-
Exactly which Paradigm?
Watching the release and subsequent chaos on this forum over the last couple of weeks, it has me thinking a lot about what this shift signifies not only in the editing world, but in bigger world of production. I think it’s safe to say that our industry is changing rapidly. A greater proliferation of affordable, and decent production gear is opening the world up to an entirely new segment of the populace. There has been a geometric progression in the numbers of people practicing the video arts since the first time a video played on a computer. Now, it seems, Apple has decided to re-define how software companies develop products for the professional market. It occurs to me that the “paradigm” that has shifted has little to do with timelines, metadata or any other particular editing function, but everything to do with who a product is initially designed for. I’ve seen many comparisons of FCPX to the first version of FCP. In trying to decide what the biggest difference in those two were, it occurred to me that the first version of FCP was specifically designed for professionals. It was meant to compete with high end NLE’s and used primarily by facilities to do business. Even as inexpensive as FCP was then, it was still out of the reach of most consumers. Frankly, the state of consumer camera technology just wasn’t there, even if it were affordable. The current product, FCPX, is CLEARLY produced for the larger user base of what can loosely be defined as “casual users”. Sure they are probably hoping 3rd party vendors will jump on the bandwagon to tantalize their now pissed “professional” user base, but that is a crap shoot at best and frankly I don’t think they are that concerned about it.
I think it is the final indicator (for me anyway) that Apple is shifting away from interest in producing tools for the “professional” market. Does that mean that FCPX won’t be used professionally? Of course not. But it is not going to be the competitive tool that it has been all these years. It will no longer be a credential, to be put on resume’s and signatures, just as including your iMovie experience does little to get your foot in the door for any advanced job. It is simply going to be a “bridge” type of product to open the door for those who come to this industry as an incident. By that, I mean those who will now be task with producing their companies next training or marketing video’s. You will see an entire new segment of users who acquired their degree in marketing or management being assigned the role of producer/director/cameraman even though they might have never had anything other than a passing fascination with the craft of video prior to this.
It means those with experience should really think about sticking too their rates and saying, “no, I can’t take that job” even more often now. It means we’re going to have to say, “no, that can’t air on our station because the quality is just not there”. It means we’re going to have to say, “no, I can’t afford to hire you as a senior editor because a year of FCPX experience is not enough”. I’m sure I’m going to get picked apart by the cheerleaders on this, but my point is this… we’re going to be saying NO a LOT more now. Doesn’t mean we won’t say yes, also. Just means, if this works that way Apple thinks it may, we’re going to get flooded. I’m not saying this is bad either. As the tide rises, all the boats float.
In the end, I think it’s a good thing. But at the same time, I am completely realistic about what this compares too. Look at the hord of companies that produce “professional” knock off products these days. Folks like glide-cam, DSLR’s, Alzo and such. Can you get “professional” results with them… sure. Are you going to have to work harder at it than using a comparable “professional” product (Steadicam, Red, Lite Panels), you better believe it. For those with the time to work with these types of products, they are great. But that is ultimately what we purchase when we pay a premium for a “professional” product…. time. Ask anyone from the NASCAR world and they will tell you, “speed cost money”. Same in this world. Can you make a professional product with FCPX. I think so. Can you do it fast enough to be competitive? No.
The real questions those still hanging on in this forum are asking is;
• Will this ever be able to be used the way FCP7 was?
• How might this product fit into a professional workflow?
• What type of user base is this going to create?
• What level of integration should I think about including this new product?
• What specific things am I now looking for to define what type of company Apple will become?
• Am I going to continue to use Apple products as anything more than an “integration” console for media received from casual users?I think the paradigm HAS changed, just not the editing paradigm. What changed is how editing software is developed by Apple. They have decided that video editing software should be targeting the wider consumer market first, and THEN the professional market…. if there is any interest. Either way, it seems foolish to believe any longer that Apple is going after ANY “professional” segment of the creative industry with software design. Sadly, this removes one of the main reason’s that I’ve always loved their product; the fact that the hardware, OS and application are built by one company. That was the strongest persuasion that any mid-level manager had in making a case for this company. Sadly, Apple has decided to let others develop applications for the professional market. I don’t, for one second, believe that they think they can “redefine” the world of professional editing. They only hope to capitalize on the trend of consumer video applications for their hardware. I don’t hold a grudge for that. What I think is absolutely poor form is the fact that they didn’t have the courtesy to tell their loyal customers that they’ve lost interest in them. They have put many, many hard working devoted users in an erroneous position by spending the last years telling them how “awesome” this is going to be, only to pull the rug out from under them by EOL’ing a product entire segments of the industry were built upon. They implied they were building a better FCP only to deliver something completely different, with no road forward for current users.
In the end, Apple has surely deemed this a success. If you don’t believe me, go look at the highest grossing app on their store. Still, I will watch how this develops, though in my opinion, the glory days of Apple being an industry leader in professional creative markets are gone. I used to give a sigh of relief when a prospect told me their primary platform was Apple. Soon, I’m afraid, I will cringe when I hear this.
Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv -
27 Replies
-
[Marvin Holdman] ” it occurred to me that the first version of FCP was specifically designed for professionals. It was meant to compete with high end NLE’s and used primarily by facilities to do business.”
It certainly wasn’t at the beginning. It was designed to handle DV and Firewire, something that Avid couldn’t do well. In the early days no facility would ever consider FCP a professional product at that level. FCP’s move to a facility level NLE took several years and lots of third party support. Even then, some were burned on their Video I/O card and “accelerator” purchases that Apple made.
The original FCP was produced for DV users. FCPX is following the same pattern with AVCHD users and may (or may not) follow the same trajectory.
-
[Marvin Holdman] “Now, it seems, Apple has decided to re-define how software companies develop products for the professional market. It occurs to me that the “paradigm” that has shifted has little to do with timelines, metadata or any other particular editing function, but everything to do with who a product is initially designed for.”
If you want to see the best returns on your software development investment sooner, this is the right way to go. Then it is a lot easier to make the business case to develop up to the higher end since you sold so much to everyone else. Apple has been very successful selling the iPhone and iPad into corporate settings with entrenched Windows IT environments; capture the consumer first and business will follow. Now I would still tend to defend the idea that you can make a certain kind of living with FCPX today, though certainly not in as many ways as FCP7.
[Marvin Holdman] “I’ve seen many comparisons of FCPX to the first version of FCP. In trying to decide what the biggest difference in those two were, it occurred to me that the first version of FCP was specifically designed for professionals. It was meant to compete with high end NLE’s and used primarily by facilities to do business. … Frankly, the state of consumer camera technology just wasn’t there, even if it were affordable.”
FCP1 was DV25 only, and was aimed squarely at the prosumer up-and-coming entry-level market. For years the high end looked down its collective nose. Not till FCP4 and onward did the high-visibility pro work start getting done on FCP with any kind of regularity. Cold Mountain and Scrubs were the exception, not the rule.
[Marvin Holdman] “Just means, if this works that way Apple thinks it may, we’re going to get flooded. I’m not saying this is bad either. As the tide rises, all the boats float. “
Does DaVinci Resolve 8 for free threaten the high-end colorists? This isn’t just Apple’s bet. Everyone, including Adobe and Avid, has a lower-end product designed to bring in the new users and hook them on the platform. Apple eschewed the top end for now, but the guts are there in FCPX for them (and others?) to add most of it back in. How much and how long remain to be seen, but perhaps with the much more robust underpinnings in FCPX, the features that used to take years to surface will now take a lot less time. I certainly hope so, I’d hate to see all that potential wasted.
[Marvin Holdman] “Will this ever be able to be used the way FCP7 was?”
If you’re asking if FCPX will abandon the Magnetic Timeline and the unified window, then no. If you’re asking if FCPX will ever be used to cut major episodic TV, a studio feature, or a marquis national ad campaign, I’d say yes it will. Apple would have to cease all development and never add another feature to FCPX to keep it from one day soon being used to do those types of things.
[Marvin Holdman] “How might this product fit into a professional workflow?”
When there is XML interchange for FCPX, there will be very few professional workflows that will be out of reach.
[Marvin Holdman] “What type of user base is this going to create?”
A much bigger one.
[Marvin Holdman] “What level of integration should I think about including this new product?”
Right now we have no idea how much integrative potential there is. We need to see what the forthcoming API will permit.
[Marvin Holdman] “What specific things am I now looking for to define what type of company Apple will become?”
Look for Apple to do more and more to tie their various product lines together in ways that make it compelling to own multiple Apple products per user. iCloud is a step in that direction.
[Marvin Holdman] “Am I going to continue to use Apple products as anything more than an “integration” console for media received from casual users?”
That’s up to you, but ignoring FCP altogether, you still have Media Composer, Adobe CS, Smoke, and Resolve all supporting the Mac. Even if you never edit in FCPX, you might wind up owning it just to do what you described. Then again, you might see a compelling reason to edit with it and feature it in your workflow by version 10.1, 10.2, or 10.3.
[Marvin Holdman] “I think the paradigm HAS changed, just not the editing paradigm. What changed is how editing software is developed by Apple. They have decided that video editing software should be targeting the wider consumer market first, and THEN the professional market…. if there is any interest.”
Nailed it.
[Marvin Holdman] “Sadly, this removes one of the main reason’s that I’ve always loved their product; the fact that the hardware, OS and application are built by one company. That was the strongest persuasion that any mid-level manager had in making a case for this company.”
I’ve felt the same way, but if you look back at all the times QuickTime updates unrelated to FCP broke FCP, how often OS X updates broke QuickTIme and/or FCP, you see there never really was that single-vendor benefit for FCP. But it was a nice canard for convincing the uninitiated upper management that might otherwise only listen to market share figures when picking technology solutions. Now those uninitiated upper managers might take some convincing to believe that FCPX isn’t the best way to go! Being out of touch is a side effect of getting paid the big bucks.
[Marvin Holdman] “What I think is absolutely poor form is the fact that they didn’t have the courtesy to tell their loyal customers that they’ve lost interest in them. They have put many, many hard working devoted users in an erroneous position by spending the last years telling them how “awesome” this is going to be, only to pull the rug out from under them by EOL’ing a product entire segments of the industry were built upon. They implied they were building a better FCP only to deliver something completely different, with no road forward for current users.”
Agree wholeheartedly. Bait and switch all the way. I was in the beta for FCPX and forgave the missing features because I convinced myself they’d keep FCP7 out there for a while to cover the transition based on how they handled OS 9 to OS X, PPC to Intel, and even iMovie HD to iMovie ’08. They really did pull the rug out from under everyone who makes a living with FCP and its associated ecosystem (my bread and butter the past few years was Final Cut Server).
That’s why FCPX is bittersweet for me. I like where they are going with their new ideas, but to earn me back as more than a hopeful FCP futurist, they’ll need to make good on all the promise that I see in FCPX today. If by the end of 2012, FCPX isn’t already eclipsing FCP7 in every way (except VTR I/O, that is gone forever) it’ll really be too bad.
[Marvin Holdman] ” I used to give a sigh of relief when a prospect told me their primary platform was Apple. Soon, I’m afraid, I will cringe when I hear this.”
I think conflating OS X into this FCPX imbroglio is a mistake. A few creatives might switch to Windows over this, but I don’t see any reason to believe there will be any mass exodus from OS X among the creative pros who use it today. Again, Media Composer, Adobe CS, Smoke, and Resolve all have a home on OS X. Now, if they turn the Mac Pro on its ear later this year by removing all PCI slots in favor of Thunderbolt before Thunderbolt has a critical mass of equipment on the market, that might be another story…
Best,
Andy -
FCP X is the fastest NLE I’ve ever worked with… this alone makes it a very attractive NLE. Apple in no way is really abandoning the “pro” market. They just had to draw a line on features to get a release out. I’ve no doubt that they will add the pro features we need to have.
Gotta look at it from their perspective too. There are 2 million users of FCP 7. Of those I’ll bet fewer than 250k really make their living from it. When you consider that there are 50 million users of iMovie, and that group didn’t really embrace FCE, you can understand who the 1.0 release was aimed at; first. The larger and more profitable stance for Apple to take with this first release is that 50 mil plus group of iMovie users, then the 1.75 million casual users of FCP 7. The 250k users who really do make their living begin to not matter as much to the bottom line… right? They do matter because it’s because these users use FCP that the other 3/4 of the users that use FCP bought it in the first place. It must be “good” or the pro’s wouldn’t use it. Seems to me that it’s in Apple’s stated interest to appease the genuine pros… and I’ve no doubt they are all over doing just that. They’ve said so more than one time in the last few weeks, and I feel I can take them at their word.
That NLE software and decent cameras are inexpensive? That’s been the situation for many years now, and didn’t seem to bring the industry to it’s knees. Rather, it changed it’s MO. Big expensive bays began to disappear… The rates fell, but so did the costs. Actually I don’t think the “people” in post make a whole lot less than they did when edit bays were better than $500 hour to use, it’s just that the likes of Sony, CMX and others took a big hit, and the zillion dollar facilities with many million dollar rooms began a steep decline. Good. No longer it the situation that “he who owns the gear gets the job”. Now it’s more “he whose good gets the job” because anybody with $10,000 can own a decent camera and edit bay. Been that way for at least a decade now.
That said, the future of video communication never looked better IMHO. More people can afford to use the medium than ever before, which results in more business for us all.
Jerry
Apple Certified Trainer, Producer, Writer, Director Editor, Gun for Hire and other things. I ski. My Blog: https://blogs.creativecow.net/Jerry-Hofmann
Current DVD:
https://store.creativecow.net/p/81/jerry_hofmanns_final_cut_system_setup8-Core 3.0 Intel Mac Pro, Dual 2 gig G5, AJA Kona SD, AJA Kona 2, Huge Systems Array UL3D, AJA Io HD, 17″ MBP, Matrox MXO2 with MAX – Cinema Displays I have a 22″ that I paid 4k for still working. G4 with Kona SD card, and SCSI card.
-
[Jerry Hofmann] “FCP X is the fastest NLE I’ve ever worked with…”
What aspects of FCP X makes it the fastest NLE for you?
-
[Andrew Richards] ” I was in the beta for FCPX “
Can you give some details about your beta test experience? How long did it last, was there any back and forth communication between yourself and Apple about missing features, etc.
-
From the time I ingest and finish it’s faster… it’s faster to try different takes using the audition feature. I’m not waiting on a render, trimming is also fast using keyboard commands. Skimming is faster than FCP 7 for sure, as is audio scrubbing.
I’m finding that clip analysis isn’t the fastest thing, but then FCP 7 couldn’t do it. Seems to work best with short file based clips rather than long camera masters.
Subclipping is about the same speed, though they don’t call it that now.
Also like the new nesting thing (compound clips) They seem to be a faster thing to work with as well.
Jerry
Apple Certified Trainer, Producer, Writer, Director Editor, Gun for Hire and other things. I ski. My Blog: https://blogs.creativecow.net/Jerry-Hofmann
Current DVD:
https://store.creativecow.net/p/81/jerry_hofmanns_final_cut_system_setup8-Core 3.0 Intel Mac Pro, Dual 2 gig G5, AJA Kona SD, AJA Kona 2, Huge Systems Array UL3D, AJA Io HD, 17″ MBP, Matrox MXO2 with MAX – Cinema Displays I have a 22″ that I paid 4k for still working. G4 with Kona SD card, and SCSI card.
-
Thanks for being a succinct voice of sanity.
-
Good points Marvin.
I too believe there is a shift – but not neccesarily a shift away from the pros. There is no way I can assume becuase FCP X v.1 doesn’t have every feature that everyone wants in it, that it’s not a PRO app.
Apple is strongly marketing it as a Pro ap, and has said that many of the features not in v.1, will be out soon. Why would they add Pro features to a non-pro app? X was released with Motion and Compressor – are those non-pro apps? No way grandma is going to have any luck in Motion.
I think it’s sad so many have jumped to the conclusion that the first version of a new product, FCP X is “dead, non-pro, for amatures only, etc.”
FCP X: Type A
[spell check OFF] -
[Marvin Holdman] “Will this ever be able to be used the way FCP7 was?”
[Andrew Richards] – If you’re asking if FCPX will abandon the Magnetic Timeline and the unified window, then no. If you’re asking if FCPX will ever be used to cut major episodic TV, a studio feature, or a marquis national ad campaign, I’d say yes it will. Apple would have to cease all development and never add another feature to FCPX to keep it from one day soon being used to do those types of things.
No, I’m really wondering if it will ever be the main “go to” program for the majority of editing done at my facility. Juries way out on that one. Will someone produce a movie with it? Sure. Doesn’t mean it will be practical to deploy it in the same way FCP7 was deployed nationwide on June 20th.
[Marvin Holdman] “What type of user base is this going to create?”
[Andrew Richards] – A much bigger one.
Bigger is not always better. I am wondering what I am going to have showing up on my doorstep to fix a year from now and how much of it is going to be coming from FCPX. We don’t get very many iMovie projects showing up, and I’m glad, but this thing is going escalate the quantity of sows ears coming at a broadcast entity. Yeah, I know, you run what the client pays for, but unfortunately the worse the products get, the more diluted your overall product impact becomes. While I think it’s true that traditional broadcasting models are being diminished with all the new media, I think the credibility of all of this new media is only really going to be defined by the standards it imposes on itself. Of course, with everyone and their cousin producing garbage and airing it in these emerging markets, it’s not going to be overly hard to rise above. As I’ve said before, judicious and tactful use of the word “no” will be the key to the successful.
[Marvin Holdman] “What specific things am I now looking for to define what type of company Apple will become?”
[Andrew Richards] – Look for Apple to do more and more to tie their various product lines together in ways that make it compelling to own multiple Apple products per user. iCloud is a step in that direction.
Doesn’t really seem like there is a need for distributed multi-core processing in that scenario. Perhaps Mac Pro’s will go away and we’ll end up with a pay-as-you go render farm in the cloud? Don’t know for sure, but this trend of nicking CC’d for processing is an experiment that won’t take long for most to realize that if you do ANY volume of work, you’re better off owning the hardware you are using. Apple’s move towards less powerful machines with dumbed down software seems to indicate that they are moving in the “everything to the cloud” approach. Just not sure it will work in “professional” scenario’s. That said, I am certain that it will be incorporated into those businesses, just curious as to how. Only time will tell.
[Marvin Holdman] “Sadly, this removes one of the main reason’s that I’ve always loved their product; the fact that the hardware, OS and application are built by one company. That was the strongest persuasion that any mid-level manager had in making a case for this company.”
[Andrew Richards] – I’ve felt the same way, but if you look back at all the times QuickTime updates unrelated to FCP broke FCP, how often OS X updates broke QuickTIme and/or FCP, you see there never really was that single-vendor benefit for FCP. But it was a nice canard for convincing the uninitiated upper management that might otherwise only listen to market share figures when picking technology solutions. Now those uninitiated upper managers might take some convincing to believe that FCPX isn’t the best way to go! Being out of touch is a side effect of getting paid the big bucks.
Hah! Completely agree with the being out of touch statement. Guess it’s what has me so miffed. I’ve already had a brief conversation with an executive who is “excited” about this software because some fluff piece in a business magazine said it was cheaper, faster and better than previous iterations. Frankly, after looking more and more at it, I don’t think it is cheaper, faster or better. Add in all the plug-ins that we’ll inevitably have to buy and it won’t be cheaper, the extra burden of managing over a network in cross party databases and it won’t be faster and it certainly lacks the control over the edit to be better.
[Marvin Holdman] ” I used to give a sigh of relief when a prospect told me their primary platform was Apple. Soon, I’m afraid, I will cringe when I hear this.”
[Andrew Richards] – I think conflating OS X into this FCPX imbroglio is a mistake. A few creatives might switch to Windows over this, but I don’t see any reason to believe there will be any mass exodus from OS X among the creative pros who use it today. Again, Media Composer, Adobe CS, Smoke, and Resolve all have a home on OS X. Now, if they turn the Mac Pro on its ear later this year by removing all PCI slots in favor of Thunderbolt before Thunderbolt has a critical mass of equipment on the market, that might be another story…
Given the fact that most of the vendors of professional software for the Mac Pro platform have been feeling the same “bitch slap” that Apple handed out on the 21st (are the API’s released yet???) I think the exodus might be a bit broader than Apple imagines. We will never hear the loud opinions from these vendors, as it is just poor business to speak out on such matters. But I can tell you that there is a real feeling of abandonment on not just their part, but some of the Apple Authorized folks out there. These are the people that support the professional base and if they’re saying, “we don’t know which way this thing is going” then I suggest you listen. I’ve never heard that before. Let me say that again, I have NEVER heard the level of discontent and bewilderment from the people who support the “professional” market. At this point, if you are not at least at least as much time exploring platform alternatives as you are playing with Randy’s new toy, you are going to find yourself in real trouble soon.
As for conflating OSX into this FCPX imbroglio goes, I suggest that these are both so inter-related that you cannot possibly consider the impact that this is going to have until after seeing the full implication of this new OS. It’s one of the reason’s I’m sticking around. Both speak to the direction this company is taking. Without some sort of public discourse provided by the company, it’s the only way we have of knowing which way the wind blows. Most hard core creatives are not really even aware of all of this. They will simply wake up one day and find that companies like MC, Adobe, Smoke and Resolve have discontinued support for Apple products. All it’s going to take is one company that does even a half-way decent job of building and supporting the hardware. Believe me, Dell and HP are watching this thing closely. They too have had some pretty crappy reputation problems, but they have also made some efforts to fix them. I still love Apple support, but they are coming on strong.
I do appreciate the candor relating to this, but honestly the questions that I’m posting are mostly rhetorical at this point. I’ve been reading for a while now and firmly believe the answers anyone has for these questions at the moment are merely opinion and not fact. No matter how passionately they are answered. That being said, I really do appreciate and need the insights of those opinions. Thank you for taking the time to respond in a pleasant helpful manner, Andy.
Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv -
Jerry, I see that you are a trainer. I would expect no less from someone who anticipates doing business by training folks on this package. I think you’re business will do well, as there is going to be a rush of new folks that believe all there is to doing video is buying the right stuff. It sounds as though you’ve been around long enough to know a fair amount about this business. Sounds like you were here when DV came on. You’ll remember the inordinate amount of garbage that came from all of that DV proliferation (garbage that I’ve spent a fair amount of time fixing). I don’t begrudge you for waving the pom-pom’s over this program, but will point out to anyone else who’s read this far that Jerry is selectively telling you what parts are the “fastest”. It is NOT faster to create a DVD from this program. It is NOT faster to work with several formats (such as XDCAM) which requires re-wrapping prior to use. It is NOT faster to archive your projects once complete. It is NOT faster to learn if you are coming from the most common editing applications (unless you know iMovie). It is NOT faster to share between multiple users on multiple machines.
In the bigger picture, I would agree that the future of video communication does look bright. The bones of this application are great, but the interface and architecture were never meant to be used by more than one person at one machine. While it may be that this business will be more and more about individual’s working independently, I prefer to work with others in a team environment. This is not the tool for that, and I’m not really sure it ever will be. Most consumers don’t need this type of collaborative environment (many professionals don’t either). Fact of the matter is, only so much can ever be accomplished by individuals. The greater gestalt that is accomplished by a team working together is, to me, the pinnacle of video communication.
In the end, I do respect your opinion, question your motivation and point out that yours, like mine, is merely an opinion. If you think it’s faster, great. It’s not faster for me when I look at the rest of the process of creating a video product.
Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up