-
“Apple and working with businesses” article
Just posted on their site. A little relevant to the debate:
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/technology/businesses-too-have-eyes-for-ipads-and-iphones.html
-
15 Replies
-
Apple can only grow on iPhones and iPads intertwined with the App Store / iCloud business model.
Thus, there’s no economic sense building a future around computers and niche markets anymore.
This article re-enforces that view when they are reaching for a much, much broader set of clients.Pro Apps were a sign of the times indeed, as they didn’t kill them because of licensing, as some have inferred.
They have killed them because they won’t run on iOS, which is going to be their only focus for now on.As long as this transitional period goes on, we’re having MacBooksPros and Imacs “Pros” which are able to run
production software and even other operational systems, all for the creative’s delight, but have fun while it lasts.Once the ipad catches up they will be smoked too.
Say good bye to the Mac brand? Say good bye to the Mac OS?
That is what it looks like, to me anyway mind you.Sure one can argue that an iPad along with a variety of peripheral devices could do a lot of creative work.
But thats only going to isolate its users even more in the future of a controlled ecosystem that Apple is working on.
It remains to be seen if that is going to be successful on the niche markets. But it could, it’s hype after all. -
Naw, it’s simpler than that.
A company succeed by meeting it’s customers needs.
If what you’re offering meets the needs of MORE customers than your competitors, then you typically do better than your competition.
FCP Legacy did precisely that. It satisfied MORE customers needs than did it’s competition over time. Not at first, and not in every case — but over all, it gauged the needs of the class of “people who want or need to edit video” better than any other solution and provided tools that satisfied them, one editor at a time. It started with the DV Firewire pioneers while ignoring the high-end crowd until it developed enough breath to take on the widest needs of the largest group of editors. Even inside that focus it didn’t do some major tasks like multi-cam until well after other tools did. But it STILL won in the end, because it kept growing in capability and when it did introduce it’s features, they were solidly design and satisfying for the intended audience.
It succeeded precisely because it had people successfully cutting wedding videos, corporate training films and feature films using the same tool, even tho each of those have significantly different budget and creative requirements.
In the long run, I’m contentedly betting FCP-X will do exactly the same thing.
We’ll see.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
Bill,
I don’t see how your comments relate to mine or the OP’s article, for that matter.
This comparison of former FCP 1 and Firewire with FCPX and current Apple tech is a total failure, IMHO. -
Okay.
If a post of mine, is, in fact a “total failure”, it won’t be the first time for me. (I’ve had my share along the way. )
You clearly didn’t understand the why or wherefore of what I wrote. If that’s universal, then everyone will forget about it or ignore it and go about their business.
It’s up to the readers to figure out if my push back for people to give FCP-X consideration as the start of a new way of looking at editing tasks built around where I think the industry is going is worth considering or not. And if the fact that I refer to the history I’ve lived through about how editing software typically evolves turns out not to be germane to your thinking, that’s cool too. Perhaps it will be useful for someone else. Or not.
Your post was largely about a FUTURE you envisioned, if I read it right. Why is it OK for you to refer to the future, but NOT OK for me to refer to the past?
But if you think I’ve got something all wrong, then for everyone’s benefit, don’t stop at just saying that my post is a “total failure” without saying WHY you hold that opinion. Tell us WHY you think history isn’t instructive in this case. That’s something that might be useful here.
Peace.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
Because the Apple of the early 2000s was a very different company than it is today. Apple invested in the creative video business because they saw it as a means to secure the platform and get people to adopt Mac hardware, not because it was something were were interested in per se. And even people who used to work for Apple said precisely that (Ron Brinkman). That simply isn’t necessary anymore as their business model has moved on to large, hip consumer crowds. Graphic designers, once Apple’s core business, hate glossy screens yet this is all Apple produces these days because these once vital markets are not vital anymore.
-
[Frank Gothmann] “Graphic designers, once Apple’s core business, hate glossy screens yet this is all Apple produces these days because these once vital markets are not vital anymore.”
Wow, does this mean that the 15″ MacBook Pro I ordered six months ago with it’s MATTE screen and that I’m doing all my FCP-X editing on is an apple mistake?
I have to admit that I was completely surprised when I discovered that my laptop running FCP-X was actually a BETTER tool for general purpose editing than my MacPro with Cinema display. It was totally counter-intuitive. But it was also TRUE for me. When I fire up my old MacPro/30″ Cinema Display system with Legacy, I actually spend most of my time cringing at how inefficient it feels.
That could absolutely be something you haven’t experienced yet – and its also perfectly possible that your fire-breathing desktop system may run rings around my laptop.
But the larger point is that *I* couldn’t depend on my laptop as my primary edit system six months ago.
Now with X and a firewire drive, I can.
That presents an advancement for me. One that’s probably not significant for someone being paid to sit at an edit desk in someone else’s enterprise – but for someone like me, it means the next time I fly off to San Diego to shoot for one of my west coast clients, the hotel room will not only be the shooting base, but the edit suite as well.
It’s a change I embrace, because frankly, an editing system that goes where I do, is more flexible and enjoyable to operate than one that requires me to sit where it’s installed.
Simple as that.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
[Bill Davis] “But if you think I’ve got something all wrong, then for everyone’s benefit, don’t stop at just saying that my post is a “total failure” without saying WHY you hold that opinion. Tell us WHY you think history isn’t instructive in this case. That’s something that might be useful here.”
First, this article is about a general view of Apple in businesses.Not only “people who want or need to edit video”.
Second, Apple jumped on software production to reiterate its relative fame in creative digital work.
That was print publishing, sound engineering, visual effects and video editing as well.
They happened to be a somewhat successful hardware platform that those softwares were running onto.
So it was natural for them to expand their business right there. And so they did, apparently it worked well for them.That, of course, was another decade, with different aspects and different business prospects than today.
Now, with the iThings and being a mega company they were not back then, I don’t see FCP X as a game changer, at all. It is merely a transitional product that will serve only those who embrace a simpler computing experience.
I’m not sure if it will represent the same as several former software products of them have done since that time. -
Yet they made Final Cut Pro X, spent a decade writing code from scratch and planning and executing pro-level functionality (4k editing,advanced organization,64bit etc). Why would they go to all that trouble if they intend to drop it later anyways?
Steve Jobs is an artist first, a CEO second. He made products that he wanted to use…not because it will make money. Its one of his last words on his autobigraphy, that the main motivation for making products should be to make great products, not great profit. Profit is important, yes, but it should not be the motivation. Cause if its profit that’s the focus when you start up a product, it would be poop for sure.
He made sure the executives he placed at the top understood that and hoped they continue it. Businesses are now using more and more of their products cause their products are great.
And I think same can be applied to FCPX. He hated it when people called the iPad a “consumption dvice” and exibits no regrad for creation. That’s why he spent the next year making sure the iPad 2 would be powerful enough and launch with tablet versions of iMovie and Garageband (also in the book). He always prided himself of having his products be used for creativity and was really passionate about it. That’s why all this talk about him not caring anymore about the pro market is all bullshit to me. As an artist, that’s the last thing he would ever think of doing. he never cared much about money..all he wanted was to make great products.
Quobetah
New=Better -
You know perfectly well that the matte screen on your laptop is a bto item and not something that comes standard.
Good for you that you are happy with FCP-X and your newly found ability to work with a laptop in a hotel room, your flight or an an airport toilet. While I wouldn’t want to work like that for the life of me, so be it. Unfortunatly you don’t get the point. Nobody wants to deny your ability to do that and nobody wants you do work differently if you prefer it that way. More power to you.The issue is that the people who DON’T want or can’t work that way, who need a fire-breathing desktop machine and toolset to get the job done are not able to do that anymore (or almost once the tower dies). And everbody who doesn’t want to follow along with you into this brave new world just doesn’t get it, right? -
The most ludicrous thing of recent weeks is people starting to call Jobs an artist. Get real and grow up!
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up