This. A thousand times this. I never understood the "my business is based on FCP" posts. Shouldn't your business be based on the quality of your editing ability not whether you know how to do things in a software program?
Former Shake Product Designer: Apple Doesn't Care About Pro Market
- Thread starter Denis Haineault
- Start date
This. A thousand times this. I never understood the "my business is based on FCP" posts. Shouldn't your business be based on the quality of your editing ability not whether you know how to do things in a software program?
I'm far from a pro editor, but I think I'm fairly good at making creative decisions. Over the years I've experienced taping film together and cutting tape to tape. My first mac based editor was EditDV, anyone remember that one? I moved to FCP at version 3 and have still barely scratched the surface. I do mainly straight cut narrative, the odd dissolve, nothing fancy. I have no doubt that I could adopt the basics of any mature software at this point. I may at some point try out X when I can afford new hardware to run it on, if I haven't moved to PC in the mean time.
As an independent filmmaker, that does everything myself (often to the detriment of the final product) I like the Ideas behind X. I like the basic toolset for picture sound and color in one window, I often screw something up trying to round trip. I like the Idea behind some semi-automated work-flows like setting a look for one shot and having the software do the rest of the scene, as long as I can tweak as needed. If it works I would love it to fix the sound for me, that is my weakness. It isn't an issue so much, as my habit (hobby) is not my income, so it is often a long time between upgrades. Perhaps when my current system dies and I have to get a new one, X will be a mature product and I will pick it up, or maybe Apple won't even make computers anymore, and I'll have no choice but to look elsewhere.
For those heavily invested, is there a compelling reason that you have to change today. If your MacPro's and FCP 7 are chugging away as always, what is the problem. Is there a new camera out that you suddenly can't import. I'm poor and am still running a G5 tower, on tiger with FCP 6. I thought it totally sucked when they dropped all support for PowerPC. Mine has PCI express, but I can't install video cards made for intel. But you know what, it is built like a tank, and 6 years later it runs as well as it ever did. It may one day die, but my G4 is pushing 12 and still going strong. Instead of always needing the latest and greatest, take a hard look at what it is exactly that you do. If your tools still do the job, why change them. I picked up Shake when it dropped to $500. I knew it was probably done when they did that, I never took the time to figure it out. Occasionally I'll open it up and marvel at the things I could do if I would just take the time to learn it. Shots for features were comped using it. It can still do all the things it ever could. I'm not about to invest in Nuke, as that is not my thing. In this instant obsolescence world, people quickly forget that old tools can still do the work they were made to do. New tools may do things faster, but it is only better if the user is better. I happen to like render breaks, it gives me time to think and process.
As an independent filmmaker, that does everything myself (often to the detriment of the final product) I like the Ideas behind X. I like the basic toolset for picture sound and color in one window, I often screw something up trying to round trip. I like the Idea behind some semi-automated work-flows like setting a look for one shot and having the software do the rest of the scene, as long as I can tweak as needed. If it works I would love it to fix the sound for me, that is my weakness. It isn't an issue so much, as my habit (hobby) is not my income, so it is often a long time between upgrades. Perhaps when my current system dies and I have to get a new one, X will be a mature product and I will pick it up, or maybe Apple won't even make computers anymore, and I'll have no choice but to look elsewhere.
For those heavily invested, is there a compelling reason that you have to change today. If your MacPro's and FCP 7 are chugging away as always, what is the problem. Is there a new camera out that you suddenly can't import. I'm poor and am still running a G5 tower, on tiger with FCP 6. I thought it totally sucked when they dropped all support for PowerPC. Mine has PCI express, but I can't install video cards made for intel. But you know what, it is built like a tank, and 6 years later it runs as well as it ever did. It may one day die, but my G4 is pushing 12 and still going strong. Instead of always needing the latest and greatest, take a hard look at what it is exactly that you do. If your tools still do the job, why change them. I picked up Shake when it dropped to $500. I knew it was probably done when they did that, I never took the time to figure it out. Occasionally I'll open it up and marvel at the things I could do if I would just take the time to learn it. Shots for features were comped using it. It can still do all the things it ever could. I'm not about to invest in Nuke, as that is not my thing. In this instant obsolescence world, people quickly forget that old tools can still do the work they were made to do. New tools may do things faster, but it is only better if the user is better. I happen to like render breaks, it gives me time to think and process.
I find it funny that the defenders of FCPX reasoning against the legacy FCP users is based on the assumption that we are upset with the new technologies introduced with FCPX. That is absurd.
What legacy FCP users are concerned about is that the new FCPX took out features from the previous versions. Without warning. Features that in a professional broadcast/ film output or even for bilboard and large screen advertisement are ESSENTIAL.
I know the objective of many of the posters in this thread is to "wash away" the flow of criticism towards FCPX. This is a technique that is used by many companies and even Governments.
For those that are not getting a payroll from apple or were somehow involved in the Beta program of FCPX or are invested in developing plugins for FCPX, and are genuinely defending the software right now, I cannot understand you: they are giving you a software with a new architecture and layout but that does LESS than the previous version. In order to get it close to the previous version you'll have to PAY more to get there. And you're paying 299 for FCP alone, which we all know by now almost requires you to purchase the other two apps to have professional functionality beyond basic tasks. To get it up to speed or "close" to the professional functionality of FCP7 right now (alone, not studio), FCPX costs almost 800 USD (with automatic duck).
It was because of the "noise" legacy users made that the FAQ came out, and probably development of certain features were resumed. There's no point for fanboyism in this. We need Final Cut to be better. And from what we have seen Apple only listens to bad press. It happened when they removed firewire in Macbook Pros, it happened with Imovie 8, it happened with the Antenna- say what you want but they redesigned it, and is happening right now as we speak, first with the release of this faq. If you stop making noise now, that faq is it. If this makes us, the complainers, the "bad sheep", so be it. Until then, until FCP is back to being a professional tool, FCP editors, people invested in Apple software for professional video should keep criticizing, spoofing, etc. That's the only way Apple "sees " their mistakes- and corrects them.
Last edited:
stoneinapond
Veteran
Speaking out about Apple's decisions is fair game. Although I've yet to see a really funny spoof. But the problem has been that anybody who even remotely likes FCP X is considered by certain sectors of the community as juvenile, non professional, Apple fanboy, iMovie lovers.....
Those terms are all unacceptable and should not be part of the discussion. By all means raise your issues with Apple but don't act in condescending manner to me because I'm working with FCP X. And it is a professional tool, just doesn't have the features you require.
dustylense
Veteran
TimTheFoolMan
Well-known member
Absurd, but this is exactly what's been happening. Much of the complaining was about the paradigm, and not JUST the features lost. Evidence? The magnetic timeline. Evidence? The visual similarity and paradigm similarity to iMovie.
Some would argue that FCP was barely adequate for that market, where others seem to be saying that those features are essential only if the workflow remains the same. If part of my job was copying data from a single flat file into separate files, and naming each file using the file system, and suddenly someone hands me a DBMS, I'm going to complain because my workflow has to change, and nothing works like it used to. I'm going to be so lost in the day-to-day process that I won't be able to see the radical improvement that a DBMS makes on data management. (FWIW, rumors abound that the auto-save feature of FCP X is a portent of the ZFS file system making its debut in OSX Lion.)
Apple is contending (whether they're right or not) that tagging files (as an example) is a far superior mechanism for organizing clips than the methods that have been used in NLE's for AGES. The fact that a video editor's workflow depends on bins and a specific ingest method, doesn't make the new tagging mechanism inferior... it makes it different (and incompatible). That's just one example, but reading and listening to people using the app, I'm hearing things like that time and again. (What I haven't yet seen is how they will handle versioning, which is critical when something like auto-save appears in such workflows.)
I'm well aware of the issues. As I've said elsewhere, a very good friend of mine is STEAMING about this situation, because his TV station is stuck at FCP6. I understand the legacy and workflow issues he's experiencing. I understand (and stand behind) him venting to Apple. I don't see him filling up boards like this with his complaints. (He did make a WTF? post on Creativecow, but that was it.) In the same way that you're frustrated by feeling that I'm defending Apple, I'm frustrated by your assumption that I don't understand high-end workflow, or the impact this can have on large and small businesses.
Why would ANYONE who doesn't work for Apple have this as an objective? This borders on conspiracy theory, and to use your word is "absurd."
My goal in this forum is to find out whether or not I might want to move to FCP X at some point in the future. This is much the same as me reading the AF100 forum as I was deciding what camera to upgrade to. Unfortunately, the noise level here is such that it's hardly worth the trouble. My objective now is to get people who are complaining to chill out and let the people actually using the software dominate the posts for awhile. That has no indication of happening, which is why I asked about splitting the forum (albeit, half-jokingly). I'm at the point of giving up such efforts, and coming back in a month or so to see if things have improved. (The same kind of thing happened right after the AF100 was introduced, with all manner of people frustrated by the firmware not being hackable like the GH-1, and so on. Thankfully, the noise never got this bad, probably because Panasonic didn't bonehead the launch the way Apple did with FCP X.)
My recent comment was directed at the implication that anyone who chooses to use FCP X is somehow a noob, a kid, or amateurish. In the same vein, calling someone who refuses to use FCP X ignorant, slow, or dim-witted is obviously wrong. What DOES make sense (to me) is taking note of people who love editing, and not just a tool.
There has been a dearth of sanity in this discussion, and the sudden appearance of people who aren't married to an app, but are married to a task, is quite refreshing to me. I want to hear more from people who have migrated from one NLE to another. Where I have no time for video rants, I have hours to listen to someone who's moved from app X to app Y and then to app Z, and can share what that experience was like. From what I've seen, it's like listening to developers who've gone from C to C++, and then moved to C#, dabbled in Objective-C, and so on. Such people have perspective that goes beyond the mechanics of using a tool, and learn the strategies and patterns that ride on top of all the tools, or even a lack of tools. That is where the genius lies, and that's who I want to listen to. If we could put all those posts in a forum, I'd never leave that place.
Call me a "defender of the software" all you want. I'm defending the process of jumping the curve, which is what Apple is apparently trying to do. Maybe they've succeeded. Maybe they've flopped. Regardless, I want to see apps change the game, and nothing else seems to be trying, as I've tried (repeatedly) to point out elsewhere, and as evidenced by how easily people can move from one NLE to another in the current market.
I think you have dramatically misunderstood all of the indications that Apple has given, to date, of where they see video editing going. If you don't want to follow the path they're on, now is a perfect time to change tools. If you think complaining about FCP X is going to change the direction they're headed, I think you are in for a rude awakening. The inclusion of Firewire in the later 15" MBPs was almost certainly not a response to complaints (the timeline of when it happened suggested that their internal roadmap was set for the change long before the complaints appeared), I don't recall any change to iMovie, and they did nothing to the iPhone 4 antenna (it's still the exact same design).
Apple is driving toward a future (that may never come) when you won't worry about where the clips are stored, because the computer(s) know where they are, and you have more important things to do, like editing. Apple is driving toward a future (and this seems to be virtually here) where you won't need a Mac Pro chassis, because Thunderbolt will match or exceed the bus speed of many architectures, so peripherals won't have to be stuck inside a case, but can move from machine to machine. Apple is driving toward a future (that seems closer now than ever, given how much Netflix already dominates North American internet traffic) when the distribution of moving images will not be through the current "established players." Apple is driving toward disintermediation, and they are taking steps that make that possible. I'm anxious to see that day come. - Tim
filmguy123
Veteran
This is getting ridiculous... half of these posts are the same points and questions raised multiple times in multiple threads. I'm all for discussion but it's as if people don't read what's already been discussed, and are still saying the same things over, and over, and over again. Can we just make an FAQ and make a sub forum for people who want to bicker? It'd be nice to read or see something new, insightful, or interesting in these threads...
Have you read the title of this thread? There are other threads with legitimate technical questions, some of them Ive responded myself. Why do yo read this thread anyway? Read the threads that interest you, with the information you need. This one is about the former Shake designer saying his opinion, and the whole discussion developed from there. What did you expect from this thread? How to sync multiPle clips in the timeline, or how to do a multicam project? There are other threads for this. This is just one in a hundred threads on the FCPX forum, and has all the reason to be here.
Last edited:
Have you read the title yourself?
You listed a number of incidents (Firewire, iMovie, iPhone4) where Apple listened to the "noise" and changed the product in response. However you passed over the application mentioned in the title of this thread - Shake. The "noise" over the users frustration with lack of development of Shake fell on deaf ears at Apple. Heck the noise from the internal Shake developers themselves was ignored by upper management. That's the point of Ron's blog post. Apple willfully killed Shake in the interests of the shareholders. The number one priority for any corporation is to earn profits for their shareholders. Sometimes that means steering a product towards a different demographic. Step back from the edit console try to view the situation without any emotional ties to FCP*. Assume your an Apple manager with a fixed amount of money to invest in FCPX. Do you spend the money targeting the consumer? Do you spend the money to please the higher end customers? Which investment will cause a bigger positive shift in the stock price?
Have another look at the examples you listed when Apple changed the products in response to customer complaints. Who are the target customers?
Macbook Pro/Firewire
Target customer: Prosumer/Professionals
iMovie8
Target customer: Consumers
iPhone4
Target customer: Consumers
If Ron Brinkman is right and Apple is in fact steering the FCPX ship towards a consumer audience then that might be a wonderful thing for the shareholders. Apple will make money, the shareholders will make money - everyone will be happy. Well not everyone, but you can't please everybody.
* Note - It's irrational to have emotional ties with software.
Valid points, Milksac.
Answering your question concerning shareholders and Apple's overall strategy: ( This is obviously my personal opinion on this. )
I think that what they are doing- if they really are abandoning the high end pro market, which I hope they rethink about- is a big mistake in terms of marketing.
In another thread I talked about "prestige" products. A company like Apple has many market leading products right now. I saw a graph that stated their revenue stream comes not much from internal software. It is, however, Apple software that helps sell Apple hardware as a "package": when you buy a mac, may it be a computer, a tablet or a phone, Internal developed software serves to sell their hardware. Some of this software comes bundled with Apple computers, so it doesn't count as separate revenue, but as the overall "package": Iphone is a success due to Ios, Macs are a success due to Ilife Mac OSX, etc. This software goes out 1 to 1 ratio for every mac product sold. The separate software that Apple "sells" are a small part of their revenue stream. So profitability of pro apps or Final Cut Suite is not a major concern for Apple as a company- or shouldn't. It should -and here is probably were I differ from Apple (but sincerely thought they were going this way) - be in their PRO software that Apple would create their prestige branding, the image of a company that is embraced by industry leaders, by people like Coppola, Fincher, top Hollywood editors, etc. I like to use Porsche, a car company, as an example: Porsche is a prestige brand, but has cars for different budgets. Their flagship, however, is the 911 model. Its not their biggest revenue bringer- that's the Cayenne, the SUV, but they keep improving and developing the 911 as their flagship. FInal Cut Suite is Apple's 911. What they did here is turn their 911 and changed the engine to the one of a Porche Boxter, and changed the racing legacy aspect of the car and turned it into a family saloon. Porsche actually created one of those, the Panamera. But its a different product.
Apple's Final Cut Pro will never have the success in consumers like Imovie- its not bundled with Macs, it has features consumers don't care about or are not willing to fork 299 for them. They have what they need in Imovie. Imovie its like the Volkswagen Golf of the Volkswagen line. Its the people's car. Only a few will think about getting a Golf GTI (FCPX). Now does volkswagen has their racing division? Of Course. Why? Prestige. Branding. A Golf GTI doesn't sell prestige. A Racing Golf that wins races and brings headlines does. The same goes to Porsche. 911's always race in Le Mans. Its part of Branding. FCPX went from a race spec Golf to a golf GTI, not ready to race. Will it be race ready? I don't know. Will the professionals bother to race them? I don't think so. This was their mistake, Imo. Earning a couple more bucks in the short term by removing features and making it, well, without having a better name for it, " Imovie Pro", takes out the F1, Indycar, Nascar, and WRC drivers from their "car". This will mean in the medium to long term a pretty bad strategy in terms of branding and marketing, IMO. Sounds confusing, specially if you're not into motorsports or cars, but I hope it makes sense.
Answering your question concerning shareholders and Apple's overall strategy: ( This is obviously my personal opinion on this. )
I think that what they are doing- if they really are abandoning the high end pro market, which I hope they rethink about- is a big mistake in terms of marketing.
In another thread I talked about "prestige" products. A company like Apple has many market leading products right now. I saw a graph that stated their revenue stream comes not much from internal software. It is, however, Apple software that helps sell Apple hardware as a "package": when you buy a mac, may it be a computer, a tablet or a phone, Internal developed software serves to sell their hardware. Some of this software comes bundled with Apple computers, so it doesn't count as separate revenue, but as the overall "package": Iphone is a success due to Ios, Macs are a success due to Ilife Mac OSX, etc. This software goes out 1 to 1 ratio for every mac product sold. The separate software that Apple "sells" are a small part of their revenue stream. So profitability of pro apps or Final Cut Suite is not a major concern for Apple as a company- or shouldn't. It should -and here is probably were I differ from Apple (but sincerely thought they were going this way) - be in their PRO software that Apple would create their prestige branding, the image of a company that is embraced by industry leaders, by people like Coppola, Fincher, top Hollywood editors, etc. I like to use Porsche, a car company, as an example: Porsche is a prestige brand, but has cars for different budgets. Their flagship, however, is the 911 model. Its not their biggest revenue bringer- that's the Cayenne, the SUV, but they keep improving and developing the 911 as their flagship. FInal Cut Suite is Apple's 911. What they did here is turn their 911 and changed the engine to the one of a Porche Boxter, and changed the racing legacy aspect of the car and turned it into a family saloon. Porsche actually created one of those, the Panamera. But its a different product.
Apple's Final Cut Pro will never have the success in consumers like Imovie- its not bundled with Macs, it has features consumers don't care about or are not willing to fork 299 for them. They have what they need in Imovie. Imovie its like the Volkswagen Golf of the Volkswagen line. Its the people's car. Only a few will think about getting a Golf GTI (FCPX). Now does volkswagen has their racing division? Of Course. Why? Prestige. Branding. A Golf GTI doesn't sell prestige. A Racing Golf that wins races and brings headlines does. The same goes to Porsche. 911's always race in Le Mans. Its part of Branding. FCPX went from a race spec Golf to a golf GTI, not ready to race. Will it be race ready? I don't know. Will the professionals bother to race them? I don't think so. This was their mistake, Imo. Earning a couple more bucks in the short term by removing features and making it, well, without having a better name for it, " Imovie Pro", takes out the F1, Indycar, Nascar, and WRC drivers from their "car". This will mean in the medium to long term a pretty bad strategy in terms of branding and marketing, IMO. Sounds confusing, specially if you're not into motorsports or cars, but I hope it makes sense.
Last edited:
Hindsight will be 20/20...FCPX may bare out Apple has having incredible vision or the future, or it'll be left by the wayside and Apple will fully migrate over to the consumer realm. I think the big question is: where do we go from here? I'd hate to be seduced by the current Apple hardware, only to have them pull the rug out from under and fully switch over to touch iOS-running system and drop all their conventional systems. On the other hand, if they listen to the complaints of FCPX and fix it up, we could see some nice incremental add-ons for X and be swept away by X2. It's just frustrating that a) The company immediately ditched FCS3 upon FCPX's release and b) They are tight-lipped on their plans for the future.
Interestingly, I don't see any evidence of any apple payrolled, beta involved, developer invested posters here.
If the missing features are ones that a particular user or users never needed or used, and the new features provide a better workflow for those users, it would be disingenuous to argue that FCP X isn't a good fit for them. Not every "professional editor" needs every feature now absent from FCP X. Some need none in fact, others need some, and so forth.
I don't see any attempt to "wash away" criticism of FCP X with some conspiratorial intent.
Just as I agree that FCP X needs some work, improvements and refining, I also agree that every statement of support for it isn't a product of PR, self interested developers, or a government conspiracy.
There may be black helicopters in Idaho, but I don't see any here.
Last edited:
I am working as a Pro editor and graphics artist for many years.
I used to work on Quantels machines many years, and i only had one monitor for ALL my work !
Those machines were REALLY PRO ...
So , FCPX is a bless for me and a pro app.
Also Apple said, FCPX is coloursynced, which means, that if you connect a properly calibrated monitor (or coloursync compatible) you have no problem.
I used to work on Quantels machines many years, and i only had one monitor for ALL my work !
Those machines were REALLY PRO ...
So , FCPX is a bless for me and a pro app.
Also Apple said, FCPX is coloursynced, which means, that if you connect a properly calibrated monitor (or coloursync compatible) you have no problem.
First of all , PRO doesnt mean source - record monitors (double monitors etc) , is that ok ?
Take a look how some REALLY pro apps work .. many years now for editing - graphics etc, before even FCP or Avid exists!!!
Now, for the real broadcast output, we dont know yet.
Aja and others companies doesnt have any info now.
They say, that with the beta drivers and specific video cards , the output is only preview quality.
But maybe with other software or other video cards (colorsync - opencl compatible or anything else ) , we will have broadcast quality.
No one knows yet, its too early... thats why we say "its not ready yet for prime time"
Be patient...
Take a look how some REALLY pro apps work .. many years now for editing - graphics etc, before even FCP or Avid exists!!!
Now, for the real broadcast output, we dont know yet.
Aja and others companies doesnt have any info now.
They say, that with the beta drivers and specific video cards , the output is only preview quality.
But maybe with other software or other video cards (colorsync - opencl compatible or anything else ) , we will have broadcast quality.
No one knows yet, its too early... thats why we say "its not ready yet for prime time"
Be patient...
I'd love a secondary scene. That would be great.
However, in my very limited experience working with FCP X on a MacBook 2011, I didn't miss that screen.
A secondary screen is essential for some professional editors; for others, I suspect, it may not be essential.
But there isn't any set in stone definition of a professional editor. Matt said if at least 51% of your revenue is derived from editing, then you are a professional editor.
You're indicating that a secondary monitor defines, at least in part, a professional editing application. Sounds good too.
But for others, it isn't essential.
So where are we? I don't believe any one can categorically answer that for everyone.
I always thought a secondary monitor just took up valuable screen real estate.