-
Final Cut Pro in Ads – Everything Changed
-
[Bret Williams] “but without the internal drive bays, internal burner, and PCIe”
I think you’re pretty close. I do think there may be PCIe slot with GPU that might be upgradable and one additional PCIe slot. Some things Thunderbolt can’t yet replace.
[Bret Williams] “I need to get something this year for a project and the writeoff. My 2.0 ghz MacPro 1,1 is beat. I’m looking at the maxed out 3.4 ghz i7 IMac and a thunderbolt raid as a stop gap measure until we find out what’s up. I can always sell it if Apple comes out with a thunderbolt Xeon box cube mini pro thing soon.”
I thin a lot of us are in that situation. This is another Apple problem unfortunately although it’s related to Intel’s schedule for the new CPUs and motherboards. This may well be why some people may jump to Windows as its time to spend money for many companies and they have nothing from Apple to buy.
-
[tony west] “I’m glad you posted these. What’s interesting in the X ad is the choice of source material.
They could have used any car (a Chevy perhaps) but they picked a $196,000 R8
Why not kids playing soccer if that’s what it’s for?
If you look at the Imovie ads that’s exactly what they do have as source.It’s clear to me from that ad they want the pro market with this, unless they think average people are driving around an R8 “
I think you have that backwards. They chose the R8 and the racetrack setting cause it looks like a pro shoot. Just the thing to market this product to consumers: “Look! we’re editing a pro product with this, don’t you want to edit your movies with a pro product?”
The style of the FCP7 ad is much more aimed at pro’s then the FCPX ad is. As a pro, I don’t want to know how easy it is to add crazy affects to my shots, I’m much more interested in workflow and pro features, which was the focus of the FCP7 ad. I don’t give a D*&$ about 3/4 of the features in the FCPX ad.
-
[Craig Seeman] “I do think their intent is to gain PC switchers. “
I could see it if you said that their strategy was to gain non-editors and first time users, along with those wishing to upgrade from semi pro apps like FCP Express and Imovie, but what in FCPX’s feature set makes it desirable for Edius and Vegas users? Certainly not speed or tapeless workflow, where Edius beats the pants off anything Apple offers. Do you really think the magnetic timeline is such a huge selling point for X?
If Apple really wanted to gain PC switchers the first thing they would do would be to add access to all the GFX cards that keep Adobe users committed to thier PC’s.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Craig Seeman] “There’s no way I can prove this theory but I think one (of several) factors in Apple’s switch from FCS to FCPX is that they may have felt FCS might only maintain and not expand Mac sales. “
or they constructed FCPX explicitly to monetise their iMovie users, three hundred dollars at a time, there’s no way I can prove that theory, but the fact that FCPX screams that it is an extension of iMovie that only opens iMovie projects might form some sort of circumstantial evidence.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Craig Seeman] ” I do think their intent is to gain PC switchers.”
wait – hang on – what was that?
Apple’s intent with FCPX, was to gain PC users?
they built a souped up iMovie to attract PC users?
As opposed to the goal of monetising the iMovie users they have?
how exactly does that work?
One gigantic group of consumer enthusiasts is sitting there looking at the appstore – they like iMovie, they feel a little constricted, so they pop out the credit card and hey presto. Apple sold an ipod with no parts and shipping.
The other group has to ditch the PC, the software, go out and buy a Mac set it up, and then buy a piece of software explicitly based on software they don’t know – iMovie.
FCPX was designed and coded for people familiar with iMovie. It is a monetisation of that casual enthusiast iMovie user market – this explanation has the virtue of being the simplest. Old Occam and all that stuff..
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Bret Williams] “In either case, I’m predicting a Xeon box with little if any expansion capability. Think Cube 2.0. A MacMini Pro of sorts with all the faster busses of the Mac Pro, ECC ram, Xeon processors- but without the internal drive bays, internal burner, and PCIe. “
Yeah I think that’s the whole point with Thunderbolt, to go in the direction of modular systems with stuff on the outside instead of the inside. I would be more inclined to believe that Apple would want to develop smaller portable computers that you could take with you, and then bring them to the office an just plug them into monitors, keyboards and storage. This makes me wonder if they will ever visit the cube again or just move in the direction of a super ipad that has the power of a MBP when plugged into TB devices, but that acts just like a regular ipad when unplugged. That would be my guess.
Robert Brown
Editor/VFX/Colorist – FCP, Smoke, Quantel Pablo, After Effects, 3DS MAX, Premiere Prohttps://vimeo.com/user3987510/videos
-
[Herb Sevush] “what in FCPX’s feature set makes it desirable for Edius and Vegas users?”
I don’t know, but I’ve seen a number of those posts in other forums (non COW). As I said anecdotal.
[Herb Sevush] “Do you really think the magnetic timeline is such a huge selling point for X?”
It’s not what I think. It’s what I’ve seen posted. In fact those responses surprised me.
[Herb Sevush] “the first thing they would do would be to add access to all the GFX cards that keep Adobe users committed to thier PC’s.”
I’m hearing rumors around nVidia and MBAir and MBP but we’ll have to wait until next year for the next refresh.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “or they constructed FCPX explicitly to monetise their iMovie users, three hundred dollars at a time,”
That’s not profitable. Apple is a hardware company. There would be no point to invest the R&D they have for that.
-
Apple sells hardware. The R&D in FCPX just to move iMovie users doesn’t match a hardware company’s business model. Apple is fundamentally NOT a software company.
-
[Craig Seeman] “Apple sells hardware. The R&D in FCPX just to move iMovie users doesn’t match a hardware company’s business model. Apple is fundamentally NOT a software company.”
That may have been true at one point. But iTunes? I know it was started to push the iPod, but compare sales over the last few years and tell me which is a bigger part of Apple, the pods or the tunes? And then, on this model comes the Ap store. I don’t think the above statement has been true for quite a while.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up