-
Apple Patents
-
[Michael Gissing] “I stand by my original statement that patents stifle real collaboration.”
I’ve been pretty outspoken in this thread against software patents, so on that principle we seem to agree.
[Michael Gissing] “It also strikes me as problematic to a third party plugin developer to be able to handle such workflows. I already have issues with plugins and fonts when projects are moved from one FCP system to mine. But the more an NLE relies on third party developers then the harder it will be to create stability. In the long run inter software collaboration is important so that external interchange formats like XML & OMF become less necessary.”
The only way for interchange formats like XML or OMF to be made obsolete would be for some kind of open common spec for project files across vendors, and I’m pretty comfortable predicting that will never happen. It isn’t a matter of technical capability, it is a matter of practicality and durability of the dev work. Interchange formats, especially open plain text like XML, are more portable and are a more practical meet-in-the-middle approach to integrating disparate tools.
[Michael Gissing] “Apple are clearly signalling that collaboration is going to be within their eco system and anyone trying to emulate or collaborate across other NLE & post systems will be discouraged by having to comply and pay royalties to Apple.”
I think you’re missing a key distinction in this patent, which is that this is a method for more than one user to interact with a project simultaneously. It isn’t going to stop anyone from building collaboration features like we’ve had for over a decade with interchange formats for sharing work across tools, albeit asynchronously (which for all we know is already patented by someone else anyway). Apple has long supported asynchronous interchange via XML, which I would argue is the most open and accessible format for a third party to embrace. It is no less a sin for Pro Tools to not import FCPXML than it is for FCPX to not export OMF.
Patent or no patent, there isn’t a way for a third party to implement live collaborative editing within FCP. There would need to be an API and there isn’t, so your point is moot. The same is true for any other NLE save for perhaps Lightworks by virtue of being open source. But even being open source doesn’t guarantee that live multi-user collaboration is doable. You need to have your project data stored in a way that multiple users can simultaneously interact with it without stomping on each other. A flat project file simply won’t permit that, you’d need the data in a DBMS.
[Michael Gissing] “It would be nice if a concept like dynamic linking between Adobe software could be applied to someone using AE generated graphics elements in a FCPX edit with audio being done on a Fairlight or ProTools. This patent discourages this sort of thinking.”
That would be nice! What you’re describing is an open API for these tools, and one already exists at least for AE (though it may not permit the seamlessness Adobe achieves with Dynamic Link among its own apps). Even with APIs available, in your example Apple would still need to implement their side of the equation (and they don’t even do it for their own motion graphics app). This patent probably does throw cold water on the dream of parallel Post process, where Sound doesn’t have to wait for Picture and Online doesn’t have to wait for Graphics, but I’d say that doesn’t happen in a world without patents anyway. I don’t think a single vendor could realistically pull off that kind of thing among its own apps, let alone several vendors all pulling in different directions.
Best,
Andy -
Well said, sir.
-
[Bill Davis] “And happily, we’ll eventually know the truth as X develops.”
So, how many years longer will you go on repeating that?
[Bill Davis] “I’ve already made the commitment to X and all my time is devoted to trying to keep learning more about how it works right now!”
That you and a few others have been devoted to that pursuit for 13-plus months at this point says little for the ease of use of FCPX, which was supposedly its “reason d’être.” So much for finding the truth…
-
Remember that Apple uses its software to sell hardware.
They would have no problem with the next versions of Adobe Audition, Avid ScriptSync and Autodesk Smoke acting as collaborator applications with Final Cut Pro X.1 database projects. As long as the new versions of those apps with this ability could only be running on Apple hardware.*
Then the FCP X(as a media collaboration operating system)-compatible apps will sell more Apple hardware, and everyone gets rich…
*Windows, open source and Android versions of these tools would have to find a different core app to maintain the host project database. Of the As, only Adobe seems to have the resources to engineer such a new platform.
___________________________________________________
Alexandre Gollner,
Editor, Zone 2-North West, Londonalex4d on twitter, facebook, .wordpress.com & .com
-
[David Roth Weiss] “[Bill Davis] “And happily, we’ll eventually know the truth as X develops.”
So, how many years longer will you go on repeating that?”
How about precisely the same amount of time it took Legacy to grow from a silly experiment that didn’t even support JKL transport conventions – into something professionally useful?
IIRC it was Version 3 of Legacy that was the tipping point where “serious” editors started looking at it?
I think that was about 3 years of development between FCP Intro and “Rules of Attraction.” So that seems a fair basic development period to me.
[David Roth Weiss] “That you and a few others have been devoted to that pursuit for 13-plus months at this point says little for the ease of use of FCPX, which was supposedly its “reason d’être.” So much for finding the truth…”
Well, I was able to cut and sell work done on it after about 30 days and have continued to do so since. (Around 50 finished programs to this point)
I guess you’re a lot smarter than me because I seem to keep learning and growing and discovering new things about X every week because my particular work don’t force me into some areas of the program commonly.For example, I STILL haven’t really explored Roles yet since the kind of work I do generally doesn’t require that kind of complex audio mixing. (My programs are generally designed around MOS video mixed with interviews and actualities – sot they focus nearly exclusively on traditional “narration plus music” sound constructs that really don’t benefit from complex multi-track mixes.
That might change next week, and if so, I’ll dive into roles. But its a good example of why it’s perfectly rational for someone to work with a tool for a long time and still keep growing in their understanding of it over time.
I suppose if I’d been able to devote all my time to exploration, rather than so much time on the silly stuff like running a business, shoot prep and client service – and more on constant software exploration, I’d be farther along, but it’s an OK trade in my book.
BTW, David, I though you’d left editing for sales months ago?
Why are you even concerned about this little corner of the world? Aren’t you swamped helping people migrate from FCP to the new ProMax solutions?
What keeps YOU coming back here if X is truly the train wreck you often imply? And what does it say that you keep driving by the scene of what you keep arguing is a total disaster?
Having trouble moving on?
“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
-
[Andrew Richards] “I expected better…”
Apparently, I not only referred to you by your last name, but I couldn’t get your last name correct either. Sorry.
Andrew,
Both your post (links) were very interesting. I can understand the concern over issuing patents that are too broad in scope. Perhaps software patents are more difficult to define than hardware patents. But I’m not sure I would go so far as to say there shouldn’t be software patents.
If a software engineer comes up with a great (unique) idea, they should be able to patent their idea. So they can protect their idea and perhaps launch a start up company based on their idea.
Are there too many patents? I don’t know how to answer that question. Do people or companies benefit from patents? I think so.
Do consumers benefit from patents. I think that’s a harder question to answer. I think consumers benefit from competition. Having many choices. If only one company sells the iPhone, only the company benefits. The consumers are stuck having to pay whatever cost that company chooses.
If one company creates a better software mouse trap, do consumers benefit if all companies have the right to build that mouse trap? Or would consumers benefit if the other companies have to figure out how to build an even better mouse trap? Which process produces more competition? Which process produces more innovation?
I don’t think I know the correct answers. But I think people should have the ability to protect their ideas, at least for some brief period of time.
Kevin
-
[Kevin Patrick] “Are there too many patents? I don’t know how to answer that question. Do people or companies benefit from patents? I think so.”
I think you have to go back to the original intent of copyright and patent law in general. It was intended to protect the original creator of intellectual property for a specific length of time. This was to give them breathing room to develop and profit from the idea or product. However, the second part of that was that they should also have a limited term, after which the IP became public domain. This was intended to encourage innovation by others building upon the foundation of the original copyrighted or patented item. This original legal intent would seem to benefit both the producer and consumer of the product or idea. I think that we’ve gotten away from those principles.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Nicholas Kleczewski] “Inarguably one of the absolute biggest things it still completely lacks whatsoever is use in any kind of multi-user, collaborative environment. Until it gets that right, its useless to any kind of serious post house, it simply doesn’t work in that environment… yet.”
Hey, I’ll argue it! How is FCPX any less capable of supporting a multi-user environment than FCP Legend? The only substantive difference I can see is that FCP Legend let you arbitrarily place project files and scratch disks (which certainly is a double-edged sword). If this is about OMFs, EDLs, or legacy XMEML support in-app, I’ll shut up, but if this is about multiple FCP users working collaboratively with the same media and round-tripping work with other apps, FCPX is equipped for that today.
[Nicholas Kleczewski] “This patent clearly is the intentionally ambiguous legal jargon that addresses that major gaping whole. What it will become, who knows.”
This patent describes collaborative editing like no ones else has; live, multi-user concurrent work on a single project across distances without even requiring all parties have the app. Will they build it? Who knows, indeed.
Best,
Andy -
[Andrew Richards] “This patent describes collaborative editing like no ones else has; live, multi-user concurrent work on a single project across distances without even requiring all parties have the app. Will they build it? Who knows, indeed.”
I think a lot of people are reading way more into this patent than may be the case. Although FCP was used in the examples, there’s really nothing in this patent that specifically ties it to FCP X or any other pro software. It could just as easily be applied to some plan for iCloud and consumers.
A couple of years ago Apple was granted a patent for UI customization using FCP “legacy” examples in the submission. It included all sorts of user-customizable, colored and semi-transparent, UI elements and so on. This hasn’t made it into any Apple software – at least not in the way we might have inferred from the patent. So I think it’s incredibly premature to interpret this particular patent in any way that sheds light on the future of FCP X.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up