FCP X Six Months Later – Blog Post

[Al Bergstein]

Thanks Jeremy. I’ve been using the COW now since I think 2009,and never have noticed those check boxes. I wonder if they are a relatively new feature?

Anyway, as a small business owner who has invested thousands of dollars in Apple and bought into the ‘future’ of FCP as a professional tool, I won’t reward the behavior that Apple pulled this year any longer. Adobe is willing to treat me as a business customer, and I’ve already started investing in their future vision of editing.

While I am only a small player, I know I’m not the only one, and many of my video friends here in the Pacific NW have or already are moving away. And I’m sharing my learning as I go. I think Apple’s Guy Kawasaki called this “Technical Evangelism”. Maybe someday down the road Apple may catch up to where they were (are) prior to X, but for me and many others, it will likely be too late.

I always remember, these are only tools. Not religious artifacts like the Shroud of Turin. (even though it may have Steve J’s holographic image embedded in the screen – grin)

Happy New Year to all of you.

Over and out.

Al

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Al Bergstein] “Thanks Jeremy. I’ve been using the COW now since I think 2009,and never have noticed those check boxes. I wonder if they are a relatively new feature? “

I think so.

[Al Bergstein] “I always remember, these are only tools. Not religious artifacts like the Shroud of Turin. (even though it may have Steve J’s holographic image embedded in the screen – grin) “

Absolutely. With video gear, you buy for what you need to make money today as in the future, things will be different.

Jeremy

[Herb Sevush]

[Jeremy Garchow] “[Herb Sevush] “There are still a lot of problem areas with it for my workflow”
Besides multicam, what else?”

The more I explore PPro 5.5 I’ve come to realize they have fixed many of the serious problems I had with it, most of which had to do with the crazy way they handled sound – i.e. the expectation that all audio comes in as a stereo pair. Now I realize that there are settings to make the audio mono on import and also settings to make the audio tracks on the timeline mono as well. A huge improvement since last time I worked with PPro.

However I do hear repeated complaints about using BM cards with PPro and issues with a ProRes workflow that seem troubling. Bellow is a thread from the Cow’s PPro forum. As usual some of the complaining is based on bad work habits but complaints about compressing and re-compressing ProRes files seem worrisome.

https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/3/919131#919131

I will have to evaluate these issues on both Mac and Windows platforms before making any decisions. It will be a busy spring.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Walter Soyka]

[Craig Seeman] “There was a time when Avid primarily sold turnkey expensive Media Composer systems. Now that they’ve become a company that primarily sells hardware such as Unity and Isis systems, etc, would one say they no longer have incentive to sell Media Composer software?”

Craig, I’m not sure I follow.

Apple sells computers that do many things other than editorial. FCPX needs a Mac, but Macs don’t need FCPX. Why would anyone buy ISIS storage if not to support multiple MC clients?

Chris and Herb have been arguing that FCPX is of relatively low strategic importance to Apple. Are you seriously suggesting that Media Composer is of comparably low strategic importance to Avid?

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

[Craig Seeman]

[Walter Soyka] “Apple sells computers that do many things other than editorial. FCPX needs a Mac, but Macs don’t need FCPX. “

But Apple’s goal is that FCPX would be one compelling reason to get a Mac or for Mac owners to upgrade to a new Mac. I posted elsewhere that even though I like FCPX I think it’s failing in that regard so far. In my case I just upgraded the GPU of my MacPro. FCPX is NOT compelling in its current state. I think that will change. Apple has an objective with FCPX. There’s a business plan behind it.

[Walter Soyka] “Why would anyone buy ISIS storage if not to support multiple MC clients?”

At one time when one bought MC one had to use a complete turnkey solution which required Avid certified hard drives and proprietary boards and video I/O. Many if not most people buying MC today, especially those crossgrading from FCP7, are not compelled to buy Unity and/or Isis. In other words Avid too is a company using software to sell hardware but there’s no compelling reason to buy the hardware . . . unless you’re a facility that needs it. Sales indicate that’s not often the case and it’s at least part of the reason Avid is having financial issues for five years running.

If (only if) Apple achieves its goal, you must buy a Mac or upgrade a Mac to use FCPX.
I don’t know how Avid can achieve a goal with MC that one must buy any Avid hardware. I would suspect that they hope that facilities who move from FCP7 to MC would now consider Unity and Isis but I am less confident that will be achieved since I think most crossgraders are otherwise sticking with their non Avid hardware. This is why one analyst I read said that the crossgrade pricing didn’t really help them. Those crossgrading on price incentive are less likely to be the potential customers who are going to purchase Unity or Isis solutions.

Basically as hardware companies both Apple and Avid are failing at the moment but I think Apple’s target is much easier to hit . . . if FCPX becomes a compelling purchasing. Ideally FCPX should move people from older GPUs and Core2Duos into i7 (or Xeon specific) assuming Apple continues that Macs.

This really points to the issue with MacPros. As I’ve stated before, Apple has “learned” that a shorter upgrade cycle as happens with iPhone and iPad users who want to upgrade every year, that the shorter upgrade cycle is obviously profitable (duh!). MacPro users tend to upgrade less frequently (get a new GPU like me instead) and that, in addition to the low sales, really makes its profitability small. I think Apple would like to use FCPX to hasten the upgrade path throughout the line. They haven’t succeeded with that . . . yet. But that’s the motivation behind FCPX. That’s why I think we’ll not only see frequent upgrades with FCPX but upgrades may well demand more system resources. Of course that ONLY works if FCPX is compelling. That’s Apple’s motivation.

I don’t see Avid developing a clear motivation with MC yet. It too may or may not happen. I’m not sure how they’re going to do it. With Apple I see a method (make FCPX compelling).

I’m not sure how else to put this. It’s seems self evident to me. What’s the confusing part?

[Walter Soyka] “Chris and Herb have been arguing that FCPX is of relatively low strategic importance to Apple”

I disagree. Apple wants people to upgrade their computers like they upgrade their iPhones (I believe). While it’s certainly not a one to one comparison, Apple doesn’t make money when people upgrade computers every 4 or 5 years. They would like FCPX to hasten the process. It hasn’t succeeded yet, I think. It may not succeed. FCPX is one tool that they hope to use to make their computer “division” more profitable.

[Walter Soyka] “Are you seriously suggesting that Media Composer is of comparably low strategic importance to Avid?”

MC doesn’t seem to have a business plan behind it. It doesn’t make that much money for Avid (my guess) and it doesn’t compel Unity and/or Isis purchases. At one time it compelled sales of Avid proprietary (or marked up) hardware but it doesn’t do that anymore. This is part of the reason why Avid is having issues.

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Herb Sevush] “However I do hear repeated complaints about using BM cards with PPro and issues with a ProRes workflow that seem troubling. Bellow is a thread from the Cow’s PPro forum. As usual some of the complaining is based on bad work habits but complaints about compressing and re-compressing ProRes files seem worrisome.

https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/3/919131#919131

I will have to evaluate these issues on both Mac and Windows platforms before making any decisions. It will be a busy spring.”

Kinda tough to evaluate what’s going on from one post and zero screenshots/examples.

Jeremy

[Walter Soyka]

[Craig Seeman] “But Apple’s goal is that FCPX would be one compelling reason to get a Mac or for Mac owners to upgrade to a new Mac. I posted elsewhere that even though I like FCPX I think it’s failing in that regard so far. In my case I just upgraded the GPU of my MacPro. FCPX is NOT compelling in its current state. I think that will change. Apple has an objective with FCPX. There’s a business plan behind it.”

You keep saying that Apple is a hardware company. I agree that Apple measures sales units in hardware, but I think they know their value proposition is not in hardware alone. Apple sells hardware, but they have always promised a simpler, richer, more human-centric computing experience.

Ten years ago, this meant selling you a computer. Today, it means selling you a desktop, a laptop, an iPhone and an iPad.

You say FCPX is a success only if it directly and immediately sells Macs. I disagree — I think Apple thinks bigger than that.

I think the purpose of FCPX (like all Apple software) is to make Apple’s platform more compelling (and at least in theory, it makes money on its own). I doubt that Apple really cares if FCPX encourages you to buy one computer; I think they want you to buy into their platform across as many devices as possible.

Apple is trying to wrap their customers in one big iCloud of love, where all their Apple devices work together like poetry in software. If FCPX helps to get you or keep you on the Apple platform, you’ll keep buying Macs and iPhones and iPads.

[Craig Seeman] “MC doesn’t seem to have a business plan behind it. It doesn’t make that much money for Avid (my guess) and it doesn’t compel Unity and/or Isis purchases. At one time it compelled sales of Avid proprietary (or marked up) hardware but it doesn’t do that anymore. This is part of the reason why Avid is having issues.”

You’re making it sound like ISIS is carrying the company and unrelated Media Composer sales are a drop in the bucket. That’s not true. From Avid’s 10-K: “Sales of video storage and workflow products accounted for approximately 18%, 16% and 16% of our consolidated net revenues in 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.”

That does outsell MC in terms of dollars (though certainly not units): “Sales of professional video-editing products accounted for approximately 13%, 13% and 14% of our consolidated net revenues for 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.” (Just to round it out, 40.9% of revenues come from the audio division, and 17.% of revenues come from services. Video products together account for 41.6% of revenue.)

However, who exactly is buying ISIS? Facilities with multiple seats of Media Composer who need their editors to work collaboratively. ISIS would be overpriced storage hardware if not for its compelling value proposition of allowing collaborative editorial on Media Composer.

You think Avid has no business plan for Media Composer? I think Media Composer is the cornerstone of Avid’s video strategy: sell a good NLE to editors and facilities who need its feature set, and create the opportunity to upsell shared storage systems and broadcast automation systems.

Just because FCPX may be a better value for you as an individual, or just because Avid is losing money (perhaps because of the wrong strategy, or perhaps because of poor execution) doesn’t mean that Avid has no strategy whatsoever.

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

[Herb Sevush]

It wasn’t just the initial posting, there were more interesting comments deeper in that thread, and that thread was just one of many I have seen with repeated postings about problems with stability, especially with BM cards, and issues about quality and rendering times with ProRes work flows.

The card issue seems to be about drivers and I expect that to clear up soon. Even if I have to switch to AJA or Matrox, it’s not a big deal, as long as there is a way to get stable I/O.

The idea that working in ProRes could cause quality issues because of multiple compress and re-compress cycles is more troubling.

PPro is similar to X in that I’m waiting to see what the next revision does for multi-cam before I start testing it heavily. Avid is sort of like my Mitt Romney of NLEs, it’s always there but I keep hoping for someone else to woo me away.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Craig Seeman]

[Walter Soyka] “I think the purpose of FCPX (like all Apple software) is to make Apple’s platform more compelling (and at least in theory, it makes money on its own). I doubt that Apple really cares if FCPX encourages you to buy one computer; I think they want you to buy into their platform across as many devices as possible.”

OK, I think that’s a good analysis. It’s mindful of the Apple ecosystem as their business model. One might say FCPX further connects through the ecosystem with iMovie import. This is why the Gannett purchaser (sorry if this seems like a tangent) is interesting. Might it be that an iPhone or iPad iMovie edit be importable into FCPX for finishing. Obviously the H.264 file can be imported but I’d think that the project itself might be at some point as well.

Of course the issue, I think, is does FCPX succeed in doing that yet. Even I’m not sure of that. Although I do think that’s the goal.

[Walter Soyka] ” I think Media Composer is the cornerstone of Avid’s video strategy: sell a good NLE to editors and facilities who need its feature set, and create the opportunity to upsell shared storage systems and broadcast automation systems. “

But apparently the upsell isn’t happening enough. What’s Avid’s solution to that? Sell more MCs? Honestly I don’t know how the solve this and, five years running, it seems they don’t know either.

[Walter Soyka] “You think Avid has no business plan for Media Composer?”

Not one that’s working for them. That’s my point. They need to change their business model. Most of what I’ve seen from them is layoffs to cut operating costs. That’s not an ongoing survivable business model.

I can certainly speculate on how Avid might turn things around but I don’t pretend to know the answer. What I can say is that Media Composer isn’t generating enough sales by itself and isn’t generating enough motivated hardware sales to bring them into the black.

There’s no way that Avid after losing money for 5 straight years can keep going this way without either making a significant shift. Either they have a new compelling product, they reorganize, sell off parts or fold and sell off the company. Do you have a turnaround strategy in mind? I haven’t seen much of an attempt from them.

Personally I don’t think there’s enough growth the broadcast/feature film niche to sustain them.

[Chris Harlan]

I don’t understand why you keep harping on Avid financials, post after post after post. Certainly, it is important information, but it is not–by any means–the only factor. And many people do not agree with your stark assessment. I know of no stock analyst recommending “sell.” All I have seen are recommendations of “Hold.” As far as layoffs, its tough times right now. A lot of companies are downsizing. And, I would remind you that a decade ago, Apple was downsizing too.

But hey–let’s look at it this way:

Here in LA, if Avid shut down tomorrow, and no one bought them, and no one bought Media Composer to resell, learning to use Media Composer would still be extremely valuable. I’m pretty certain that the infrastructure exists to support five more years of strong Avid use without any further development of the product. I’m guessing it is the same in New York and London. At this point–half a year after Final Cut X’s release–I have no idea if X will EVER be useful to most of this town, let alone within the next five years.

Why Avid’s potential failure has become a mantra for you, I can only guess. But frankly, it is getting to be a little much.