-
Apple, FCPX and Secrecy – RedShark “Guest Author”
-
[Scott Witthaus] “Quite a reach here, Oliver.”
No reach at all. I’ve been to more than my share of NAB presentations that were simply a canned presentation made for the benefit of the audience. Don’t stray from the script or the whole app will blow up. It’s called marketing.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
So you’re saying 90 days from private demo to ship date is the industry standard timeframe. I’ll bet that’s news to a lot of developers.
Noah
FCPWORKS – FCPX Workflow
FCP Exchange – FCPX Workshops
XinTwo – FCPX Training -
[Noah Kadner] “So you’re saying 90 days from private demo to ship date is the industry standard timeframe. I’ll bet that’s news to a lot of developers.”
Wasn’t the meeting where the demo happened open to the public though? Does having to sign an NDA make it a private demo? I’m genuinely curious where the line is.
I think Oliver’s POV is based in what Tim talked about in his first post about publicly traded companies having to release w/in the quarter if they talk about an upgrade to an existing product or they could run afoul of SOX. This probably doesn’t apply to Apple in this case since I doubt they have to worry much about when they ‘recognize’ the revenue from FCP X given the boatloads of cash they make from other parts of the company.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “I think Oliver’s POV is based in what Tim talked about in his first post about publicly traded companies having to release w/in the quarter if they talk about an upgrade to an existing product or they could run afoul of SOX.
This.
And it’s not that publicly traded companies CAN’T take longer than 90 days. If they slip, they just have to withhold that dollar amount equivalent to the value of that feature set until they DO ship. People do it all the time, but this the very, very specific reason why “shipping in June” has been a mantra at NAB for decades, going back long before SOX. It was sound accounting practice, even before SOX gave it teeth.
[Andrew Kimery] “This probably doesn’t apply to Apple in this case since I doubt they have to worry much about when they ‘recognize’ the revenue from FCP X given the boatloads of cash they make from other parts of the company.”
For current customers, there’s NO revenue to recognize from future-facing announcements, because there’s no revenue coming. Hence my prediction from the beginning that there will never be an upgrade charge for FCPX. Bookkeeping stays nice and simple, and development schedules aren’t disrupted by arbitrary business cycles.
And yeah, even if Apple were to embark on a plan that required unrecognized revenue: for the amount to be withheld from sales based on promised features, the amount is trivial. That is, say the promised feature is for support for the Kellog’s Frosted Codec Camera — Apple would only have to withhold the value of that single codec, from within an already trivial fee.
But why put yourself through that kind of agony? Compliance costs generally the same for a trivial amount of money as it does for a massive amount of money, because the compliance process is irrespective of the dollar amount. Easy enough to just avoid it by having NDA briefings.
[Noah Kadner] “We can only offer coffee and water. “
That’s plenty. Hydration is important. 🙂
-
[Noah Kadner] “I’ll bet that’s news to a lot of developers.”
I’m just saying that based on my experience as a member of the press, beta tester, and high-value customer with some companies, when you show something in a preview, the actual release is usually within a quarter period. That’s been true in the past of Avid, Adobe, Blackmagic Design, and even Apple, to name a few. No hard and fast rules, just common practice. Obviously Apple can do whatever they want, considering this was just an engineering preview.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Scott Witthaus] “Adobe got you on the payroll”
Naw – just a slow Saturday. Besides, Timmy needs the page views 🙂
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Andrew Kimery] ” Who knows, maybe some of the X team go pulled to work on Sierra and that’s why X hasn’t gotten much love lately.”
That’s one I haven’t heard in a long time since the Leopard days.
-
[Tim Wilson] “That is, you can’t “recognize the revenue” of a sale until the transaction is completed: the point at which customers HAVE this product or feature you “sold” them.”
This is right on.
The way the SEC rules changed back in 2009 and were applied in 2011, if the company both creates the hardware and the software as Apple does, then you can update at will. That meant goodbye nickel and dimeing for every new ‘feature’. OS updates can be ‘free’.
This is how BMD gets around it too. Resolve is a ‘feature’ of the ultrastudios and other i/o products.
By that logic then, that would mean that any Apple made software that is only licensed to work on a mac that you own are value added features to the hardware. Technically you don’t own FCP X, it’s just licensed to you to use on a compatible mac that you own. (I read the terms.)
What I find really interesting is the other two “A” NLE companies have turned the idea of paying a monthly fee as a form of peace of mind that you will keep getting new ‘stuff’ on a regular basis. That they are working away to earn that money.
Because that raises the uncertainty needle every time there are longer gaps between updates, especially when it comes to the pro side of things.
It’s the same with hardware, Intel, nvidia and AMD have all said they are slowing down and have added a year to release cycles. Since Apple switched to Intel chips that they usually refresh hardware when significant updates are possible.
The greatest win Adobe and Avid have is convincing customers that they are better off for paying forever for their products because they promise not to abandon their users.
That’s more like ‘protection money’.
-
[Darren Roark] “This is how BMD gets around it too. Resolve is a ‘feature’ of the ultrastudios and other i/o products. “
I’m not sure that’s applicable, because BMD is not a publicly traded company in the US.
[Darren Roark] “Technically you don’t own FCP X, it’s just licensed to you to use on a compatible mac that you own. (I read the terms.)”
You don’t own any software. It is all licensed to you. Generally all software EULAs read the same. This is hardly unique to Apple.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Darren Roark] “This is how BMD gets around it too. Resolve is a ‘feature’ of the ultrastudios and other i/o products. “
BMD is also a private company and private companies don’t have to follow the same rules the publicly traded companies do (rules set to protect the investors). All the SOX stuff, for example, only applies to publicly traded companies AFAIK.
[Darren Roark] “What I find really interesting is the other two “A” NLE companies have turned the idea of paying a monthly fee as a form of peace of mind that you will keep getting new ‘stuff’ on a regular basis. That they are working away to earn that money. “
Avid isn’t subscription only.
[Darren Roark] “The greatest win Adobe and Avid have is convincing customers that they are better off for paying forever for their products because they promise not to abandon their users. “
You don’t pay forever you only pay as long as you need them. Plus the software game has changed into a race to the bottom thanks in large part to Apple. Giving away OS X and many of the polices they set in their iOS and Mac App stores (which finally they are changing some of them) has forced others to follow suit and it’s devalued software. In the pro space BM is part of this too with Resolve. For example, SG is basically dead in large part because how do you compete with a free version of Resolve that functions 97% like the paid version (which itself is only $999)?
As I’ve mentioned multiple times before, it’s not a coincidence that freemium, ad supported, subscription, etc., business models for software have up-ended the traditional “buy it, then buy the next version at a discount” business model over the last 5-6 years. Even PC and console video games are starting to edge away from it towards free to play games that are support by micro-transactions or ‘platform’ games where you buy it once, and then upgrades to it come out (as opposed to a whole new version/sequel two years later). Even MS is moving into the subscription and the hardware business. The old way of just selling a perpetual license for a piece of software is dying. Either you subsidize your software with hardware sales or you find an alternative business model like freemium, ad supported or subscription. I mean, in what way could Adobe compete the ‘$299 and free upgrades for life’ business model Apple has with X?
-Andrew
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up