-
Final Cut Pro X versus Premiere Pro CS6 by Oliver Peters
-
[Craig Seeman] “You haven’t defined or, in any way, addressed “fast development” IMHO.”
Remember that was a comment in response here. Everyone else seemed to get what I meant. But to clarify, I was trying to differentiate between standard feature development that was on a roadmap for future releases, versus catching up on unfinished business. That’s where Adobe was with Premiere Pro CS5 and CS5.5, I believe. Not so now where they are working on new features, rather than tweaking the build to improve performance and add features that weren’t quite ready yet. In any case, it’s all irrelevant, because the proper comparison is what Adobe does going forward from CS6 versus what Apple does going forward from 10.0.7.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
You are correct, Oliver, and that is a FAQ on the Adobe website. Here’s their take on it:
Because your Creative Suite applications are installed directly on your computer, you will not need an ongoing Internet connection to use them on a daily basis.
However, you will need to be online when you install and license your software, and at least once every 30 days thereafter. The software will alert you when you need to connect to the Internet for a license status check.
Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com -
[David Lawrence] “No technical reason why they couldn’t if they wanted to.”
I agree. The issue has been an approach to releases based around physical disc distribution. Apple dropped that. And now so has Adobe, having announced the cessation of the sale of physical discs for the Creative Suite. Releases were in sync with disc manufacturing and distribution. Now they (both companies) can roll out individual features as they complete development. This may also make the “upgrade” event moot. There’s “big” upgrade to happen with this form of distribution. Adobe takes care of the economics behind it with the subscription model. Apple, seemingly, through the app store.
[David Lawrence] “The speed at which developers are able to write code has nothing to do with how that code is ultimately delivered. Electronic delivery has been an option for years. Engineering, marketing and accounting priorities are the biggest drivers of release timing, not manufacturing.”
Yes, but things were keyed to disc distribution and the “big” upgrade. With discs gone there’s no distribution event tied to marketing. Disc distribution heavily factored into marketing. It had a significant impact on cost. The process of packaging, replication, shipping were all costs. They all had timelines. They impacted the releases. The companies all had big releases that were 18 months to two years apart generally. It was an industry wide pattern for those that released discs.
-
[Oliver Peters] “he proper comparison is what Adobe does going forward from CS6 versus what Apple does going forward from 10.0.7.”
I suspect both may end up developing and releasing features at more or less a similar pace. Given Adobe subscription has no upgrade price and, so far, neither does Apple, there’s no need to market around the “big upgrade” as a revenue generator.
-
Nope. It has to call home a minimum of once a month to see if you’ve paid he bill AND if its been deactivated. You see, you can install it on lots of machines, but the license can only be activated on one. So, the minute you activate on a third machine, it deactivates the other two. So if it doesn’t call home frequently, you could get it activated on more than 2 pretty easy. I think it calls home every time you launch, but it’ll let you get away with no connection for a few weeks before it cuts you off.
-
Plus of course, because the Creative Suite is a suite of products you don’t have to have all the applications installed on one computer. i.e. you can have Photoshop on your Mac at work and PC laptop at home while you have PPro installed on your other power PC at work and your iMac at home, if you so desire.
Beautiful!
Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia -
[Craig Seeman] “Yes, but things were keyed to disc distribution and the “big” upgrade. With discs gone there’s no distribution event tied to marketing. Disc distribution heavily factored into marketing.”
I get where you’re coming from, I just don’t think this is as big a deal as it may seem.
For example, my upgrade from CS5.5 to CS6 was delivered electronically. I’m sure my upgrade to CS7 will be as well. I doubt manufacturing has anything to do with the timing.
Logic has been in the app store since 2011, yet it’s 2013 and we’re still waiting for the release of Logic X. It’s pretty obvious the app store isn’t driving the Logic X release schedule.
I’m in agreement with Oliver. From a development standpoint, it looks like the 10.0.0 release was a public beta and everything up to 10.0.6/7 was planned, in development and simply unready for release at the time.
What you’re looking at is roughly 18 months to go from beta to release (10.0.6), with feedback from lots of beta testers in the field. This is a pretty realistic schedule. I would start the clock now in terms of judging the development speed for any major enhancements and version updates for FCPX. If Logic X is any indicator, don’t expect the app store to make any significant difference.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
I still don’t buy your reasoning.
Online delivery doesn’t guarantee all products will be updated more quickly than before. Coders still have to code.What changes is that rather than wait for multiple features to be completed so that a physical disc can be replicated, package designed, boxed can be shipped, individual features can be released as they are completed and tested.
That major updates can be delivered online is also not the point. Those updates didn’t happen until a disc was also ready to go. Again that was usually commensurate with multiple features being ready.
Currently, for FCPX, feature updates can be released as they are completed.
With Adobe ending discs, although still differentiating full set purchases vs online “rentals” they can deliver features as they are completed and tested like FCPX. The main difference, apparently, will be that the “renters” will get them as they occur with no need to pay an upgrade price. The upfront purchasers may have to wait until the gathering of a number of features and then have to pay an upgrade. Upfront purchasers will still be facing the traditional “wait for the disc” model sans disc.
-
[Craig Seeman] “Online delivery doesn’t guarantee all products will be updated more quickly than before. Coders still have to code.”
Thank you, that’s my point.
[Craig Seeman] “What changes is that rather than wait for multiple features to be completed so that a physical disc can be replicated, package designed, boxed can be shipped, individual features can be released as they are completed and tested.”
You mean like Apple’s been doing with Logic X?
[Craig Seeman] “Currently, for FCPX, feature updates can be released as they are completed.”
As is true for any software application.
[Craig Seeman] “The main difference, apparently, will be that the “renters” will get them as they occur with no need to pay an upgrade price. The upfront purchasers may have to wait until the gathering of a number of features and then have to pay an upgrade. Upfront purchasers will still be facing the traditional “wait for the disc” model sans disc.”
We have yet to see how the timing works out as far as bring cloud users and perpetual licensees to version parity. Versioning isn’t going away just because of electronic delivery.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Craig Seeman] “Currently, for FCPX, feature updates can be released as they are completed.”
I don’t think there’s any difference in this versus how Adobe and Avid operate. It gets down to marketing. Under the current Apple business model for ProApps, there’s no marketing advantages to holding back new features.
The key technical difference for Apple is their updates (with the newest OS versions) can be released as patches, because they have hooks into the OS that no one else does. The Premiere and Avid updates are typically uninstall/re-installs of the program. That’s pretty transparent with Premiere and in fact, I might be wrong as it might be a patch as well, due to the Air programming environment.
In the case of Avid on Mac for sure, there’s a full uninstall process before updating to a new version. This guarantees that you always have a full installation. On the Windows side, they use incremental patches that have to be cumulatively applied.
Apple can be more intelligent about this since they control the app and the OS.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up