-
Insight FCP X vs. Avid
Some may have already read this:
A Former Avid Employee’s Thoughts On FCPX: “Even though the FCPX rollout seemingly exposes Apple’s hubris, I’m glad they did it.” | Zac Cichy | techvessel
Zac interviews Mike Bernardo, who used to work at Avid
We worked on building “next generation” editor software. New UI, new technical foundation that would take advantage of multiple CPUs and GPUs. Unfortunately these efforts ultimately went nowhere, since the company as a whole was too timid and worried about disenfranchising the existing customer base – exactly the problem Apple is facing now.My take on this is that Avid doesn’t have the balls to move forward because the want to be PC and not ruffle the feathers of the ELITE PROs. The Avid tech essentially is saying that Avid can produce a MUCH BETTER program but they are not going to. That is SAD!
Apple has the balls to move forward becuase they have a long-term vision of where their hardware, OS, and FCP X is going.
It’s funny, but I guess it takes an ex-Avid senior software programmer to appreciate what Apple has done.
FCP X: Type A
[spell check OFF] -
26 Replies
-
Or Avid realized it’s not the future of editing, or financially it didn’t make sense to pursue this path, or it was a proof on concept piece that was never intended to be released and this guy didn’t understand that, or he’s an ex-Avid employee and has an axe to grind, or they tested it with full-time editors who said no way, or it’s 100% true.
Pick one. Nobody knows which one is right. What’s the point of this? If FCPX works for you and you can make money with it, do it. If you can’t, move to an NLE that does.
Regarding the “Avid can produce a much better program and they are not going to. That is sad!” bit – I didn’t read it that way at all, and that assumes that the FCPX way is better. That’s yet to be determined, and is you’re interpretation.
That said, Apple could have written a way to bring FCP7 projects forward into FCPX but didn’t. They could have included OMF export, XML import/export, multicam, etc…in the 1.0 release of FCPX and they didn’t. That’s make a lot of people sad too.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Michael Hancock] “Regarding the “Avid can produce a much better program and they are not going to.”
It may be that Avid is risk averse. Apple is in a better position to take risks. It doesn’t mean Apple made a better decision it does mean the two companies have very different business models.
-
[Michael Hancock] “Pick one. Nobody knows which one is right. What’s the point of this? If FCPX works for you and you can make money with it, do it. If you can’t, move to an NLE that does.”
Exactly! It seems this debate is getting a little tiring. It’s actually the best time ever for something like this to happen because there are plenty of options and the hardware is more flexible than ever. I can use 7 all I want and I would guess I could get another couple of years out of it if I wanted to.
This whole thing has prompted me to look at other software and figure out which direction I want to go but I was already thinking of that just based on seeing what Apple chose to do with previous FCP upgrades and I began to feel it wasn’t the right system for what I needed and that they just weren’t fixing the things I needed fixed. Instead they “fixed” the best part of the program, the timeline.
But amongst all of the things Apple bunged up here is the lack of a 30 day trial like all of their competitors have. I would download X and check it out but there is no way I’m spending $300 when I know it’s not going to do what I want.
As far as the previous comment that Avid is able to do much better but is afraid, I don’t buy it. I think what they previewed the other night is what people who do this for a living are looking for. 64 Bit, better performance, more hardware support, more codec support, more storage support, and hopefully a more flexible timeline etc.
They do have to be a bit more cautious obviously because they aren’t Apple with revenue from a hundred sources and so they do need to get the nod from their users because that’s where their money comes from. But I just don’t buy that there is some radically better way to edit that they’re holding back on. It’s all just sliding clips around in a timeline.
-
I was at Avid’s event at Warner Brothers in Burbank a few days ago. They reaffirmed my appreciation for the company and the quality of its flagship product, Media Composer. I don’t want or believe there exists the potential for a much better editing program. Just like a fine musical instrument, Avid’s software does and will continue to do exactly what I want it to. Along the way, it naturally has and will continue to adjust to new formats and third party products. But the core editing paradigm has remained and will continue to be the same, because it’s designed very well for efficiency and flexibility, and doesn’t need fixing.
-
Yeah I liked what saw. I’ve made the comment here a couple of times that I thought they should freshen up the UI. Not a total re-design but just modernize it a bit to give it a new look and feel. From what I saw that’s exactly what they did. Any rumors about when 6 will get to market?
-
[Michael Hancock] “If FCPX works for you and you can make money with it, do it. If you can’t, move to an NLE that does.
Or stay with what has been working for you for the past few years and wait for v.2
That said, Apple could have written a way to bring FCP7 projects forward into FCPX but didn’t. They could have included OMF export, XML import/export, multicam, etc…in the 1.0 release of FCPX and they didn’t. That’s make a lot of people sad too.”I tend to think that Apple had a lot of pressure to get out a new FCP so they put out v.1 now – where it was. They’ve already said most of the missing pro stuff is already in the works and will be out soon. 3rd party developers will catch up soon.
FCP X: Type A
[spell check OFF] -
Exellent points. I completely agree.
I tend to like a company that pushes the envelope and not worry about legacy issues. Apple does it all the time. It hurts a little during the transition, but in the end, the pay off is big.
FCP X: Type A
[spell check OFF] -
[Sean Thomas] “Or stay with what has been working for you for the past few years and wait for v.2”
A great option. But what if v2 of FCPX is still missing key features you depend on? Now you’re still using FCP7 and it’s been 5, 6 years since a major update? Software evolves pretty quickly these days. You should learn another program regardless.
[Sean Thomas] “I tend to think that Apple had a lot of pressure to get out a new FCP so they put out v.1 now – where it was. “
When they sat down to develop FCPX, they had a list of features that had to be in v01. XML, OMF, Multicam, etc… obviously weren’t on that list. It’s not like they started writing this software on a whim a couple months ago and someone said, “Hey guys, this is going to be released next week. Wrap up what you got!”. It was years in development, and they chose not to include certain things. Chose to. It’s not that they weren’t ready – they chose not to include them.
About 3rd parties – they’re relying on them to fill in the holes. There is a possibility that won’t happen, or the 3rd party options aren’t as robust and rock solid as they need to be. Something to consider.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Michael Hancock] “About 3rd parties – they’re relying on them to fill in the holes. There is a possibility that won’t happen, or the 3rd party options aren’t as robust and rock solid as they need to be. Something to consider.”
And on top of that it’s more money. Automatic Duck costs more than FCPX does by itself! The third party thing is lame. Yeah they have to do some stuff like video cards etc. but this is one of the main reasons people were getting very annoyed with Avid and Pro Tools for example. You had to keep spending more money to do basic stuff when another program included the same functions for free.
At this point there is no way FCX with Motion, and Compressor competes with CS 5.5. If I had to pick one or the other it would be an absolute no brainer.
-
[Craig Seeman] “It may be that Avid is risk averse. Apple is in a better position to take risks. It doesn’t mean Apple made a better decision it does mean the two companies have very different business models.”
I’ve heard different stories over the years. One that comes to mind is one that deals with politics.
Avid had bought SoftImage and with it the DS product. My understanding is that the engineers in Tewkesbury were none too happy about this arrangement. So the development of DS languished for many years, and any interesting hardware got moved over to the Media Composer. (i.e. Symphony Nitris) But fix the bugs in the DS’ 3D DVE? Why, there’s no money left in the budget.
While I’m no fan of FCPX in it’s current form, I can appreciate the intestinal fortitude required to sever the ties to the elder product and with that, any inclination a software engineer may have for self preservation. That cannot be easy.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up