10 Things Steve Martin wants in FCP X

[Bill Davis]

[David Mathis] “Bill, curious to hear your thoughts on the recent acquisition of Fusion by Blackmagic Design. This is of great interest to me.”

I don’t work in the MoGraph space so I know little about it.

I will say that I’ve had a few “backstage” chats with Grant Petty and have conducted two “on the record” interviews with Dan May of BlackMagic and my take is that they’re both extremely capable guys running a very smart and forward looking operation.

If they feel Fusion fits into their long range plan, it’s for a darn good set of reasons. So I think your hope in it’s development is well placed.

I’m also on record as saying that in the area where I have more familiarity – after a very close look at the URSA technology, I think the’ve decoded some of the larger issues with the current generation of under-engineered large sensor cameras and that their products are being built around concepts that may well contribute to longer serviceable life than some of their competitors. That kinda flies in the face of the “obsolete after a few years” approach other manufacturers seem content to live with.

But I have no knowledge beyond my “on the record” discussions. Past that, I’m guessing like anyone else.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

[Paul Neumann]

Here’s a real world anecdote from a bigger perspective.

We recently sold a software product (release automation/continuous integration) into a BIG european financial outfit. They are really big on open source for their developers and that’s cool ’cause we design our stuff to work with all that. Price tag was 400,000 euros. They were willing to pay this because our stuff does things that can’t be found in open source. But they had no problem in saying in 3 years they will not renew if the same functionality CAN be found in open source. So our task is to innovate even more so that we stay ahead of what they can get for free and earn another 400,000 from them (hopefully even more).

So there’s another example of the customer forcing the innovation. Yes, $50 a month is more than most one time price points, but to keep getting that $50 a month Adobe has to keep getting better. And changing the way they develop everything is what’s letting them do that.

[Bill Davis]

[tony west] “Apple, to me, sits in the best seat to expand.

They made this product powerful enough to do top work yet user friendly enough to expand and combine that with how affordable it is and no subscription………

As the Late great Jack Buck said “That’s a Winner””

Agreeing with Tony about all of this.

Long time FCP Legacy advocate and pro Tom Wolsky (who noted in passing something about being “banned” from Cow participation a while back???) said on another board I monitor that he’s been doing a lot of FCP X work consulting with large scale news gathering organizations as they are integrating X into their workflows. I’d imagine that a station or newspaper sending a “multimedia journalist” out with a camcorder and iMovie might make HUGE sense, particularly if that comes back to the newsroom and gets “finished” on a more robust FCP X system. And if that journo up-trains to X, they can sit in the hotel and file content directly to the newspaper web presence seamlessly.

That just makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

[Bill Davis]

John,

I presume you tried keeping a broadcast safe adjustment layer in a project somewhere and applying that before you output?

Is that just too “workaround”?

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

[John Davidson]

We exported 4 versions of a spot for air. The editor forgot to add broadcast safe filter to one of them and it turned out to be 4% over levels on a bloom transition. The network caught and clamped it but since this is we always add broadcast safe filters ‘just to be safe’, why not have it as a permanent, built-in option?

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.

[Andrew Kimery]

[Walter Soyka] “I like this idea, but I also fear that SOX makes the accounting for this unfavorable. Your subscription is now no longer really a subscription, but rather the sale of a product spread out over 4 years with a big chunk of value realization at the end. “

The legal side of it might be sticky but I’m not an export at SOX. Is this that much different than, say, a newspaper or magazine subscription (by that I mean they don’t come and take away all of your back issues when you cancel)? If a separate purchase is necessary for accounting reasons Adobe could also just sell the perp license for $20 or something but that option is only available to users that have four years of continuous Adobe CC subscription.

[Walter Soyka] “But it’s not the same as CC, and I don’t think it dodges the duality of designing for and marketing to new users versus existing users as I’ve outline above.”

Right, I wasn’t meaning to say Avid’s maintenance plan is the exact same as CC, but it’s two different paths to a similar goal. Both companies want more predictable revenue and both companies want to be able to quickly add features w/o worrying about SOX. While Avid’s plans offer more options for users (including some things people wish Adobe offered), it’s also is a lot more confusing because the subscription gets you things that the perp license + maintenance contract does not.

[Bill Davis]

[Walter Soyka] “A non-CC subscriber asking for perpetual licenses back is like a non-FCPX user asking for tracks back. If you do it, you damage what made CC/FCPX unique and valuable to its paying customers in the first place.”

But Walter,

If they can sustain software development for their photography customers outside the rental model, then explain to me why exactly that can’t sustain development of their other tools in the same fashion?

Seems to me that thy’ve made a specific decision that the photography customers are simply too important to risk alienating – while the rest of their customer bases, not so much.

I’m very open to the possibility that I’m completely miss-reading this. But right now, it looks like they’re unwilling to risk revolt amongst their largest customer group (photography) and very willing to risk it with all their other customer constituencies.

It’s puzzling.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

[Bill Davis]

[Andrew Kimery] “For example, after 4 years of uninterrupted subscription to Adobe CC users will get a perpetual license to the most current version of all the Adobe CC apps at that time”

If that happens, watch Wall Street RUN from the stock.

I’ve worked with upper level corporate executives for much of my career. A MASSIVE amount of their time is spent obsessing about share price.

And that in turn means that any decision that affects future quarterly profits in a negative fashion is typically anathema to them.

So any type of end point on a perpetual monthly revenue a total non-starter, IMO.

Its the same reason I believe they’re so rigid about the rental model. It’s locking in future returns in exchange for development that’s largely already been done and paid for. (the code in place when they switched to rental from sales). Making something ONCE and getting income from the creation effort over and over again with nothing but incremental improvement costs across it’s lifespan is a WAY better revenue model than unit sales. Period.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

[Walter Soyka]

[Bill Davis] “If they can sustain software development for their photography customers outside the rental model, then explain to me why exactly that can’t sustain development of their other tools in the same fashion?”

Lightroom seems to operate entirely outside the CC development model. I don’t think I get anything extra in Lightroom as a CC subscriber than you would get as a Lightroom PL customer.

Could Adobe have continued developing and selling Creative Suite instead of transitioning to CC? Sure, why not? Could Apple have continued developing and selling FCP7 instead of transitioning to FCPX? Sure, why not?

When Apple makes a big change that opens up new opportunities for them and offers new workflows for their customers, we call it “innovative” and we call it a “game changer.” When Adobe does it (even though they are still actively selling CS6 if you want to buy it), it’s “alienating” and “risking revolt.”

I know a lot of people here think it’s hot air, but I believe that this is a sensible vision for the future:
https://www.adobe.com/cc/letter.html

I think it’s the same kind of vision that drives Apple to create “innovative” and “game changing” products like FCPX.

Like FCPX, CC is not all roses. There are real disadvantages to CC versus CS. But also like FCPX, there just might be a bigger picture to CC if you are willing to set aside your preconceptions.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]

[Andrew Kimery]

[Bill Davis] “If that happens, watch Wall Street RUN from the stock.
“

If Adobe offers an off ramp it will be because the subscriber numbers aren’t being met and the stock price is going down.

Adobe’s net income has dropped since they went subscription only (and is still trending down) but Wall Street is giving them the benefit of the doubt that after a rough transition period it will be onwards and upwards. If the onwards and upwards doesn’t happen fast enough the stock price will start falling.

Some analysts think that those most willing to signup up for CC have already done so for the most part, so Adobe has to try and wait out the more reluctant users or sweeten the pot. Making the Photoshop + Lightroom bundle for $9.99/mo is already proof that Adobe is willing to make concessions (albeit to the largest and most mobile segment of its user base). I would love for Adobe to make more bundles for lower prices (like in the CS days) as opposed to the everything and the kitchen sink approach they are taking currently.

My armchair prediction is that Adobe will stick to its guns through 2015 but if the numbers still don’t look good we’ll see them sweetening the pot in 2016.