-
Apple’s ProApps- not a money loosing scenario
-
[Marcus Moore] “So let’s spitball for the last 12 months (and yes I’ll be generous)
500,000 FCPX = $150 mil
400,000 Logic = $80 mil
300,000 Aperture = $24 mil
150,000 Compressor = 7.5mil
150,000 Motion = 7.5milTOTAL: $269million”
Even if you sold all 1 million seats this past year, that still wouldn’t get you to $2 billion. However, I’m assuming that what we’re talking about with the $2 billion is the entire app ecosystem, of which FCPX is a part. I don’t know that the pro apps really generate or detract much from Apple’s bottom line either way.
Bill Davis and I were discussing this same thing a few weeks ago in regards to Aperture:
[Ryan Holmes] “[Bill Davis] “What business or structural negative should Apple be worried in the ProApps business model?”
I don’t know that there is a structural negative yet for Apple. At some point, they may deem the cost of R&D, programming, testing, etc. as a waste of talented programmers that could be better utilized on iOS or Mac OS. Any reports that I can find don’t breakout Pro Apps downloads as their own line. So we can’t really be sure. But even if we grant 1 million seats of FCP X, and we grant that they sold all those seats last quarter in 2014 (which they didn’t, they’re spread out over 3 years) that’s still only $300 million in revenue (not profit) from FCP X. Q2 2014 Apple posted $45.6 billion in revenue. So the FCP X aspect is really inconsequential in Apple’s ecosystem, especially once you spread that revenue out over 3+ years.”
Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost -
[Jamie Franklin] “There is when the professionals tool is fundamentally broken in favour of a more easily digestible (sellable) – grandma milly and students can learn in an hour – gui.”
The only thing that makes it more sellable is the price. Have you looked at the manual of a consumer level gear. It ain’t more easily digestible. To compensate there is auto everything – which is hit or miss.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being able to learn basic edits within minutes (particularly with someone showing you how).
There is something wrong with renaming these operations in the belief that it makes it easier to learn, which it dos not.
For the pro, even more so than for the casual user, ergonomics is paramount. Nothing wrong with basic edits being, well, basic. Missing features does make it the wrong tool for anyone needing those features, pros or not.
A professional camera/lens has an optical ring you turn to adjust the aperture/F-stop. Any consumer can turn it and learn what it does in seconds. Try to do the same with a mini-cam and you need to go into the menus or some other read the manual to figure it out digital version of this basic function. Workaround: auto exposure. A feature that was later added to many pro cams cause the technology evolved. It doesn’t replace the wheel, it’s just an option. Even more so with auto-focus. Some shots it does the job and some it don’t.
Being a professional tool means it meets the needs of pros. It rarely hurts a consumer to have a professional tool – they tend to last longer, have the ability to move up a notch, helps you learn professional practices, gets better results more easily (not less). Nothing complex about a well balanced hammer or knife, a tripod with a smooth operating fluid head, a camera with xlr plugs vs mini-plugs, SDI vs HDMI.
Pros often need to quickly produce product where as an amateur may take as long as it takes to get it right.
All great pros started off as unpaid beginners. And we all get old if we don’t die trying.
Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.
-
It’s nice that we’re back here again, I miss the “it’s not Pro” debates.
Steve Connor
Mellowing slowly -
[Jamie Franklin] “Randy Ubiculous said he wanted an editor his grandma could cut her vacation clips on…thats what I was referencing.
Given the imovie on roids appeal, it is easier to learn.”
Fair enough. Though he was talking about iMovie, and that’s what he got. But, other than some concepts, names and vague UI similarities, iMovie and X aren’t the same thing. Or weren’t. The newest version of iMovie was built on FCP X guts. But there’s already a contentious thread or 2 about that. 🙂
And saying “some of us feel it’s broken” is fine. Some of us don’t feel that way. Thus, this never ending debate. Maybe someone from Adobe will chime in here and set us all straight…
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Steve Connor] “It’s nice that we’re back here again, I miss the “it’s not Pro” debates.”
I just commented today in the Adobe Creative Cloud: The Debate forum how I thought this forum pivoted after about a year away from all the petition signing, my life is over, the sky is falling, this isn’t pro software to a debate more about the uses of the software and the nature of Apple itself. Apparently, I spoke too soon…. 🙂
Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost -
[Steve Connor] “It’s nice that we’re back here again, I miss the “it’s not Pro” debates.”
lol. The only true professional software is Resolve 11. It has amazing Color correction, an edit page that looks like FCP X and uses some of the same concepts, plus it has professional grade tracks that you can patch and stuff like other NLE’s. I’ve got my copy, how ’bout everyone else? Let’s all switch to R11! Then we can fan out to all the other forums and convince them of the error of their ways. It’ll be awesome!
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
Most of these are old arguments but necessary to understand the full context of issues still alive. But I will stand by my argument that they broke a feature that at its heart, and the fundamental truth of an editor – an open timeline – is why many left and are happy they did.
[Craig Alan] “helps you learn professional practices,”
And yet…I think the whole initial release of X kinda contradicts this: There is something wrong with renaming these operations in the belief that it makes it easier to learn, which it dos not.
-
[Jamie Franklin] “they broke a feature that at its heart, and the fundamental truth of an editor – an open timeline “
How is the X timeline not open? Serious question… To me, if anything it’s more open.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
The editor was still at its heart an open timeline.
-
Well the original debate was whether FCP legacy was professional. Looking back the answer turned out to be that AVID was only for pros cause no one could afford the beast unless they worked at a high-end production facility. FCP took a couple of years but was adopted by pros and its price point changed the industry. FCP X is clearly being used by pros but like legacy rarely in the high-end production facilities. So far.
The other and related aspect of this debate is what is a professional tool.
My take: it’s a tool that gets the job done. Different jobs need different tools. Different folk like different brands.
To say FCP X is broken is vague. It doesn’t work for _______?
Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up