-
For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line
-
Maybe Apple will buy them and make them part of the Pro app division along with Shake, DVDSP and Color?
Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California -
From the announcement the stocks are getting higher and higher.
“You never want to get to get a call from the editing room”
Art Adams -
Part of the decision is probably that Apple have, through pricing, attacked the prosumer market with FCPX so that AVID do not feel it is worth having video editing software aimed at the prosumer or hobby market.
This would be separate to the audio hardware which is probably to do with the ability of companies like Behringer to produce superior audio products cheaper.
-
[Michael Gissing] “Part of the decision is probably that Apple have, through pricing, attacked the prosumer market with FCPX so that AVID do not feel it is worth having video editing software aimed at the prosumer or hobby market. “
Hmm, that would mean FCPX is pulling away prosumers from Windows to Mac. If that’s what’s happening Apple would certainly be pleased.
[Michael Gissing] “This would be separate to the audio hardware which is probably to do with the ability of companies like Behringer to produce superior audio products cheaper.”
Somebody must disagree with that since M-Audio was sold, not discontinued.
-
Just curious, but how does fcpx compete with mAudio and an Avid iPad app?
-
Of course Jeremy FCPX doesn’t compete with mAudio which is why I said that for audio it was competition from companies like Behringer.
But it does compete with any video editing software aimed at the prosumer. The price point and app store access makes that obvious. Even FCP legacy had crossover into that area which it apparent by the number of posts on the FCP Cow forum by prosumers. If you think FCPX is not more appealing to the prosumer then I would have to disagree. I am not saying Apple have made a prosumer aimed product with FCPX but surely the broader appeal to that sector of the market is self apparent.
Craig, if a smaller niche company can buy mAudio and make it work then that would explain the sale. AVID clearly have over the years stretched their product reach into many ancillary areas like audio and prosumer software which they are poorly placed to compete with. If you think Behringer and Apple have nothing to do with their decision then I would disagree.
-
But I’m curious if you believe that Windows Pinnacle users, for example, are moving to Mac to use FCPX? I don’t know one way or the other. if that’s the case of course that would be good for Apple as it likely would mean more MBP and iMac sales. I guess if Avid saw a drop in Pinnacles sales when FCPX came out that would make sense but I haven’t seen anything specific around that.
-
[Michael Gissing] “But it does compete with any video editing software aimed at the prosumer.”
But on an iPad? The more I use fcpx the more I realize that it won’t run on a mobile device for quite a while, at least in its current state.
[Michael Gissing] “If you think FCPX is not more appealing to the prosumer then I would have to disagree. I am not saying Apple have made a prosumer aimed product with FCPX but surely the broader appeal to that sector of the market is self apparent.”
It probably appeals more to a “prosumer” because of the convenience and price, surely. It’s even on a TV commercial now.
I do think that Apple aims for the wide middle, look at FCS3 and below. Sure it could be used to make professional work thanks in part to ProRes and the codec’s ease of use, and of course the XML language, but it wasn’t only editors that owned fcp. It was a broad tool used to manipulate/playback video and not necessarily to edit. Fcp is present on almost every shoot I go on in some form or another and by many people who aren’t editors, but rather are in the production side of the business. This contributed to its overwhelming popularity, and accounts for all of those “users”. I’m not sure if Avid enjoys that kind of use.
The rest of the suite, (Color et al) tended to be more specialized, at least that’s my experience and perspective.
-
Jeremy exactly my thoughts:
[Jeremy Garchow] ” It was a broad tool used to manipulate/playback video and not necessarily to edit. Fcp is present on almost every shoot I go on in some form or another and by many people who aren’t editors, but rather are in the production side of the business. This contributed to its overwhelming popularity, and accounts for all of those “users”. I’m not sure if Avid enjoys that kind of use.”
In the past it was always FCS in the design field and Avid in studios that most designers arent allowed to walk into.
Well that was my take on it when I first got into this.
All the Avid folks were elitist up here in Canada back in the day thanks to the CBC 😛 -
[Jeremy Garchow] “If I was a new Avid customer and had no experience with the company, should I expect to pay an extra 5 thousand dollars for secondaries and perhaps Boris?”
No. Don’t. Why on earth would you? You’re exactly who Media Composer was designed for, so ignore Symphony. MOST people should ignore Symphony. That’s one of the things they’re trying to tell you with the price. This isn’t a product most people need or should even necessarily want.
Avid wants Media Composer to be the product that MOST people buy, which is why they price it the way they do. But as long as there are sales people and dealers, there will be options.
Seriously, the existence of Symphony isn’t stopping you from buying a product, any product, from Avid. I’d be surprised if any such person exists. There are many, many better reasons to reject a company than that they give you two options instead of one. Being known as the company with two options is the least of Avid’s issues, for them, their current customers or their potential ones.
Tim Wilson
Vice President, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW Magazine
Twitter: timdoubleyouThe typos here are most likely because I’m, a) typing this on my phone; and b) an idiot.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up