-
FCPX for the online editor
-
[Bjarki Gudjonsson] “Your thoughts?”
All my thoughts are in my blog.
https://blogs.creativecow.net/blog/4690/apple-dropped-the-ball
Bottom line, Apple wasted at least an hour of the FCPUG Supermeet with what they DIDN’T say. Not for lack of time, but for lack of…. well I have no freakin’ clue.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media -
[walter biscardi] “Bottom line, Apple wasted at least an hour of the FCPUG Supermeet with what they DIDN’T say.”
Actually that was my first reaction too. Why toss an entire schedule when you have no intention of using the time? Maybe Apple is just a poorly managed company when it comes specifically to Post Production. They would seem to be the next Commodore Amiga at least when it comes to FCS and Post Production, eh?
Maybe the incomplete presentation was a calculated business decision. I’ve heard, but can’t confirm, that the beta they were showing was not the current state of the product. I know first hand that a company can have a “presentation state” version because newer versions are presenting new challenges to the coders. Perhaps there’s a serious issue they’re tackling which may delay a specific function. Perhaps the problem is such that several functions are at risk, one may have to be delayed beyond release and they haven’t decided which one. Rather than promise anything, they rather be silent in anything they feel insecure about saying, showing, promising beyond what’s locked down.
I’ll quote this from a blog I read in which someone actually talked to an Apple staff immediately after the SuperMeet. My own caveat is one never knows if contents in a blog are specious or a misremembered or misinterpreted presentation of what was actually spoken.
While this Apple employee I talked to didn’t let out any secrets or new information about FCP X he said a few things that were quite telling.
…
But then I said: “I probably would not want to edit a feature film with that application based on the demo I saw tonight.” My statement seemed quite intriguing to this Apple guy.
…
Then he asked me a question that really summed up what we saw in FCP X. He asked if I was around for Final Cut Pro 1.0 some 10 years ago? I responded ‘Of course! That finally gave me an Avid at home.” He then asked: “Would you have edited a feature film in Final Cut Pro 1.0?” I probably would not have edited a feature in FCP 1.0 as it wasn’t a mature enough or robust enough application to handle a feature..
…
He said that he thinks of FCP X more like a 1.0 production. “A rebooting of Final Cut Pro” I said. “Exactly” was the response.I have no idea if the conversation is true or accurate. I certainly find it odd that even that much would be revealed to anyone if the above is true though.
My own subjective opinion is, one either believes Apple is convinced that being secretive has a market advantage or they genuinely didn’t want to risk making some statements in public at this point before the release.
Given Apple’s history of silence, that they had a “sneak peak” before a controlled product announcement is more open then they’ve ever been before . . . and maybe they just mismanaged it, at least party due to that.
-
[Craig Seeman] “Then he asked me a question that really summed up what we saw in FCP X. He asked if I was around for Final Cut Pro 1.0 some 10 years ago? I responded ‘Of course! That finally gave me an Avid at home.” He then asked: “Would you have edited a feature film in Final Cut Pro 1.0?” I probably would not have edited a feature in FCP 1.0 as it wasn’t a mature enough or robust enough application to handle a feature..
…
He said that he thinks of FCP X more like a 1.0 production. “A rebooting of Final Cut Pro” I said. “Exactly” was the response.I have no idea if the conversation is true or accurate. I certainly find it odd that even that much would be revealed to anyone if the above is true though.”
So then Apple has made a calculated business decision to take a very robust, solid editing system and give us a 1.0 reboot that isn’t really ready for primetime and they expect those of us to run it professionally on feature documentaries and broadcast productions?
Really, this is a wise decision? Here’s something that’s pretty good but not nearly as good or robust as what you’re using today. Yeah, we’ve been working on this for over 2 years, but it’s the best we can do for now and we know you really want something new. So bear with us for the next two years or so while we make it something as solid as FCP 7 and has all the features you’ll need to cut a film.
If that statement you printed is near true (and from what I heard from other people after the event, it sounds pretty close to what I was hearing) Apple is really playing with professional careers. This is not a consumer product and we’re happy to have bugs and failings in the first few iterations. This is a professional products that people make their living on.
If Apple is admitting this thing can’t cut a feature length project, why even release it? The Cow really needs to get an interview set up with Walter Murch and / or the Coen Brothers. Would really love to hear their take on the “new and improved” FCP and whether they plan to cut a movie with it.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media -
[walter biscardi] “Really, this is a wise decision? Here’s something that’s pretty good but not nearly as good or robust as what you’re using today.”
Personally I think Apple will “come through it” meaning that they will have the “favored” NLE. Just not immediately. Avid in 1989 had HORRIBLE video. You couldn’t see facial expressions and hands were blurry appendages. In 1999 FCP was no match for Avid.
I think Apple’s confident that FCPX will be the leader. Unlike the two “game changers” in the past, FCP7 is still there and the other options won’t prevent you from coming back or mixing and matching NLEs.
I do think Apple’s new method of distribution means it won’t take 2 years this time. My own hunch is it’ll mostly there by the end of the year.
I think this is the cause for the incomplete presentation and unanswered questions. They just can’t say the order of the roll out. They could have said something to the effect, “You’ll have this and more in June and we’ll continue to roll out additions throughout the year” or something to that affect. It would have been the more diplomatic spin on admitting they have more to do.
If you’ve every had to “reboot” anything in your life (such as starting a new business after a previous effort) you know that whether personal or business, sometimes you’re lead to that point. I think this is Apple’s situation. They really had to make drastic changes, commit the resources to the new FCPX, and simply need more time. With the new distribution model it makes it both more affordable (for them and us) and faster to distribute the updates.
[walter biscardi] “Yeah, we’ve been working on this for over 2 years, but it’s the best we can do for now and we know you really want something new. So bear with us for the next two years or so while we make it something as solid as FCP 7 and has all the features you’ll need to cut a film.”
It won’t be 2 years. I think more like the end of this year IMHO. What would you do if you were them? Show nothing, distribute nothing, be silent for 6 more months? There will be something for SOME people to use in June. There will be time to acclimate to the new interface. Since they don’t need to print and ship disks, there’ll likely be major updates in the App Store (free using it’s update feature) by December. Actually I think Apple is being more open then ever before as they’ve never done a Sneak Peek. At the same time they’re not going to answer questions about features that are still being developed.
[walter biscardi] “If Apple is admitting this thing can’t cut a feature length project, why even release it? “
For the same reason Avid released their’s in 1989 and Apple in 1999. It gives people time to use the app, get a sense of product direction, gives the developer an idea of how to prioritize things. -
If FCP X isn’t all there in the 1.0 release then Apple should give us a timetable for making it the feature equivalent to FCP 7.
Dajen Productions, Santa Barbara, CA
MacPro Two 2.8GHz Quad Core – AJA Kona LHe
FCS 3 OS X 10.6 QT 10 -
[Dave Jenkins] “If FCP X isn’t all there in the 1.0 release then Apple should give us a timetable for making it the feature equivalent to FCP 7.”
I think you’ve hit on the key “secrecy” issue. They don’t quite know the timetable so they don’t want to comment on which features and what order.
I’ve worked with developers and while there are internal timetables, there’s a whole host of reasons not to make them public. When you have a complex interlocking Rubik’s Cube of a program, you can run into unforeseen stumbling blocks. It may well have been why the were showing an earlier beta at the Supermeet rather than a current one . . . and that’s also not uncommon for presentation.
From a developers perspective, the one thing worse than customer uncertainty is promising a delivery date and discovering you’re going to be way off and having to make a “negative” announcement or, alternately, just quietly letting the date slip (and the customers will be quite noisy about that) or, worse yet, having to pull a feature entirely after announced because an issue gives it an uncertain future, sometimes so much so it’s either back to the drawing board for that feature or just dropping it.
One thing I can say, given that they’re no longer tied to making disks and shipping, they can minimize costs and lead time when they do add a feature. The lower the costs of distribution, the easier it is to get things out the door when they’re ready, as opposed to waiting for a bunch of features to burn to disk.
This is why I believe the update schedule is going to be MUCH FASTER than 18-24 months. I’m guessing, depending on the feature, 3 – 6 months.
Personally I think the one mistake they made at the presentation was not mention what the App Store model offers to FCPX development.
A simple statement like:
“With no disc mastering, warehousing, printing, shipping, we can pass those savings on to you” (Explains that the price drop is not because it’s not “pro”) “and we can roll out feature updates more quickly because of that” (translates to: if the feature you want isn’t there in June, the turnaround time will be much faster than 24 months).While it wouldn’t answer the specific feature questions (which they may not be able to as noted above), it might have alleviated a huge amount of the angst and panic with a positive spin on price and the App Store advantage to the Pro user.
This was Apple’s first ever “sneak peek” and apparently they didn’t think about how to anticipate the price/feature concerns and provide some kind of professional assurance even if they can’t give details.
-
All great points Craig, it’s just that it will be hard so sit by and wait if we get half of what we have now. I’m hoping they knock it out of the park and this is no more than idle speculation. We will see in June.
Dajen Productions, Santa Barbara, CA
MacPro Two 2.8GHz Quad Core – AJA Kona LHe
FCS 3 OS X 10.6 QT 10 -
[Dave Jenkins] “it’s just that it will be hard so sit by and wait if we get half of what we have now”
We have forums filled with “Chicken Little.” Of course I too want all the important stuff to be there but people should understand that just because feature “Y” is missing doesn’t mean there’s going to be a 24 month wait for implementation. Apple designed a low cost distribution system that will allow them to roll out things as they’re added.
I’m truly surprised when I see this from some “old timers.” I’ve been in video since the demise of 2″ I’ve seen manufacturers disappear, facilities go under, the way we edit changed radically over and over again.
The biggest bonehead move I remember was Avid announcing they were leaving the Mac market. Apple decided never to depend on a third party software for their hardware sales every again. It seems to have been the catalyst for everything they are today from iTunes to the App Store. Unlike Avid, Apple has not announced any pull out from any market. They have not announced a discontinuation of any product (and they had no problem EOLing Shake when they felt that was the right thing to do).
What we will see may be so different that it will not simply be the sum of the previous parts so there’s no way to “announce” that until it can be seen to be understood.
Apple may be vexing to many but they are smart. They want control of everything vertically in the markets.
If a caterpillar becomes a butterfly do you announce the discontinuation of the caterpillar?
OMG the removed crawling. We must use something else to crawl! Uh, no! Now you FLY!
They just haven’t told us how to flap our wings yet.
….
And in Apple fashion they will do the telling (they like control) and they will provide the air to fly in. -
Perhaps I’m adding my two-cents worth a bit late but I would like offer this commentary. I’ve read where a couple of people have compared this upcoming release to the maiden release of Avid in 1989. I was very much involved in shaking out that release and have very different memories of how that all went and find the comparisons way off the mark.
First, you have to remember that Avid was not replacing anything when they issued v1. It was a concept product and while there was a field of competitors (CMX 6000, EditDroid, or Montage) the Avid way of working and storing dailies on SCSI drives was a new concept. It was never meant to be high quality and it’s closest analogue might have been the Quantel Harry, itself a game-changing product. If you have ever cut on a flatbed, you probably praised the Avid because you never had to chase a trim again but the expectations for a rich feature set were not very high and film workprints were an eyesore to watch anyway. As such, you weren’t taking anything away that editors had come to rely on already. Also, because they mimicked a flatbed (and even allowed for Montage and Steenbeck-style controllers) they provided solutions for film editors and worked extremely hard to make sure ALL features that film cutters already had come to expect were in the Media Composer software. They really didn’t try to force creative styles into a new box but rather tried to do what editors were already doing in a digital fashion. The people most uncomfortable with the Avid at the time were video folks who didn’t understand why we needed a period of prep-time to digitize and sort (something film editors and their assistants were already used to) and the high quality video that video editors already saw in their suites. Also, if you needed to see a facial expression in better resolution you could simply pop in the source tape and ask MC to ‘Locate Frame’ so Avid had provided useful tools to anticipate people’s real-world concerns.
Contrast that with what Apple is doing and we get, “now change your style because we think we have a better way”. I understand the need for change and even a complete revamping of the interface but the software represents more than just a blunt instrument to bang out a video. We develop working styles by using these products over time and the transition to a new product is not a simple matter of shelling out money for the latest fad in software. This is not a word processor where the software can be drastically changed while not affecting our work. We have a far more personal attachment to our edit software and the comments on these boards reflect those attachments. As such, decisions to switch platforms are delicate matters that should not be taken lightly. Incidentally, you have to give Avid a lot credit on this one. They really enhanced their framework and even added FCP functionality to their timeline but left the choice to the editor to decide if that was the way they wanted to work. They could have easily said that the old way is dead so get used to it but instead they offered a way for those who wanted to continue working the old way the option to do so while adding new features for those who chose to move on.
A second point to make about this comparison that is extremely relevant here is that in Avid’s early days, when the software was in it’s infancy and quite buggy, we had direct lines to the Avid techs. We worked directly with Avid on any number of issues and never had to suffer through the 10 pages of tech support preamble before you could get real tech support. It was then that Avid was much more responsive to it’s installed user-base in a way that no company can match today. Also keep in mind that Avid controlled the hardware and software so they could troubleshoot your system from soup-to-nuts. If we have issues today we’re left to figure things out on our own. Thanks to the internet, at least we have each other! It would be very unusual to find editors who have a direct line to Apple that would allow them to troubleshoot anything or that would allow input about what a wider swath of editors think about their product. I doubt that for $300, any software company could do that even if they wanted to simply due to the margins required to support that model. There is a reason that Autodesk still charges a pretty stiff support fee on their high-end products.
Sorry to ramble on but I hope you’ll find my comments to be mildly relevant to this discussion.
Cam Khoury
One Eyed Dog, LTD
oededit.com
248-613-8966 -
Having “been there” at the time as well with linear and using the CMX 6000 laser disc based system, I do agree that for the most part Avid tried to follow pre-existing interface conventions and they were certainly more approachable for direct support at that time.
Even FCP1 followed certain interface conventions that preceding them.
I do think FCPX is now looking at a preceding interface history though that didn’t exist at the time. In other forums I see Vegas users saying the interface makes sense to them. In other places I see that from Autodesk/Discreet users saying the same.
Additionally, there’s a “consumer” history which focused on ease of use which didn’t exist for the most part back in early Avid and early FCP, that is pervasive now. “Consumer” is not a derogatory thing although some people have been using it as such here. That involves look at Ease of Use focused interfaces and how to apply that to Professional Post environments minus the crippled features of consumer apps.
BTW this has also happened in professional hardware where Consumer flip out LCD, as one example, have crept into “Pro” cameras. Another might be the use of HDMI. Recent history has been a cross pollination between consumer and pro features.
FCPX might well be the first major market share NLE to vest itself in the UI cross-pollination. So you are correct in pointing out that circumstances are different than the original Avid and even the original FCP. There is the common element in that some part of the “Pro” industry resisted the change even if the reasons and the segment of the market doing the resisting has changed. Generally the “new” way won over the majority of the market share.
Apple is probably the only current major NLE that is in a position with both resources, marketing, market share, to attempt this major UI change. Personally I think they’ll succeed in the long run even if they have some bumps to iron out.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up