Before you get too comfy in your switch . . . .

[Don Walker]

As an editor, I am more a former hardware guy, (Big switchers, CMX, ADO D-2 etc.) So i still struggle with the nuances of Quicktime and such. Is AV Foundation just another container (like quicktime) or is it something bigger. Any web articles that you could point to, that a non-programer could embrace? FYI, I did do a Google search, and still came away confused…..

don walker
texarkana, texas

John 3:16

[Craig Seeman]

[Tim Wilson] “Hmmm, I’m thinking the biggest piece of acquired code might be OS X. :-)”

From Steve Jobs failed Next Computer venture?
I remember Apple choosing that over BeOS I think it was.

[Craig Seeman]

[Noah Kadner] “The challenge for the bigger FCP pro houses, broadcasters and post-production facilities is going into a holding pattern while waiting on FCP X to mature.”

The cost of moving to a new NLE has never been lower although it’s still an unforeseen expense. It ain’t like it was in 2000 and certainly not like 1990.

I really don’t think Apple expects anyone to wait. As I mentioned I think they’re sacrificing the pawn in a bigger chess game.

[Noah Kadner] “Apple bringing back FCP 7 for sale, at least until X is a few more updates down the road would make a successful transition from 7 to X a lot more plausible.”

I think Apple’s reasons for pulling go beyond FCPX because I think they know very well FCPX is not currently a replacement. I suspect there are business reasons around contracts and licenses and other obligations that Apple wants to exit from quickly. At the most superficial they don’t want the support responsibility but I think it runs deeper than that. I think the “cost of the hit” is lower for them this way, at least in the long run . . . at least I think they believe so. This was a calculated business decision on their part and the think the complexities of that include things we can’t know about (at the moment at least).

[Craig Seeman]

[Herb Sevush] ”
But it is that narrow slice that is here on the Cow. We are that user base, and because there are others like us we can exchange information. And the information we are exchanging is that Apple is no longer interested in creating products for us.”

I think they have keen interest. They’re starting over though in many respects. Do you use Pro Res or Quicktime?

Apple is a media company IMHO and that is not limited to distribution and playback. They are looking to dominate content creation as well. I don’t know if they’ll succeed but they did this, I think, because they are in the financial position to start over so the development is more in line with the rest of their enterprise and entry into both horizontal and vertical markets.

[Herb Sevush] “Correct again. And since that model will still be dominating the broadcast and film industries for at least the next 2 years”

Apple may be thinking beyond the next 2 years though. Thunderbolt is also part of that long range for broadcast support. Not everything is progressing in sync though.

Apple is in a position to take a risk, take a hit, they aren’t stupid though. It’s a calculated gamble probably being well managed (at least I suspect that would be their opinion).

[Craig Seeman]

And I think Apple is making moves now because of the ensuing challenge over the next standard. That’s why I think there’s a lot more to this than FCPX.

[David Cherniack]

As I read the tea leaves I see a post industry aghast, furious, and fed up with Apple. That in itself may have many more far reaching consequences than whether Adobe or Avid have to dance to Apple’s AV Foundation tune. MacPros, if they continue to exist in a useful form, may not look so shiny with Apple-sheen when the company is sending a profound “We really don’t give a flying fillintheblanks” message to an entire industry.

Could be the next round of hardware upgrades for a lot of companies shows a lot of HP workstations being sold. Truth is they’re nicely designed, work well, you get on-site service, and no my-way-or-no-way attitude.

David
AllinOneFilms.com

[Tim Wilson]

[Craig Seeman] “[Tim Wilson] “Hmmm, I’m thinking the biggest piece of acquired code might be OS X. :-)”

From Steve Jobs failed Next Computer venture?”

Well, I don’t know about failed: Steve sold the company for $429 million and 1.5 million shares of Apple stock.

And yes, BeOS was in line to be Apple’s next OS, but talks stalled over money. Jean-Louis Gassee wanted $200 million, but Apple didn’t want to go over $125m if I recall. It worked out for the best, for Apple anyway. Nexstep, Openstep, and Web Objects…oh yeah, and that Jobs kid…seems like a pretty good deal.

[Greg Burke]

Craig, I appreciate your outlook at X-FCP, your hopeful and that’s fine, but apple has made it perfectly clear that there phasing out of the industry, I mean I feel that the goal of the X-FCP designer was to make a program that could eventually go on the ipad. I feel that’s where X-FCP is heading and were the majority of the Developers are working on this as we speak, that would be amazing to do but it would make editing seem like a joke I mean if its so easy why pay me? Right? But I digress. To release a program with such a lack of basic functions is awful. The program itself is neat and has some really great concepts, but we wanted these in FCP7. It’s typical apple “My way or the Highway” attitude. Tomorrow apple could decide that using a mouse on a desktop is no longer “the future” and they would drop all support for mice (just joking of course), But Its what they do, and if they happen to be ever be wrong (god forbid) they just sweep it under a rug and remain quiet. I have 3 upcoming projects and after messing with X-FCP the last 2 weeks, I’ve realized I can’t use it with any of the upcoming gigs, Its not That I won’t use it, I literally can’t use it, it would take longer and hinder my clients patience, and its not because I don’t understand or know the program I’ve been using it non stop since release, It just FAILS at every point on my check list for what I need. I’m not an Amateur by any means, nor am I a Professional editor yet, but one day I’d like to be, SO I’ll learn FCP X in all its gimmicky greatness, But I’m turning to avid and Premier for future High Paid gigs and jobs, Apple really messed up on this one I’m not about to wait around for 5 years to get apple to put in all the missing features to get it on the FCP7 level and I’m not going to put my Faith into 3rd party Developers to fix this either. FCP X in like Putting a V12 in a pinto, it does have a lot of power and ability, but they need to change the body. Just my 2 cents. ☺

I wear many hats.
http://www.gregburkepost.com

[Hector Berrebi]

this whole thread and not a word on MXF?

Avid is MXF based, that’s how Avid writes and likes its media. this comes after years of their previous, proprietary, SD only OMF.

if i’m not completely wrong about it, MXF is rather open standard with much simpler licensing than QT.

MXF (Material eXchange Format) supports metadata and a myriad of codecs. P2 and XDCAM use it as wrapper ( shooting 80%+ of the world’s television, unlike QT cameras and recorders which are very good but still much less popular)

from wiki : “MXF has been designed to address a number of problems with non-professional formats. MXF has full timecode and metadata support, and is intended as a platform-agnostic stable standard for future professional video and audio applications”

just recently, my company assisted in a large network transition to FCP7. as part of the requirements we had to practically rape 20 FCP stations to read and write MXF in a server environment, due to the broadcast pipeline they had decided on.

it was a little rough, but it worked… even in tight schedules of sport and news broadcasting.
(in that specific case, i do believe it would have worked better with QT)

for a good, professional and sane future, a dominant video file format shouldn’t belong to a company like Apple. it should be as open as possible.

about Avid’s dependency on QT, i’m not sure about the inside of the software code, but i don’t believe its a catholic wedding

of course there is AMA, which is a newer module that can natively read and edit QT among other formats… but that’s recent.

and there is export to QT and a whole export module for it, but you can run Avid on a PC without QT pro on your system, and even using QT alternatives. (i think protools needs QT in some way, but that may be outdated, i’m not an audio guy)

i think Avid depend very little on QT,
(and on a side note, i also think Avid is responsible for quite a lot of MacPro sales)

and if Adobe is smart (and i believe they are) they shouldn’t depend on anything Apple too

you draw an interesting future Craig.
in my opinion, why switch at all? at this price…just for nostalgia we will all still run FCPX on our Macs, iPhones and iPads alongside anything else we choose to work with for at least the next two years 🙂

Hector Berrebi
prePost Consulting

[Craig Seeman]

[David Cherniack] “As I read the tea leaves I see a post industry aghast, furious, and fed up with Apple. That in itself may have many more far reaching consequences than whether Adobe or Avid have to dance to Apple’s AV Foundation tune. “

Not if Apple has leverage. Apple’s a business. They probably don’t care who is aghast if they have leverage over decisions that might be made to their benefit.

The result may well be competition over a new “media foundation” which Apple may be positioning itself to its advantage (at least Apple may believe so).

Sometimes you win with a PR game. Sometimes you win with a Power game. Obviously Apple isn’t looking to win the PR game with this.

I wouldn’t over simplify Apple’s machinations.