52:21 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I would even venture to say that quite possibly this might even be free to people who already own FCPX. After all, it would only run on the newest iPad Pro, which you would have to buy anyway. But what would really seal the deal is a viable method of sharing - possibly only synced Libraries and proxy media via iCloud. Money comes in via an in-app purchase of more cloud space."

That's exactly how I see it. If you own FCPX, you own it. Otherwise, Apple has a two-pronged pitch. One, if you own X and want to run it in a set of contexts that can be expanded by an iPad, buy a new iPad Pro plus One)a): if you have a new iPad Pro already, yes, no need to limit yourself to Rush. Two, there's this nifty new combination of X and iPad Pro that will make some people sit up and take notice and maybe buy 'em both.

In any case, it's all about creating new, incremental sales that lead to new services, increased stickiness to the Apple ecosystem with new stuff to store on iCloud, paying for more space, etc.


[Oliver Peters] "Clearly Apple sees the pro side of the iPad, which is why Adobe, Affinity, Pixelmator and others are being coaxed into bringing more heavy-weight apps to the iPadOS environment. "

I wouldn't expect to see the full version of Media Composer, although now that I think about it, why not? The new version is very much about optimizing for the single-screen experience. But I would absolutely expect to see things like logging and other set-related functions, as well as tasks related to assistant editing.

We've already seen Grant demo insane things from Blackmagic on both MacBook Pros and iPhones, but I can imagine a whole new suite of experiences for remote production optimized for iPad Pro in the very near future -- anything from camera setup, to pre-grading, to switcher functions. The more, the merrier.

This gets to a point I made earlier, that Apple's hardware opportunity is ALWAYS going to be larger for non-Apple software running on Apple kit, whether it's Adobe, Microsoft, Google, or anything else. That's true for professional software as much as it is for business and recreational software.

There's already been some very interesting audio things happening on iPads, especially for music creation, and I'm genuinely excited for what might happen for heavy lifting with video.


Return to posts index


Jay Soriano
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 23, 2020 at 1:20:48 am

I wouldn't shift to FCPX exclusively on an iPad Pro but definitely would purchase it to complement the desktop version...but this won't happen(for me at least) until the iPad Pro has USB-C/Thunderbolt connectivity.


Return to posts index

Brad Hurley
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 23, 2020 at 6:03:22 pm

"but this won't happen(for me at least) until the iPad Pro has USB-C/Thunderbolt connectivity"

I'm confused: doesn't it already have USB-C?

In fact with the expensive new keyboard you have two USB-C inputs, so you can use one to keep the iPad Pro powered and another for things like external drives, audio interfaces, etc.


Return to posts index

Brad Hurley
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 23, 2020 at 6:58:09 pm

See https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT209186

One USB-C port on the iPad Pro, and another in the Magic Keyboard; third parties are developing keyboards with more inputs including standard USB.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 23, 2020 at 10:11:20 pm

[Mathieu Ghekiere] "


I was coming to share this very image! When it comes to Mac rumors, you can take Jon to the bank.

In fact, there was an article about him in MacWorld just a few days ago, "Meet Jon Prosser, the new Apple rumormonger who hasn’t missed yet".

It's been a while since there's been anyone in the Apple community who carried this kind of weight. Maybe John Gruber at Daring Fireball a few years back (not that he's not still around of course), but really, maybe not since the days of MacWeek in the 90s. A true controlled circulation magazine that you had to reapply for each year, and by no means was everybody renewed each time, it came to be known as MacLeak. I'll bet you can guess exactly when in the 90s it came to an end, and I'll bet you can guess exactly why.

Jon had actually brought up the idea of Pro Apps on iOS a few days earlier, just from looking at the code. (There used to be a lot more of this kind of reporting, too, and I'm glad to see him reviving it.)



The "You can trust me or not" caveat in his first tweet comes from people refusing to believe him, even though he keeps delivering the goods. No doubt, one of these days he's going to be wrong, perhaps intentionally discredited by leaked disinformation, but I've been impressed by his efforts to get multiple sources. Any disinformation campaign could become the story pretty quickly. In the meantime, no kidding, you can take this to the bank.

Me, nobody tells me nuthin'. LOL I'm just reading the tea leaves like most everybody else. It really seemed the only possible next step, and more than that, the BEST next step for both Apple and its customers. Those don't come along often, so again, even if this move isn't for YOU, it's something to cheer for the health of the company and the world of Pro Apps including FCPX.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 24, 2020 at 4:09:49 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Apr 24, 2020 at 4:25:08 pm

Along the iOS lines, this is a good look at LumaFusion with Scott at PVC and Terri Morgan of LumaTouch. The demo starts about 10 min in.







https://luma-touch.com/lumafusion-for-ios-2/

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 24, 2020 at 4:34:33 pm

There's a key item in her LumaFusion demo and that's the upcoming FrameIO integration. The later is a very key item for today that would be great to have in FCPX.

Upload clips to Frame at whatever codec/resolution. Frame does its own transcodes, as is normal. Then from the edit bowser, you are browsing the Frame project - NOT, what is stored on your local machine or drive. Once you edit the clip to the timeline, that clip only is downloaded to your device, optimized to whatever your device can handle.

In theory with some sort of similar FCPX integration, you could select from one of the Frame proxies (or original). This makes a pretty interesting hybrid "cloud editing" concept.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tangier Clarke
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 27, 2020 at 4:28:19 pm

When FCP X first came out in 2011 and I noticed it's sliding panels instead of separated windows interface, it wreaked of being prepared for an iPad (or other mobile device) at some point and I wrote about that somewhere here on the cow. Albeit I thought it would have happened by now. Let's not forget that an important component of Apple's hardware and software pursuits is the energy usage of said device(s). Perhaps ARM is part of that equation, perhaps not. Though certainly there has never been a moment when I didn't think that many of the it's GUI and UIX elements were primed for mobile well ahead of time, perhaps even before the desktop version. Only time will tell I guess. Many things just don't end up seeing the light of day as market forces change.


Return to posts index

Jay Soriano
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 30, 2020 at 1:05:47 am

Wow it's been awhile since I looked into the iPad. Didn't realize it now has USB-C. Now I am seriously considering one....espc if FCPX 10.5 on iOS is around the corner but LumaFusion w/ XML export to FCPX looks pretty darn good.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 30, 2020 at 1:04:58 pm

I have been hoping for the day that we can hand an incoming student a loaded iPad the first day of their graduate program. Ideally this iPad would be most or all they need. FCPX for an iPad could be a clincher.

sw


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 30, 2020 at 5:19:40 pm

All of this FCPX on iPad Pro speculation is interesting, but it doesn't pay the bills for the rest of us. Given our WFH situations, all I want today from FCPX is flexible media relinking that's at least on par with everyone else. Not LAST in the pack.

I've got media spread all over multiple archive drives from our shared storage. I have to consolidate the files to a common RAID to make revisions and that means I have to relink. Piece of cake with Premiere Pro. With FCPX it just sits there in its "searching" mode. Just not a viable solution.

Apple took Avid's restrictive managed media approach and simply made it worse. Rant over.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 30, 2020 at 6:11:56 pm
Last Edited By Jeremy Garchow on Apr 30, 2020 at 6:12:14 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Apple took Avid's restrictive managed media approach and simply made it worse. Rant over.
"


To bring it all back full circle.....



What do we want?

An update.

When do we want it?

Now-ish!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on Apr 30, 2020 at 6:36:04 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "When do we want it?
Now-ish!"


Yesterday! Actually last week, to be precise ☺

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on May 12, 2020 at 2:55:42 pm

10.5 IS AVAILABLE NOW!!

Logic 10.5 ☹

https://www.macrumors.com/2020/05/12/logic-pro-x-10-5/


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on May 12, 2020 at 3:12:13 pm

If you look at the release notes of Logic 10.5, it seems like a huge update though.

https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on May 12, 2020 at 3:26:54 pm

[Mathieu Ghekiere] "If you look at the release notes of Logic 10.5, it seems like a huge update though.

https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com"


It is! Let's hope that it's a good omen for FCPX 10.5


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on May 12, 2020 at 3:50:07 pm

Mr Connor, you’re playing with my emotions in a time of crisis. :)


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on May 12, 2020 at 2:56:17 pm

FWIW - Logic Pro X 10.5 dropped into the App Store updates this morning.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on May 12, 2020 at 8:04:08 pm

Release notes for Logic Pro X 10.5

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203718

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Brad Hurley
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on May 12, 2020 at 9:28:49 pm

One interesting thing in the release notes is that it says Final Cut Pro xml v. 1.9 files now import correctly. What makes that "interesting" is that according to the Final Cut Pro xml changelog the most current released version is v. 1.8.

So at least there's an indication that a new version of the xml is coming.


Return to posts index

Tangier Clarke
Re: FcpX 10.5?
on May 14, 2020 at 5:01:50 pm

Of course I have a long list of features I want, but if I could just get batch syncing based on timecode or waveform like Premiere Pro or DaVinci Resolve with some minor bug fixes, I would be beyond happy.


Return to posts index

VIEW ALL   •   PRINT
© 2020 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]