-
FCP X Six Months Later – Blog Post
-
[Walter Soyka] “FCPX, even as it is today, still doesn’t really fit the Apple mold. Apple is pushing it toward the mass market, but they have still included features that the mass market will never need. Will FCPX ever become an everyday tool for everyday people? (For that matter, will it ever become and everyday tool for professional editors?) “
This is the “two headed” Apple conundrum that I need clarified by Apple.
Apple’s FCPX presentation at NAB started off with an image of the Alexa, arguably the best feature “film” camera, yet it can’t open a FCP 7 project but does an iMovie? Apple needs to balance that equation!
Apple’s assertion that it can’t figure out a way of importing a FCP7 project into FCPX is BS! Taking a series of clips spread out over time and moving it into FCPX, with some limitations ala Duck, is completely doable. Apple’s decision not to do this is un-comprehendable to me.
It’s unfathomable decisions like these, including FCP7 EOL, that are the most concerning to me. Anybody remotely familiar with how video production is done could have predicted the current backlash. Why was Apple ok with that?
Who was the emperor and who was telling him he had clothes? If Randy was the emperor, then the Pro Apps team didn’t have guts to tell him. The only one who could crown Randy emperor was Steve.
Assuming any truth… Does Tim have the interest or knowledge to rectify this and pick a course?
John Heagy
-
Dude, all I was doing was interpreting something Herb had said because I incorrectly thought that Walter had misunderstood it. Then, you are all over me with your peculiar brand of angry anti-Avid sauce and condescending rhetorical questions.
I do agree with what Herb is saying, btw. But it is just a general point about the value something is given in relation to the return it provides. When the Pro Apps were introduced, they and the equipment sold with them, were a central pillar of Apple’s survival. Now, they are holding up part of the back porch. That doesn’t mean Apple won’t pay attention to them. But, they don’t need to. Before, they needed to. What this basic fact has to do with any of the odd questions or comparisons you threw my way, I don’t know.
-
[Herb Sevush] “Avid is a company that sells editorial solutions to the broadcast and entertainment industry. Hardware, software, anyware. Their target audience defines them; that’s never changed.”
Certainly their profitability has changed. For an unprofitable company five years running, they’re going to have to make changes. Media Composer isn’t selling hardware, which is where they attempt to make their money. I don’t know what the answer to their problems are (we can all speculate) but MC doesn’t seem integral (as of yet) for putting them above water. They will change, sink or be sold.
They certainly aren’t the company that once made the bulk of their money selling hardware tied Media Composer systems to the professional post market.
[Herb Sevush] “The computers Apple wants to sell have changed however, and maybe Apple was looking for a product that could help sell their new computers as they get out of the workstation market. Yes they are still a computer company, but those computers are increasingly aimed at the broad consumer market and away from complex business needs.”
We’ll have to see about what replaces the MacPro. I wouldn’t call their computers “consumer” just because they aren’t “workstations.” Many professionals do work on MBP and even iMacs these days. Thunderbolt is not really a “consumer” connection in my opinion. Whether they make a computer that uses Xeon processors certainly is unknown though but even many broadcast professionals don’t need Xeons (and yes some certainly do).
-
[Herb Sevush] “But 2 of the companies make their living from the media content world and are responsive to that market. Let’s guess which one isn’t.”
But one of those companies isn’t getting a very good market response at least as profits go. The other is a diversified software based content creation company. They are responsive for sure.
Apple is a different beast that’s also for sure. That there business model is based on anticipating than responding to the market has certainly worked well for them. I don’t know if it’ll work in the case for FCPX but personally I think they’re anticipating the market a couple years out given some of the things I’m seeing. I’m not sure if the “traditional” broadcast or feature film market are growing, certainly not compared to other professional video post markets.
So you have Avid targeting a niche that’s not growing, Adobe certainly seems to be able to cover all ends as a software company, Apple success in post will depend on whether they anticipated correctly. An unknown though is not a failure, despite current circumstances.
-
[Craig Seeman] “An unknown though is not a failure, despite current circumstances.”
Which can be equally applied to Avid’s future as well.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
You made a comment which I think is a flaw in your argument.
[Chris Harlan] “But, they don’t need to. Before, they needed to.”
This is true and had you said that, I wouldn’t disagree. My point being that neither Avid nor Adobe sells NLEs as a primary source of income. By pointing out that Apple doesn’t leaves out facts by exclusion.
In fact it says something about the market in general that none of these companies develop NLEs as a primary source of income says something about their business models as well as the market. They each take a different approach in using the NLE as part of their “ecosystem” though. Adobe is software content creation, Avid is post production hardware, Apple is more generally hardware.
When I hear things like Gannett buying thousands of iPhones and iPads for professional production we might get a glimpse into what Apple might be anticipating with FCPX. That doesn’t mean FCPX will be the tool for episodic broadcast or feature films but it may indicate which part of the market may be growing and why Apple is anticipating it.
-
[Herb Sevush] “Which can be equally applied to Avid’s future as well.”
Although one difference is that Avid will have to make changes. They aren’t sustainable currently. Apple has a lot more flexibility even if a single product doesn’t produce the desired result for a time.
I’ve mentioned before in my own “arm chair” market analysis, FCPX, as much as I like it fails. If it’s goal is to sell hardware if failed to get me to replace my MacPro which had an incompatible GPU. FCPX does not sell MacPros. If Apple wants to do that (and I honestly don’t know if they do) they’ll have to replace (or significantly modify) the MacPro. FCPX might move some people who are editing on Core2Duo MacBook Pros to i7 Quad Cores with better GPUs as well though but that is ONLY if FCPX is compelling enough to cause one to buy a new computer for it.
Personally I’m more optimistic about Apple make changes so that FCPX or CPUs meets its business model goals than I am about Avid. We’ll have a better idea in the near future when Apple upgrades FCPX and does something one way or another with the MacPro. I don’t think we’ll know as quickly with Avid. We can talk about Apple’s secretiveness regarding its products but I also think there’s some “secretiveness” about any changes in Avid’s business model beyond layoffs and belt tightening. I (and from what I read, various financial analysts) don’t see selling more Media Composers as a solution to their problems.
-
[Craig Seeman] “Personally I’m more optimistic about Apple make changes so that FCPX or CPUs meets its business model goals than I am about Avid.”
I think the difference in our approach comes from the fact that I’m concerned with Avid and/or Apple only so far as they help me with my work. To that end I don’t care about Avid as a business per se, I believe that MC software will continue to survive no matter what else happens to Avid. In that same vein I don’t care if Apple makes another fortune if it entails them replacing the hardware and software I need to do my work. It means nothing to me if they find 2 million FCPX users to sell Imacs to, if in the process they make software that limits my workflow. I’m only in this for me and I don’t play the stock market.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “I believe that MC software will continue to survive no matter what else happens to Avid.”
One would hope so. One would hope either Avid turns around keeping MC or they sell it off to a company who will also continue motivated support.
[Herb Sevush] “It means nothing to me if they find 2 million FCPX users to sell Imacs to, if in the process they make software that limits my workflow. “
Obviously it depends on one’s workflow. FCPX is not ready for episodic broadcast . . . but I think it may be eventually. My work is corporate and local cable spots and FCPX is much closer to meeting the needs in that market.
If an NLE doesn’t meet one’s needs that doesn’t mean the NLE itself has failed. It means you need to look for an NLE that does meet your needs. I think too many people present “FCPX fails for me therefore it is a failure.” To me that reasoning doesn’t work. I think it should stop at “FCPX fails for me.” FCXP may well succeed for many professionals not in narrative broadcast or feature film markets in the near future.
-
[Herb Sevush] “There are still a lot of problem areas with it for my workflow”
Besides multicam, what else?
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up