-
Could it be…?
-
[Andrew Richards] “My inner Occam’s Razor tells me it is the software equivalent of a drywaller’s coffee cup sealed in the wall and forgotten about. That is why I came to the conclusion it is part of an evolution, that they didn’t start over with a new codebase, they carried forward an existing one with different UI concepts sketched out.”
I think of it as FCPX’s vestigial tail so maybe you’re right about it being part of an evolution. But holy cow, that was one hell of a mutation!!! 😉
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “Totally believable that Ubillos came back in sometime in 2010 with an order to simplify and build on his iMovie work. To me, this scenario makes the most sense and explains the baffling nature of the release. This implies the fork was sometime in 2010.”
It does seem as though this answers some of the questions but there is one piece of evidence that doesn’t fit:
https://sachin.posterous.com/why-apple-built-final-cut-pro-x
Sachin Agarwal claims here that he:
“worked on Final Cut Pro from 2002 to 2008. It was an amazing experience. The Final Cut Pro X project was just getting started when I left Apple.”
In other words it’s been in gestation since around 2007 …
And that timing I think supports the hypothesis that iMovie 08 (and beyond) was always meant to be the “proof of concept” for FCPX.
At least that’s my version.
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “And that timing I think supports the hypothesis that iMovie 08 (and beyond) was always meant to be the “proof of concept” for FCPX.”
Which also fits with Randy Ubilos’ desire to name the new iMovie “First Cut”
-
[David Lawrence] “I think of it as FCPX’s vestigial tail”
Yeah, or the whale’s hip-bones. Quite frankly, when the “QA” people were let go, there were a number of opinions shared, and especially knowing the quality and real artisan-al skills of a few of those meant that some kind of internal power struggle had occurred and it did not bode well for the status quo. With so many changes to the OS, it would not be surprising that someone made a decision that it was a maybe-maybe-not within a reasonable business/deadline model to make the FCP7 structure work again, and so they went with something that was partially functional and built it out a bit — just to make the shipping date. Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth. Obviously, I didn’t make that one up so feel free to contest it.
Outside of any arguments that users might have, though, even more troubling for those who would rather have seen the continued evolution of FCP7 (as damaged and failing as it had come to be), is the reaction of the third-party and hardware manufacturers that supply this market. Quite obviously, their actuaries have run the numbers and decided not to play bingo with Apple anymore.
Guessing-games as to where the “new” editing “paradigm” might land (for better or worse, who knows?) is a game of blindfold-pin-the-lawn-dart-on-the-donkey-next-door, and money people hate this. New Mac Pros? maybe, maybe not. Support for their peripherals? maybe, maybe not. In a business climate where *one* is too many maybe-maybe-nots. Pull the plug. The people over at Windows are all over that scenario — already Blackmagic Design has rolled out a Windows version of Resolve, that, yes, is faster. It has a larger equipment/peripheral support list, even with new nVidia participation through updated drivers (with the proviso that you also move up the OS versions). You’d be surprised at the number of people who don’t actually find that to be wildly appealing. Because you have to buy new(?) MacPros, but are still ham-strung with limited buss structures. Or fork out even more money for extended chassis. Wait’ll your accountants and creditors get a load of that one.
The other major editing applications have options for both platforms, but which do you think will eventually be favoured and have the advantage because there is a road map that you can plan around?
discuss.
jPo
You mean “Old Ben”? Ben Kenobi?
-
Developers are diversifying but I don’t see massive Mac or FCPX abandonment.
Blackmagic, Matrox, AJA are all supporting Thunderbolt (which may also be supported by Acer, Asus, Lenovo soon but nothing from HP or Dell). For these companies Thunderbolt has broadened their market opportunities.Genarts, NoiseIndustries, RedGiant are supporting FCPX. BorisFX still says they have things on the way.
Twixtor just came out with their FCPX plugin, just to name a few. -
[Craig Seeman] “Genarts, NoiseIndustries, RedGiant are supporting FCPX. BorisFX still says they have things on the way.
Twixtor just came out with their FCPX plugin, just to name a few.”It will be interesting to see if the market for a $299 editor will support plugins that cost as much or more than the app they work with.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “It will be interesting to see if the market for a $299 editor will support plugins that cost as much or more than the app they work with.
“Why should it make a difference, if FCPX had been the same price as FCS3 the plugins would have been the same price.
If anything because of the low cost then companies may have more to spend on plugins
Steve Connor
“FCPX Agitator”
Adrenalin Television -
[Simon Ubsdell] “Sachin Agarwal claims here that he:
“worked on Final Cut Pro from 2002 to 2008. It was an amazing experience. The Final Cut Pro X project was just getting started when I left Apple.”
In other words it’s been in gestation since around 2007 …”
I read the blurb you linked to, and this fellow has a poor grasp of NLE history. I’m guessing that that’s because he was sitting inside Apple looking out, and that he was far more interested in code than in editing, and like many Apple folk was truly clueless to what was happening in the PC world. He places the competition to FCP much, much later than it actually was, and claims that FCP was the first software-only NLE. His observations strike me as shallow–though to be fair, it wasn’t really meant to be more that a congratulatory blurb, so perhaps shallow was what was called for. I’m not sure I’d buy he had deep, detailed knowledge of the inner machinations behind the fate of the Pro suites, though I tend to agree with his assessment.
-
[Chris Harlan] “His observations strike me as shallow”
I wasn’t actually suggesting that his was the most in-depth knowledge that could be had. I just think his comments are a relevant pointer to the to me obvious fact that FCPX began to take shape around the time of iMovie 08 – and hence the plausible conclusion that iMovie 08 was the “proof of concept” for FCPX.
So many people still gloss over this, mostly through complete ignorance of iMovie and it history, but also because it doesn’t fit the notion that FCPX is something uniquely special (one way or another, either for good or ill).
At some point, someone at Apple (let’s for the sake of argument call him “Steve”) said: let’s not waste our time rebuilding the old Final Cut, let’s instead build a new “pro app” out of this really cool consumer app that we’ve built to replace the old iMovie.
Yes, there are complications to that story, not least the inevitable demise of QuickTime and the rise of AV Foundation, but I find it hard to believe that any other story is remotely as plausible.
One of the other key indicators is that iMovie 08 (onwards) was way, way too sophisticated in fundamental conception for its target market at the time.
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “[Chris Harlan] “His observations strike me as shallow”
I wasn’t actually suggesting that his was the most in-depth knowledge that could be had. I just think his comments are a relevant pointer to the to me obvious fact that FCPX began to take shape around the time of iMovie 08 – and hence the plausible conclusion that iMovie 08 was the “proof of concept” for FCPX.
So many people still gloss over this, mostly through complete ignorance of iMovie and it history, but also because it doesn’t fit the notion that FCPX is something uniquely special (one way or another, either for good or ill).
At some point, someone at Apple (let’s for the sake of argument call him “Steve”) said: let’s not waste our time rebuilding the old Final Cut, let’s instead build a new “pro app” out of this really cool consumer app that we’ve built to replace the old iMovie.
Yes, there are complications to that story, not least the inevitable demise of QuickTime and the rise of AV Foundation, but I find it hard to believe that any other story is remotely as plausible.
One of the other key indicators is that iMovie 08 (onwards) was way, way too sophisticated in fundamental conception for its target market at the time.
“I agree with everything you are saying. I meant my comments as more of an aside than anything else. The only thing I would add is that we all tend to see Corporate behavior as highly premeditated, when in fact a number of warring impulses can all be firing at the same time and in different directions. The current example floating around here is the head of Dell’s IT department announcing to an IT customer that Dell is now an IT company. Could it represent what’s going on at Dell? Maybe. Could it also be a very skewed message that many in Dell do not agree with? Maybe. In fact, probably.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up