-
FCPX and After Effects
-
“Tosh” is a fine word and good on you for wheeling it out, but in this case “yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man” (TM Jeff Lebowski).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c
The only thing can that called be called “tosh” without fear of contradiction is the notion that Apple have any sort of vision for the future, and the only thing that can be called “utter tosh” is the notion that they have a credible vision.
This was brought home just recently by the Google presentation:
Representatives of Google sauntered across the stage at the company’s I/O developers conference this week and revealed wonder after wonder. Google Assistant, its Siri competitor, now looks so advanced that we’ll probably be comfortable dropping the “science fiction” categorization from the movie Her in a few years. Cameras on Android phones will soon be able to select and copy text on printed books as easily as I selected and copied the text in this document on my Mac.
And all the while, one thought raced through my mind: It should be Apple.
We have seen the future and it doesn’t have Apple’s name on it any more.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaikiSome contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “We have seen the future and it doesn’t have Apple’s name on it any more.
“Yes we have and in that future Google will harvest every SINGLE bit of your data you happily give them and will sell it to anyone who wants to pay for it. Google’s innovation is astounding, but there’s a price to pay for it and if you’re happy to pay it then great. Me I’d rather buy into Apple’s “vision” of privacy and respect for your personal data.
But I do agree it should be Apple doing this and I can only imagine there’s no real business case for them to spend the money on it if they’re not going to market the data that’s gathered from it
-
[Steve Connor] “But I do agree it should be Apple doing this and I can only imagine there’s no real business case for them to spend the money on it if they’re not going to market the data that’s gathered from it”
I think there’s a good case to be made that if you’re not right at the front with the race leaders in the AI contest, then you are absolutely nowhere on anything that is going to matter in the years ahead.
Not only are Apple not up there with the race leaders, they don’t even appear to have laced up their shoes.
(PS. Yes, I don’t trust any tech company with anything, but it’s way too late to change any of that now. If anybody thinks that Apple are innocent custodians of their personal data, there’s this bridge that I’d like to interest them in.)
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Simon Ubsdell] ” If anybody thinks that Apple are innocent custodians of their personal data, there’s this bridge that I’d like to interest them in.)
“Yep, that’s a great justification for giving it all away to Google, imagining a conspiracy with Apple and what they do with your data.
[Simon Ubsdell] “I think there’s a good case to be made that if you’re not right at the front with the race leaders in the AI contest, then you are absolutely nowhere on anything that is going to matter in the years ahead.”
I know quite a lot about AI, I do a lot of filming with IBM and Watson and I’m pretty sure that no-one knows definitively where AI is headed at the moment. Looking at Google’s tech demos is one thing, real world use and application is another. If Apple wanted to catch up quickly they could easily leverage their relationship with IBM and sprint right to the front of the pack.
-
[Steve Connor] “Yep, that’s a great justification for giving it all away to Google, imagining a conspiracy with Apple and what they do with your data.”
There are undiscovered tribes in deepest, darkest Borneo who are aware that the only tech companies that look clean are the ones that haven’t been found out yet.
But I admire your Panglossian take on this!
[Steve Connor] “If Apple wanted to catch up quickly they could easily leverage their relationship with IBM and sprint right to the front of the pack.”
So Apple have decided that they don’t really have to compete in the AI sphere just yet and they can catch up whenever or if ever they need to?!
By your account they are even more clueless than I could possibly imagine them being. Goodness gracious me!
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Simon Ubsdell] “There are undiscovered tribes in deepest, darkest Borneo who are aware that the only tech companies that look clean are the ones that haven’t been found out yet.”
It’s not that Google are hiding what they do with your data, they are very up front about about it, If Apple wanted to do the same thing then why would they hide it? They don’t even use the fact that they don’t sell you data as a lead in their marketing!
To be honest I’d rather be Panglossian than the cynic you appear to be, making judgements based on zero evidence apart from some vague overarching conspiracy theory.
[Simon Ubsdell] “So Apple have decided that they don’t really have to compete in the AI sphere just yet and they can catch up whenever or if ever they need to?!
By your account they are even more clueless than I could possibly imagine them being. Goodness gracious me!
“I have no account on this at all, my point is that no-one actually knows where any of the tech companies truly are with AI at the moment
As for that Google Duplex demo, as many have pointed out it was all a little too good to be entirely true https://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2018/05/pretty-much-all-tech-demos-are-fake-as-hell/
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “…a corporation as clueless, as visionless and with as few actual products to offer and with even fewer ever likely to see the light of day, is still the most profitable ever.”
Reminded me of some of the opinion I read in this Harvard Business Review article.
Particularly this part:
Tim Cook has now run Apple for five years, long enough for it to be his company rather than Jobs’s. […] Apple under Cook has doubled its revenues to $200 billion while doubling profit and tripling the amount of cash it has in the bank (now a quarter of a trillion dollars). The iPhone continues its annual upgrades of incremental improvements. Yet in five years the only new thing Apple managed to get out the door is the Watch.
[…]
It’s not that Apple doesn’t have exciting things in conversational AI going on in their labs. Heck, Siri actually came first. Apple has autonomous car projects and AI-based speakers in the works. The problem is a supply chain CEO who lacks a passion for products and has yet to articulate a personal vision of where Apple will go. Without that, he is ill-equipped to make the right organizational, business model, and product bets to bring those innovations to market.It will be interesting to see how this all plays out and if any of that proves true.
-
[Oliver Peters] “More from NAB 2018 LumaForge”
Sorry if I find the whole thing to be just another manual for “People too Lazy to Learn Motion, but Rather Live with an Exponentially more Tedious and Unnecessarily Convoluted Workflow without Rhyme nor Reason“.
Nothing he’s showing tells you what you’re GAINING by effectively giving up the exponentially higher speed, flexibility and better integration that Motion has with FCP, in particular if given the choice. What he lists in the beginning are just straw men. He argues his use of AE for reasons that he clearly doesn’t even understand (Metrics/Optical), since they are irrelevant in this context. Basically saying “I use it because those other guys do…”… huh?
Sure the exchange amongst Adobe apps is smoother, if that’s what you need, but AI and PS docs most certainly are not an issue with Motion either. Nor does his actual example even have anything to do with that. Never mind the potentially massive amount of additional data and endless potential pitfalls that come with this approach.
For me it’s just like telling people to use the Position tool (only much worse) because they rather pretend that learning something new is asking way too much. This doesn’t actually improve anything for anyone, since he’s not even doing it under the premise of “If you have no other choice…”. It’s just a How-To on perpetuating a gaping and avoidable workflow wound for those that have it or telling others to contract it. How exactly is that helpful?
And no, I’m not talking about situations where you’re required by others to use AE for whatever reason, sent AE projects to use or even in any other context other than FCP X, since that, as I said, is not the point he’s trying to make. He unabashed about purposefully avoiding Motion. Using AE with FCP is just as nonsensical as using Motion with PPro. He’s not saying “Should the situation arrive…”. No, he’s saying “You should do it IN GENERAL”.
In his example (and I’m guessing otherwise as well) he doesn’t even do anything that he couldn’t just as well have done in Motion (which goes for 99% of AE users I know as well btw) and save massive amounts of time and headaches to boot.
Oh well.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up