X makes perfect sense from a business standpoint.

[stoneinapond]

That's . . . rather confrontational.

Yes it is and my apologies. But I have found discussing this matter with you a little like fighting with a bar of soap.

So let me ask you this. What was the paint roller reference? And when I made an analogy about wooden wheels and steel and rubber, you appeared to turn that around and asked whether we shoud return to the wooden wheel because it's cheaper? My only reference there to make any sense of the comment was that FCP X is cheaper, therefore impling it is the wooden wheel.

So again, apologies if I've read you wrong and perhaps you can find the time to explain those points to me.

 

[David Jimerson]

Yes it is and my apologies.

Appreciated.

But I have found discussing this matter with you a little like fighting with a bar of soap.

I think that's because you've thought I said things I didn't.

What was the paint roller reference?

Somebody (wasn't it you?) said something about an "artist" being able to create with "whatever tools" he has. My point was that certain things do require certain tools no matter how good the artist is. You can't paint the Mona Lisa with your fingers alone.

And when I made an analogy about wooden wheels and steel and rubber, you appeared to turn that around and asked whether we shoud return to the wooden wheel because it's cheaper? My only reference there to make any sense of the comment was that FCP X is cheaper, therefore impling it is the wooden wheel.

No, the "wooden wheel" as I used the term is lower-quality product.

Now, as for FCPX -- I can't even imagine how it could be up for debate that it doesn't have a number of professional-level tools that the previous FCP had. I would figure that to be a given. So, if I were to say so, if I were to say that there are things you can't do with FCPX, how is that automatically "criticism"? Seems to me it's no more "criticism" than to say a passenger car can't carry 100 pallets of water bottles. It is what it is.

And to loop this around to the beginning, if someone says "oh, you don't need all that stuff for YouTube or Vimeo," which I've seen people say, then that brings me to my original point about diminished expectations, i.e., "oh, it doesn't need to be that good." The point was about that attitude, not about FCPX.

So, if there's some editing software, which I'm sure there is, which doesn't have an audio levels meter, to say it's "good enough for YouTube" may be true in the sense that no one who posts on there bothers to put things at proper audio levels (so much of it is painfully loud), well, that doesn't mean I won't use proper levels in my own work, so, I want that tool -- and everyone else should, too. They should learn and use proper audio levels, even for YouTube. A coarser, rougher, lower quality becoming the norm is no good for anyone. (Except possibly those who already do lesser work.)

 

[cheezweezl]

There is this theory going around that Apple doesn't care about pro's and they would rather sell 100x as many copies of FCPX to ambitious consumers than keep the PRO in FCP. On one hand, that makes sense. I get it. On the other hand, why would they have to choose one over the other? Why not keep final cut pro going and give this entirely new product a totally new name. Or even call it FCPX while keeping final cut studio alive? i could understand if it was a dead product that cost more to make than the revenue it brings. but surely fcp was turning a nice profit. jeez, it's used everywhere. If fcp 7 was making money, and clearly there is a LARGE part of the market that will not be buying this new product, wouldn't it make sense to keep the party going? they could now be selling 2 products instead of one, and employing a bunch of people in the process. and if the plan was to abandon the pro market, what's with the dog and pony show at nab? the only way i can justify it is either 1. apple is stupid and thought that people would just abandon their workflow overnight, and that all of the missing features were totally unimportant. or, 2. they knew exactly what they were doing but wanted to prank us all and piss everybody off just for fun. both options seem highly unlikely and neither is good.

if FCPX would have been released as final cut express X or imovie pro or whatever, the same people who now love FCPX for it's features and price would still love it and this huge mess among the pro's wouldn't exist right now.

 

[Pookie]

But guys, Apple is in the business of making money, lots and lots of money.

FCP is competing primarily against Avid, and coming in second. There are thousands of editors using FCP, and there are millions of "wanna-be Spielbergs" out there. If you want to make that money, the decision of which direction to take is very straight forward isn't it?
If you want to get into the "pro" world of editing, you learn Avid, no choice. If you want to go the boutique route, you still need Avid, but can probably get by with FCP, but if you really want to play with the big boys, it's Avid.

Apple are making a business decision based on potential sales, the money is with the YouTube world of film makers, there's some pretty slick stuff being made there, and Apple would simply be stupid not to go after the market.

It's business guys, millions vs thousands, makes sense to me.

 

[nosys70]

but again, so why upset the pro community by lauching this product in their world when obviously it is not (yet) part of it.
it looks like they annouced the segway. In the beginning it was supposed some secret project that would turn the world to a new age.
people were thinking about new computer or something like this and they get that funny overpriced 2 wheeld thing.
And for the argument that FCP was dying, from a programmer's point of view, it is wrong.
When you got the features, the workflow, the ergonomics, the customers, you can rewrite that in any language or port it to 64 bits easily.
you just need a bunch of indian coders, that is what Adobe has done, switching almost instantly to a new product that looked exactly as the old one.

What Apple used to get was a nice car with an old engine, they choosed to turn it to a competion bike instead keeping the body and adding a new engine.

 

[TimTheFoolMan]

But guys, Apple is in the business of making money, lots and lots of money.

FCP is competing primarily against Avid, and coming in second. There are thousands of editors using FCP, and there are millions of "wanna-be Spielbergs" out there. If you want to make that money, the decision of which direction to take is very straight forward isn't it?
If you want to get into the "pro" world of editing, you learn Avid, no choice. If you want to go the boutique route, you still need Avid, but can probably get by with FCP, but if you really want to play with the big boys, it's Avid.

Apple are making a business decision based on potential sales, the money is with the YouTube world of film makers, there's some pretty slick stuff being made there, and Apple would simply be stupid not to go after the market.

It's business guys, millions vs thousands, makes sense to me.

This is one of the most coherent summaries of the situation I've seen. For years, I've heard that Avid was at the top, with FCP always struggling to play in the big boys' space (and always failing). Even guys like Alex Lindsay, who's as big an apologist for Apple as any, says "if it's thousands of objects, FCP is fine... if it's tens of thousands, I'm firing up Avid."

It seems like Apple had to choose if it wanted to fight for the top (a tough thing to do, given the reluctance of people to change tools in that space), fight for the middle (cluttered up with Vegas, Edius, Lightspeed, Premier Pro, et al), or try to create a hybrid of sorts that would reach down lower, but not go as high. It's unclear whether or not they've succeeded, but I doubt that competing with Avid would have yielded a significant number of new customers. - Tim

 

[Vultch]

Guys AVID is good but FCP and others are used in a lot of production houses and by a number of broadcasters.

Apple want to make money fine... keep making money selling FCP 7 or 8

By removing its PRO image, Apple has damaged its brand, so what if when it comes time to replace my machines I opt for Edius and by Windows machines, is that a good business plan for Apple.
You guys know of British Leyland..they used to dominate the UK car industry and ignored their customers and ignored foreign competition laughing at the Japanese. British Leyland is now defunct.

The price point for FCPX is too high for the amateur home movie lot and iMove already catered for that market, which amateur is going to use compressor for youtube

I really dont know whats going on with Apple

 

[cheezweezl]

...there are millions of "wanna-be Spielbergs" out there. If you want to make that money, the decision of which direction to take is very straight forward isn't it?

Again, why does this fork in the road exist? Why abandon the pro's? Why not make the thing that up and coming indie filmmakers will love and keep the studios and post houses and pro independent editors happy all at the same time?

Even now, if apple were to come out and say, ok we screwed up. We are going to put fcp7 back on the shelf along with final cut server etc. We are forming a team to get it ported to a 64 bit engine. People would chill out. A lot of pros would live with fcp7 and wait it out.

Saying that they had to abandon pros to make fcpx is like saying that Honda would have to stop making motorcycles in order to introduce a new mini van.

 

[Pookie]

Again, why does this fork in the road exist? Why abandon the pro's? Why not make the thing that up and coming indie filmmakers will love and keep the studios and post houses and pro independent editors happy all at the same time?

Even now, if apple were to come out and say, ok we screwed up. We are going to put fcp7 back on the shelf along with final cut server etc. We are forming a team to get it ported to a 64 bit engine. People would chill out. A lot of pros would live with fcp7 and wait it out.

Saying that they had to abandon pros to make fcpx is like saying that Honda would have to stop making motorcycles in order to introduce a new mini van.

But Apple hasn't stopped anyone from using FCP, they simply ended production and development of it. Every "pro" editor out there still has their FCP to edit with, along with every plug-in.

Again, it's business guys, nothing goes on forever, you have to change with the market, or simply become a dinosaur working to update a product that, while it has a vocal following, simply doesn't have the number of units sold to keep putting the money into it.

Youtube is huge, five years ago, not so much. You lead or you follow. Apple have sold how many iPhones, every one with a little camera built in, of course they want to satisfy that market with an editing app that works for the most users, and you simply follow where the sales stream flows... hence FCPX.

 

[Vultch]

But as hardware improves and new software techniques develop, why should FCP users not benefit from this, how would you feel if AVID said ..ok guys thats it... no more development, 128 bit machines who cares stick with this now aging system.

Yes FCP 7 works great now what about 2 yrs from now, I have spent a fair bit on hardware and software for this system hence my annoyance

 

[Mike Harvey]

But as hardware improves and new software techniques develop, why should FCP users not benefit from this, how would you feel if AVID said ..ok guys thats it... no more development, 128 bit machines who cares stick with this now aging system.

Because Avid would go out of business. Apple... not so much.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

But Apple hasn't stopped anyone from using FCP, they simply ended production and development of it. Every "pro" editor out there still has their FCP to edit with, along with every plug-in.

Again, it's business guys, nothing goes on forever, you have to change with the market, or simply become a dinosaur working to update a product that, while it has a vocal following, simply doesn't have the number of units sold to keep putting the money into it.

Youtube is huge, five years ago, not so much. You lead or you follow. Apple have sold how many iPhones, every one with a little camera built in, of course they want to satisfy that market with an editing app that works for the most users, and you simply follow where the sales stream flows... hence FCPX.

"hence FCPX"... No... hence iMovie SuperDuper, or whatever. By using the FC Pro moniker, they are appealing to some sense of 'if I use this tool, it's what the pros use'... for whatever ego enhancement value that may be.

In a similar vein... Paint Shop Pro is still far inferior to Photoshop... but many people use it. Don't know too many pros that I've had contact with in the photography world who use it... everyone on that world who is a 'pro' uses Photoshop, if they use a digital application... that is... there are still a few silver printers with labs in their houses I suppose...

I would have paid $300 for Final Cut Express 5... no question, as long as XML export, and compatibility with previous projects was part of the feature set...

As it is, with no 'trial period' test drive capability, with no real features to remotely compare with Adobe's offering, and not even a distant city on the road map to come close to anthing Avid may have... to me the product is dead.

So, sure, if the next update includes backward import of projects, etc. I may put up $300 for a 'test drive'... but by then I may have already made my handmade EDL of important Final Cut Express projects I have, and the need will be moot. (Or found an acquaintance that has FCP <less than X> to import my FCE projects, then export them...).

In fact, that was one of the 'selling' points of FC Express, the fact that I could import them into the "Pro" package when I got to that level that I thought I needed 'Pro' features.

I think I'm beginning to see why PR Renderman never went any where... but I digress...

 

[Pookie]

But as hardware improves and new software techniques develop, why should FCP users not benefit from this, how would you feel if AVID said ..ok guys thats it... no more development, 128 bit machines who cares stick with this now aging system.

Yes FCP 7 works great now what about 2 yrs from now, I have spent a fair bit on hardware and software for this system hence my annoyance

Apple is in the business to make money. They do a lot of research to see where the trends are, and what to invest their time and money into.'

Obviously, while there are the "pro" users out there, it just isn't worth the investment to continue with FCP when you look at the "prosumer and amateur" market. They're fighting with Avid, a very well entrenched professional system that is the preferred editing system out there.

FCP users like FCP because the cost of a seat compared with Avid is very cheap. If Avid was priced like FCP, the market would look entirely different, and there would be no FCP.