-
Automatic Duck going to Adobe
-
[Craig Seeman] “I’ve been wondering if there’s about to be low cost alternatives specific to FCPXML support”
Let’s hope that’s the case – better still if Apple realize they should have bundled it into FCPX in the first place 😉
I do find it curious that they have put all their eggs into the third party basket and haven’t countenanced the possibility that third parties might let them down – if that is indeed what is happening here.
At the very least it is hard to imagine Adobe wanting to do a great deal to help support FCPX in the long term, philanthropic as they no doubt are.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
Perhaps Apple will finally go ahead and buy Adobe instead 🙂
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
[Steve Connor] ” Perhaps Apple will finally go ahead and buy Adobe instead :)”
What I can’t understand is why Apple didn’t buy Automatic Duck with just a little of the small change that fell down the back of the sofa 😉
Would have made far more sense …
As it is, Adobe have made them look just a little foolish – and I can’t help feeling amused at this point.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “I do find it curious that they have put all their eggs into the third party basket and haven’t countenanced the possibility that third parties might let them down – if that is indeed what is happening here.”
In fact relying on third party support fits in with the broader Apple business model/ecosystem. iPhone, iTunes, MacApp Store, etc all live or die with third party support. That also doesn’t mean Apple’s system is “open.” Apple provides very tightly controlled “hooks” so developers fit a model that Apple wants them to.
Given what I see happening with Thunderbolt on the hardware side and given the apparent willingness for plugin developers to support FCPX (once they get all the APIs), I see this as promising.
Of course third party developers can let Apple down. I find Apple’s communication to such developers in many ways crucial to a useful FCPX so that is a concern.
The longer developers have to wait for APIs, the harder it is to implement custom interfaces for plugins, the greater the likelihood that developers will look to different business models not so reliant on Apple products.
If FCPX offers a potentially large market for developers and those developers are given the technical means to support it, that will bode well for FCPX.
[Simon Ubsdell] “Let’s hope that’s the case – better still if Apple realize they should have bundled it into FCPX in the first place 😉 “
But that can be a problem as much as a benefit. It may mean limited flexibility. It may mean limiting the lucrative third party market. It may mean limiting the extensibility of FCPX and what I suspect will be an interesting ecosystem.
-
[Craig Seeman] “I find Apple’s communication to such developers in many ways crucial to a useful FCPX so that is a concern.”
It’s pretty obvious that Apple’s commuincation with a third party was woefully inadequate in this case – they would hardly have touted AD so heavily in the fabled FAQ is they’d had any idea this was going to happen. So I’d say they were exposing a weakness here.
It’s hardly the same case as their broader business model where the precise nature of the 100,000 individual apps matters not one jot – here you’re talking about a third party product that is crucial to the success of FCPX in the professional market. Indeed, FCPX is simply unusable at the top end of that market without OMF support …
[Craig Seeman] “It may mean limiting the extensibility of FCPX and what I suspect will be an interesting ecosystem.”
I don’t really understand this argument – are you saying that incorporating OMF/AAF support into FCPX would hobble the ecosystem? It’s a very big deal for people like me, but in the broader scheme of things it’s an issue that is utterly nugatory. I don’t see how a implementing a “basic” feature like this (and everything we have come to know about NLE’s tells us it is indeed basic) would have any implications for anything else, but I’m probably missing your point …
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “It’s pretty obvious that Apple’s commuincation with a third party was woefully inadequate in this case – they would hardly have touted AD so heavily in the fabled FAQ is they’d had any idea this was going to happen. So I’d say they were exposing a weakness here. “
I’m also concerned but for all we know there was communication that did happen which resulted in the Duck walking the way it did.
It may well be that AD saw they were going to lose some exclusivity and didn’t want to move into a third party price war.
There are some other “odd” relationships going on. One example might be NoiseIndustries vs CoreMelt. NI apparently had some “inside” advantage.
I think there’s more going on than meets the eye with some third party developers. AD may have just made a very sensible business decision precisely because it became clear they were not going to be an advantageous position given moves Apple might be making. We don’t know but I’m sure we’ll at least see the results of this maneuvering.
-
Where does it talk about anything being pulled from the market?
In fact it clearly states that there will be on going work for other partners. “Harry Plate (my Dad and the co-Founder of Automatic Duck) will be assisting with the technology integration while continuing to focus on supporting other Automatic Duck partners.”
-
[Michael Sacci] “Where does it talk about anything being pulled from the market?
In fact it clearly states that there will be on going work for other partners. “Harry Plate (my Dad and the co-Founder of Automatic Duck) will be assisting with the technology integration while continuing to focus on supporting other Automatic Duck partners.””
Hey Michael, where have you been hiding? We missed ya!
In spite of the line you quote above, I think it’s fair to say there’s a great deal ambiguity and possible confusion about the Adobe/Duck partnership, simply because the entire Duck website was taken down in the process.
Given the many “rash” moves by a few of our nearest and dearest manufacturers these days, it’s no wonder people are just a bit edgy when something odd comes along. The entire website came down in this case, when we all know it could have been taken care of with just a flashy notice on the home page or a new page.
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
https://www.drwfilms.comDon’t miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Producing Episodic TV with “24” Producer Michael Klick:
https://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-1_Michael-Klick/1POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.
-
I think Adobe are listening to the chatter and see an advantage in having better interchange integration built into the package. Smart move. It is what most of us want. This pushes me closer to Adobe.
All third party developers must be looking at Apple and wondering what they are doing by the way they have treated broadcast pros. Apple is obviously preferring to externalise development in areas that it sees as expendable so when the breeze changes they have no problems moving away and potentially stranding software development. Automatic Duck are being prudent in nailing their flag to the Adobe mast.
-
Two cents:
Possibility of using Duck features to get Premiere timelines into newly purchased Iridias for color correction?It’s only Two cents.
CrippleBook Pro 2.3Ghz i7, 8GB ram, SLeopard 10.6.8, FCPStudio 3, QT 7
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up