-
Failing so hard
-
There are some serious issues with the API as I understand it. One of the bigger ones is the inability to implement custom GUI. This is impacting BorisFX, NoiseIndustries (certain plugins), CoreMelt (certain plugins), RedGiant (certain significant plugins). I think this speaks to the very “unfinished” nature of FCPX.
It’s one reason why, even though it’s obvious to everyone I like the FCPX paradigm, I consider it alpha (features not implemented) even preceding beta (features implemented and under testing).
I also understand that one reason Broadcast Monitoring wasn’t there were due to issues relating to Lion. I suspect both will be receiving updates when the next major FCPX release happens.
As to tape input (output?) I had talked to someone at AJA and they said VTR Xchange will handle tape control inside of FCPX. I’m not hearing much “buzz” about that though but if it works that would be significant.
Honestly, as much as I like FCPX as a paradigm, I really don’t get the business reasoning behind Apple’s release schedule/strategy although I and others have speculated.
Ultimately, if Apple doesn’t make developing for FCPX a feature rich and developer friendly environment it may even have limited appeal in non broadcast environments. One thing that made FCP legacy so popular was that, despite its problems, it was enormously extensible.
My own guess is Apple will listen to developers and the APIs will be improved. I can only hope that’s part of the next major release though.
-
That would be all markets.
It certainly can’t have much of the broadcast market beyond the “news cutter” anecdotes we see in this forum. It certainly has none of the feature film market and probably not much in the indie and documentary market. I do suspect that it’s having some presence in the small business market.
I aslo suspect that a lot of purchases were “experimental” in nature as would be more likely with a $300 download than a $1000 physical package purchase.
Again, the next major update will be telling. I suspect we’ll be the real “meddle” tests at that point. Either some facilities (such as OutPost Digital) will jump to it or those waiting will make their final longer term decisions.
-
[Craig Seeman] “There are some serious issues with the API as I understand it. One of the bigger ones is the inability to implement custom GUI. This is impacting BorisFX, NoiseIndustries (certain plugins), CoreMelt (certain plugins), RedGiant (certain significant plugins). I think this speaks to the very “unfinished” nature of FCPX. “
My question was a bit rhetorical — the custom GUI problem is a huge problem for developers. My point was that it’s not the adoption of FCPX that has delayed plugin releases; it’s Apple’s lack of developer outreach. Given the number of features Apple was “removing” from FCPX, I would have thought getting more developers on board earlier should have been a much higher priority to help soften the blow.
[Craig Seeman] “It’s one reason why, even though it’s obvious to everyone I like the FCPX paradigm, I consider it alpha (features not implemented) even preceding beta (features implemented and under testing).”
Agreed!
[Craig Seeman] “I also understand that one reason Broadcast Monitoring wasn’t there were due to issues relating to Lion. I suspect both will be receiving updates when the next major FCPX release happens.”
That’s an excuse. Avid and Adobe have monitoring on Lion, right?
[Craig Seeman] “As to tape input (output?) I had talked to someone at AJA and they said VTR Xchange will handle tape control inside of FCPX. I’m not hearing much “buzz” about that though but if it works that would be significant.”
That’s great to hear! Having to go outside the NLE to a third-party utility for tape I/O would make insert editing totally unpractical. Keeping it in the app somehow would be a really big deal (for those still delivering on tape).
[Craig Seeman] “Ultimately, if Apple doesn’t make developing for FCPX a feature rich and developer friendly environment it may even have limited appeal in non broadcast environments. One thing that made FCP legacy so popular was that, despite its problems, it was enormously extensible.”
Hear, hear.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Franz Bieberkopf] “You probably missed Craig Seeman’s calculations a while back but by his guestimate sketch the number was around half a million.”
Half a million users?
Who is smoking?
I know 1 (one) guy using FCPX.[Craig Seeman] “It seems that FCPX may have around 1/4 quarter the market share but given its newness it’s still a healthy enough portion of the market to interest third party developers.”
You are not saying that seriously Craig, don’t you?That Apple has done half a million USD selling 1500 licenses is acceptable.
rafael -
Rafael,
The original back-of-napkin calculation:
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/19507#19520
Craig,
These numbers would be helped by info for the number 3 slot.
Franz.
-
[Rafael Amador] “I know 1 (one) guy using FCPX.”
We’re talking about OWNING, not using. I know a large number of people who bought it and a number of people experimenting with it and certainly some already using it for professional paying work although usually non broadcast.
[Rafael Amador] “You are not saying that seriously Craig, don’t you?”
Most of the plugin developers and nearly all the video card developers that supported FCP legacy have either publicly stated they will support or are already supporting FCPX. Davinci Resolve and CatDV already support its XML for example. AJA is supporting Tape I/O. And all this despite FCPX is still very much “incomplete” in its implementation.
[Rafael Amador] “That Apple has done half a million USD selling 1500 licenses is acceptable.”
I have no clue how you’re coming up with that number. I documented my estimate number based on known Lion sales vs FCPX sales ranking in the Apple store. Based on that FCPX has sold around half a million copies. This estimate is about a month old so the numbers are likely higher now.
Nothing above is new info so I’d guess you’re not following the forum that closely.
-
I do hunt to find other numbers to better position the estimate. in Top Grossing Pages is number 3 and iPhoto is number 4.
While FCPX shows at 19 today in Top Paid (which I suspect means Unit Sales) to get a perspective on where that’s situated it’s just behind Angry Birds Seasons at 18 (Angry Birds at 12) and well ahead of Angry Birds Rio at 34. Grand Theft Auto is at 32. While I haven’t seen recent Angry Birds sales numbers, you might imagine they’re quite high. FCPX is pretty closely matched to the top selling paid games. The nearest Apple program ranking higher than FCPX is Aperture at 17. Half a million certainly would seem a reasonable estimate given that.
If you’re just looking at Top Grossing Video, FCPX is ranked first . . . ahead of iMovie.
If you’re just looking at Top Paid Video FCPX is ranked 2nd . . . behind iMovie.All things considered, FCPX seems to be selling well.
This has nothing to do with who is using it and under what environs.While some might want to know where that sites compared to FCP legacy, I wonder how it might look compared to FCP1 about 5 months after its initial release.
If developers feel those sales give them a profitable market, it’ll be well supported.
If FCPX drives people to upgrade their computers for an app that devours more CPU/GPU resources then Apple and the developers will pursue a spiral up the market niches (much as FCP did).Regardless of who you think is buying FCPX and why, Sales is sales and if FCPX accelerates Mac sales and developers see an expanding market and they’re moving product, it’ll be a healthy market.
A lot depends on the next major FCPX update but I wouldn’t be surprised if FCPX sales are passed One Million units by the end of 2012 if not sooner. Baring something blowing up or Apple decelerating major updates, I wouldn’t be surprised if by the end of 2013 (24 months), FCPX sales will have closely matched FCP legacy sales.
That does NOT mean it will match Broadcast or Feature Film market share (which is a very small portion of the NLE market) but it may well be deep into the small business and corporate post facility market.
At least “Angry Editors” may match the sales of Angry Birds.
-
[Craig Seeman] “Most of the plugin developers and nearly all the video card developers that supported FCP legacy have either publicly stated they will support or are already supporting FCPX. Davinci Resolve and CatDV already support its XML for example. AJA is supporting Tape I/O. And all this despite FCPX is still very much “incomplete” in its implementation.”
I’m not sure where you’re getting that. Isn’t VTR Exchange standalone, not in FCPX? That’s how AJA demoed it last week… nothing from within FCPX. All this future support is speculative. Red Giant had to lower expectations and extend timelines to “unknown”. Resolve appears to be using duct tape and bailing wire… as I understand it it’s more of a technology experiment than a solid solution at this point. The fact that FCPX uses a “unique to the universe” version of XML isn’t helping.
Will everybody eventually work with FCPX. I’d like to think so, but the truth is I don’t know… and neither does anybody else. It’s all up to Apple. Will FCPX be extensible, or did they paint themselves into a corner with all this revolutionary stuff? Time will tell. I’m rooting for total openness to 3rd party solutions… which require a big change by Apple and some serious reworking of the GUI…
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” – Winston Churchill
-
I’m a broken record here Craig – but london is a ghost town for FCPX Craig – no one from the high to the low is touching it with a barge pole.
why would they? apart from anything else its crappy, buggy software that is barely fit for purpose on any professional level.
Its been met with undisguised scorn in nearly all quarters over here, and vague horror from post houses based on an FCP studio paradigm.
Worse it has resulted in FCP and the mac as a whole being thrown out by the BBC, CNN and a few other large incumbents over here. Actions like that have ramifications don’t they? How can we keep saying things like “well its not ready for broadcast.” We’re saying the successor to FCP studio is unfit for broadcast. Six months after introduction. But then are we genuinely surprised? the thing is built and modelled on iMovie, in ways great and small.
FCPX was expressely designed to monetise iMovie users. That is its reason for being.
that is what Apple chose to do with FCP – monetise their iMovie users.lest we forget “Apple don’t care about the pro market now” the guy who said that had worked on FCP for a half a decade. He’s CEO of postereous or something now.
Bottom line – we’re six months in, its buggy and unstable as hell, and it is hard to call it anything other than a market failure from any rational professional perspective. An appstore success? absolutely Craig. thats the money in their pocket apple was looking for. They are now in a position to monetise iMovie going forward. That was their goal, and they have achieved it handsomely.
It is not an application built for, or intended for, anything we could vaguely describe as the professional market (say where your Job depends on its capabilities and reliability): it is intended to take three hundred dollars out of the pocket of the casual enthusiast, one who is feeling a little constrained by iMovie, and will feel nicely empowered, but never confused, by the big shiny buttons and near identical methodology, philosophy and GUI of FCPX.
Or… it is somehow not at all exactly what it looks like, and it will calmly over 24 months glide back into professional usage after a massive re-fitting from Apple, one that will require the re-introduction of necessary complexity and flexibility in order to make it usable, thereby completely endangering the target iMovie audience currently lapping it up. You know – the audience it was patently designed for.
mmm.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
Why not both? They’ve given a glimpse of potential to so many iMovie neo film makers, and brought them along into the FCPX interzone through which they can expand into the greater scapes of the empowered editor, and then bloom FCPX into the feature rich fully geared up pro app the serious workers are missing right now, but in two years will be flying with, and the whole field has exponentially expanded!?
Seems a decent legacy from that nutty dude Jobs, hmmm?
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up