10 Replies Latest reply: Mar 8, 2012 9:32 AM by Tom Wolsky
fearless Level 6 Level 6
Servers Enterprise

Shall we just promote some peace and harmony here and rebrand this thing on Apple's behalf? Final Cut X, with it's tumour removed. Leave your expectations at the door - after all, it's a brand new app and fresh start. One small amputation and life goes on.

Final Cut Studio '09, Mac OS X (10.6.7), Tangent panels, Avid Nitris DX
  • Daniel Slagle Level 7 Level 7

    I think branding something with the same name as the old product is the problem.

  • fearless Level 6 Level 6
    Servers Enterprise

    OK I'm clutching at straws... The brand has schizophrenia. The Pro bit matters  It's - how shall we put it? Aspirational.

  • Daniel Slagle Level 7 Level 7

    Yes it has tons of potential

  • James M. Level 4 Level 4

    The main problem is not 'Final Cut X', but the fact that Apple are likely to kill FCP7 as well.


    If both applications were available, and we were not faced with the horrible truth that Apple regards FCPx as a replacement for FCP7, then none of the vitriol and anger towards FCPx would be happening.

  • Goldfish Level 2 Level 2

    fearless wrote:


    ... rebrand this thing on Apple's behalf? Final Cut X, with it's tumour removed. Leave your expectations at the door - after all, it's a brand new app and fresh start...


    Great Idea. Genius in fact.

    A very smart tactic if it had been used. But we can't un-ring this bell and rebranding it now would just put too much egg on Apple's face. But you're right!


    Let me add this little fantasy time-line to your idea:


    The date, June 21, 2011.


    Apple releases FinalCut-X and simultaneously discontinues FinalCut Express.

    This introduces the new technology to the marketplace without creating a feeling displacement within the professional community. The price would be 300 and an upgrade discount would be offered to FCE users wishing to "upgrade".


    Many pro users purchase this app anyway out of curiosity without the expectations of all the PRO features they would need. The new paradigm is gradually absorbed by almost all of the FCP community and anticipation grows in the Pro community.


    The date - July 4, 2011.


    Apple Announces the pending release of FinalCutPRO-X, shipping date TBA.

    Apple uses the next few months to finish FCP-X and makes sure that the core functionality is ready.



    The date, (Some time in early fall)


    FCP-X Ships as a download OR optical media. Apple provides the new version of FCP-X with enough of the core features to satisfy their professional user base. Price concessions are offered on the available annex applications for pre existing FCS owners.


    The reviews are mixed but mostly favorable.

    Everyone has a sense of well being and accepts the product as a new beginning and not an upgrade.

    Apple once again reigns supreme for centuries to come …….




    … The  date, Winter 2199,


    Apple announces the release of of their new nanobot App, FCP-22K.

    This version is only shipped as an Osmotic transmission and installed directly into unused grey matter in the users frontal lobe.

    This new version allows the editor (now called "the viewer") to capture everything he looks at into vacant grey matter. The viewer must then launch the annex nanobot app, "dream-state" which allows the viewer to compile his images into a the final edit (now called "an experience") which is also only delivered via osmotic transmission directly to the end user (now referred to as "the vehicle").


    Professional users are furious that they can only send and receive data as osmotic transmissions. They claim that having to transmit an "experience" to only one "vehicle" at a time is stifling and unprofessional. The professionals insist that they need to still be able to deliver as optical holograph vehicles so that multiple users can share experiences simultaneously. AND!  there needs to be a way to store the FCP-22K nano-app on carbon hosts for their staff to ingest (ingest means "install" in 2199).


    The professional viewers reject this new paradigm as blasphemous and threaten to go back to using Adobe Mirage v988.4.2, which still allows holographic transmissions. A publicity firestorm erupts in 4.8 seconds and Apple quickly scrambles to……….





    (C) goldfish. all rights reserved

  • ukeditor Level 1 Level 1

    FCP X for domestic users is ok, FCP X for professional editors is quite simply appalling!

  • Luis Sequeira1 Level 6 Level 6

    Have you looked at FCP X lately? What you wrote today was probably accurate last July, but

    FCP X 10.0.3 is VERY different from 10.0.0. Just a few things of many: it has re-link, amazing keyer, and the BEST multicam in any NLE editor, hands down. It is not a toy, it is a professional application. Given that, it still has its problems, there is no denying that.

  • ukeditor Level 1 Level 1

    Yes, I most certainly have. I have used it recently and as a professional editor working in the UK television industry I can categorically say it is terrible in direct comparison to FCP 7. The recent updates have dramatically improved the product and yes there are many impressive elements to FCPX but as a direct replacement it falls short. I think it's fair to say that Apple are dropping their pro users like a brick. Just interested to know your background? Are you a Pro editor using FCPX and if so what show's are working on, drama, docs?


    Best wishes.

  • R&B Level 1 Level 1

    Goldfish, that is simply brilliant.  :-)


    Post of the year so far.

  • Tom Wolsky Level 10 Level 10
    Mac OS X

    Except it's last year.