Final Cut Pro X

Ronnie Pudding wrote:

I don't think anyone here has a problem admitting that. Professionals use their tools in different ways than hobbyists do, and so demand different features and capabilities, many of which would mean nothing to even an advanced hobbyist.

The problem is that Apple had previously positioned and sold FCP as a pro application, and it had gotten to the point that it was very functional in that capacity. Then they killed it, and replaced it with a product aimed at the other market you speak of, but pretended that they didn't. They pretended that this was intended to be a pro application when it clearly wasn't. That's the primary problem for people who had grown to depend on FCP to make a living.

I really could not agree with this any more. It is beyond me why they didn't just expand the iMovie series with the approach they have taken with FCPX. It is time to leave the FCP world and potentially the OSX as well.

Let me quote something I read on an article regarding the usage of Premier:

And beyond the application itself, I have a lot more confidence in Adobe's ability to deliver professional solutions than I do Apple's. It's really very simple: If Apple's Pro apps went away tomorrow, Apple would barely feel it on its bottom line or stock price. If Adobe's Pro apps went away, so would Adobe. Pro apps is all Adobe thinks about, and after 4+ years of neglect at Apple's hands, that kind of singular focus sounds pretty compelling.

bnn wrote:

Final Cut Pro was previously the domain of a few high-level pros...the software was expensive and really difficult to learn. Now, the software is far cheaper, and accessible to anyone with the skills to learn iMovie.

I can't recall reading a more confused assertion.

Isn't that like saying there'd be more big rig truck drivers if only the trucks weren't so big and expensive and didn't require such skill to drive? If they were only more like family sedans - you know smaller and cheaper.

Are you trying to say that there are legions of editors out there who were only waiting for cheap editing software to come out?

But they had iMovie. For like $15 bucks. Or is it that they just wanted software that was labeled "Pro" so they could start their career? What need does FCX fill that iMovie did not? Aside from costing 20 times more and having a "Pro" sticker on it?

bnn wrote:

The markets are changing, the world is becoming video crazy, and most video in a while, including professional, will be delivered for watching over the web. True?

Are you saying that because Avatar or Transformers or Harry Potter may be watched on the web that the tools and skills required to make them are somehow less?

bnn wrote:

...other than the "take it or leave it" delivery, I salute Apple for its courage.

Courage? Really? To sell a plastic space helmet with a sticker labeled "Astronaut"?

Patrick Sheffield wrote:

Courage? Really? To sell a plastic space helmet with a sticker labeled "Astronaut"?

You, Sir, are a veritable quote machine. You win the competition for my favourite comment on the FCPX fiasco yet.

While the current tack of Apple/Sony looks like a shark out of water to me, and I desperately hope that Apple gets back to being Apple, you dismiss some key facts.

1) The general population IS getting more tech savvy everyday. The original work many 10 year-olds do on a daily basis does look like interplanetary exploration to their parents, in many cases.

2) The technology is settling down and reaching its limits, which means companies have to be bunkering into equity positions. That means consolidating advantages to resist the inevitable fall in prices.

3) Highways replaced scenic drives all over the world once it was discovered that a car could be produced at a price that 'average' people could afford. People learned not only to drive, but to drive trucks on the new overland shipping lanes.

But I still fear Apple is getting into bed with the wrong group.

@Patrick

I know I'm just wasting bandwidth but the "domain of a few high level pros" statement really does almost perfectly illustrate the naivety of the consuming public about this issue. Combine this with the software publisher's misinterpretation of what and how the monetized portion of the production world is and functions and what it is expected to deliver exposes the chasm of misunderstanding that exists around the software, and its use.

The plastic astronaut helmet is a good analogy -- the 'big rig' is a good one as well -- I'd add Roy Scheider's line from JAWS that really, for most of what we face as "a few high level pros", what we really do need is a "bigger boat". The vast number of enthusiasts who will never have to face a great white will never understand this, have no frame of reference for it. This is not skimming around in the boat lagoon in a Sunfish -- I'm not using this canoe to cross the Atlantic.

FCP, already even for around a thousand bucks was among the cheapest "pro" packages available on the planet. Go check out the ask for MacCaption's Enterprise level software -- yeah, its $8 grand. A single-seat license for many actual "pro" packages still can be over a hundred large. But is closed captioning a "niche"? No -- its required by Federal Law for all broadcast, and by extension anything now streamed via internet by broadcasters also has to be captioned. FCP7 gave that added-value capability, and now the new version doesn't even have an SDI tape component, never mind mastering. That's Apple saying, no that's not a revenue stream you can have, that you were previously making money with, go find something else, your business is not worth it to us. You're last year's sneakers, although the boss may still be fond of them.

There are plenty of similes out there for this reprehensible disconnect. It seems ludicrous to me that the company in question would buy and discard so many other functioning and valuable approaches only to build something that they intended to be a "backbone' maybe, that all of the previously offered services will now be a la carte. Maybe. Their heretofore attentive audience has been waiting breathlessly for the awesome-ness, but what arrived is awfulness. Show's over. Beginning? Maybe. Maybe the beginning of the end.

jPo

bnn wrote:

Final Cut Pro was previously the domain of a few high-level pros...the software was expensive and really difficult to learn. Now, the software is far cheaper, and accessible to anyone with the skills to learn iMovie.

I guess you weren't around 6 years ago when the choice was a professional editing application, or a down payment on a house. Or a brand new high end sports car. Pro editing solutions costed around $60,000 to $125,000. And even then, they didn't edit full quality...they were only used to do the creative cutting, and then the "online," or assembly of the show at full resolution was done on the $250,000 machines. And talk about difficult to learn. Yeah...it was VERY complex...and add in all the specs needed to deliver TV shows to networks and you needed to know A LOT!

"Man, if only those NASCAR cars were cheaper and easier to drive, then I could drive in the Indianapolis 500. Ooo...look, they made a car that isn't that complex, and doesn't go as fast. NOW I CAN! Oh, wait, I need to know how to drive on a race track? Isn't it the same as driving on the freeway to work? It can't be that different..."

It is.

As for the rediculous statement that everything will be edited for the web...hardly. TV might end up being distributed there, but the cameras used to shoot it, the process around making them won't change much. And for feature films...that's pretty complex too. This isn't grabbing a handycam and shooting your kid opening the refridgerator. This is a PROFESSION! Like fixing cars, BUILDING cars, designing buildings, making pianos. There is a skill to this that slick cheap applications won't suddenly make a pro. Give me a pile of wood, tools and polish and there is no way I can make a violin like Stratovarius. Put a camera in Joe Blow's hand and he won't make the next SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. There are a few exceptions out there, I know that (Robert Rodriguez). Still...just because you have a tool doesn't mean you'll make quality products. There is a LOT I can't do, even if I have the tools.

JP Owens wrote:

It seems ludicrous to me that the company in question would buy and discard so many other functioning and valuable approaches only to build something that they intended to be a "backbone' maybe, that all of the previously offered services will now be a la carte. Maybe. Their heretofore attentive audience has been waiting breathlessly for the awesome-ness, but what arrived is awfulness. Show's over. Beginning? Maybe. Maybe the beginning of the end.

jPo

the end... those who insist on holding on to a whim pay very close attention to the following... it parallels reality, but requires a tad bit more of an attention span than a gnat... but give it a try aye... try to grasp the logic of the post...

Apple making a pro app out of FCPX?

Lets run that down. I’ll play the apple head bean counter and Chief of Operations for pro video apps. Now, I’m gonna sell a $300 upgrade to iMovie and FCExpress, call it an Upgrade to FCP7 knowing all along that that is a lie. That will tick off and alienate our entire global pro video market share, totally freaking them out. At the same time we'll give our competitors a stick to beat us in the head with, and the opportunity to acquire most of our market share. Then we’ll dump $12-15mil into development and marketing over the next 4 years to get FCPX.7 back up to par where we left off with FCP7. At the same time we’ll parallel any advancements our competitors achieve, so we’re not behind the curve as we’ve been the last 7 years. Now, let me cypher… okay I’ve got $12.2 mil. into it in R&D, development and a new marketing program. Hmmm. I’m gonna have to raise the price or explain to the shareholders the $10 mil. loss. Okay, we’ll charge $899 retail. Wait, now we’re gonna **** off all the little self-indulging gadget-heads that bought FCPx and FCPx.ip(for iPad). Ahhh so what, we’ll get those saps in the pro video market to buy our new Mini-Mac-iPros, and we’ll bundle it with the…..

Okay, I can’t even run the story line any more, but do ya get the idea? Again, I respect optimistic opinions, and those who don't want to tarnish their auras, but it just doesn’t play out, no matter how you map it…

I think what's ironic about the professional editing take on these apps is that, if the worst suspicions are true (which I still rightly hold in doubt), then it is big companies staking a claim on media production technology, striving to keep the real stuff out of the hands of the little people. Yet most of you argue that you're not little people while opposing what you suspect is a move to isolate true professionals from the little people.

But I think we're all on the same boat if what's at stake is individual liberty to publish media free from the artificial price controls of corporate collusions and central banks.

I think what's ironic about the professional editing take on these apps is that, if the worst suspicions are true (which I still rightly hold in doubt), then it is big companies staking a claim on media production technology, striving to keep the real stuff out of the hands of the little people. Yet most of you argue that you're not little people while opposing what you suspect is a move to isolate true professionals from the little people.

my good man, thats almost sedition... keep up the good work!

one things for sure (and I suspect we don't have long to wait) that some people are going to have egg on their faces 😉

There's plenty more where that came from. And I'm not just talking about California.

mark133 wrote:

I think what's ironic about the professional editing take on these apps is that, if the worst suspicions are true (which I still rightly hold in doubt), then it is big companies staking a claim on media production technology, striving to keep the real stuff out of the hands of the little people. Yet most of you argue that you're not little people while opposing what you suspect is a move to isolate true professionals from the little people.

But I think we're all on the same boat if what's at stake is individual liberty to publish media free from the artificial price controls of corporate collusions and central banks.

hmmm.... couldn't follow the post, could you. I'm not even going to address the other global conspiracy political paranoia, but whatever you're smoking, I hope it is already illegal, and you should really stop. Also, you should unsubscribe from CPUSA... wow.

Well, now at least I know where you stand, ProMaxed...i.e. where you don't stand.

Well put. A few years back I was at a seminar related to video editing, and if I recall, FCP editing specifically. The instructor leading the seminar essentially warned us that Apple could care less about its "Pro" apps and that DVD Studio Pro, Motion, and even Final Cut were all in danger.

Unfortunately, looks like that might be the case. Let me preface this by saying I have not used FCPX yet. At this point in time, it is not an option for our small production & post-production house; amongst other show-stopping problems: we simply need to be able to open and leverage work from existing projects; and we absolutely need multi-cam. Even at the price of $300, it wouldn't be worth it. It is unusable in its current form.

For the last couple of years, Apple has watched its competitors pass it by in pro video editing and done nothing.

Now, it releases a product which - by all accounts - is offensive to pro video editors.

Honestly, I have no problem with that. If they want to grab the prosumer and amateur market - go right ahead.

I just wish they had the decency to openly admit this to the portion of its users that relied on their product in a professional realm.

Is stringing us along so that we'll buy FCP X before realizing its not a professional product really worth it? Just admit you're out of the pro game, and let us pro-FCP users move onto companies that are creating products for those of us who earn a living editing video.

And while you're looking up subscriptions, you'll need to reconsider your subscription to AIPAC if you think capitalism involves selling off individual liberty.