-
Insanely Simple the book and Steve Jobs.
-
[Bill Davis] “Oh. Then you’re NOT a software engineer. And as such, what you’re saying about the software engineering in X is simply unsupported opinion. Fine. Now I can assign the appropriate weight to your opinions on that particular topic.
You do know that’s a silly statement.
[Bill Davis] Actually, I too use a lot of Apple software. I seldom find it to be “buggy.” Perhaps I and the hundreds of millions of other people on the planet who keep rewarding Apple with their purchases are just unable to see the flaws that annoy you so. “
See, Bill, unlike you, it seems I am capable to give Apple credit for stuff where credit is due, and critique where that is due. You simply think everything is top and golden.
I can give you lots of things I like about X and OSX, at the same time I can give you lots that is broken and braindead. Same for Windows, Avid, Adobe and tons of other apps.An application corrupting projects under not precisely known circumstances is, presumably not only in my book, bad engineering and needs to be fixed. If you think it takes a software engineer to figure that out… well…
I can go on about bugs and issues, spinning beachballs, memory leaks, Soundtrack Pro, DVDSTP, Motion, Compressor & Qmaster, itunes, Quicktime, Lion Server, Samba but there is no point because you don’t want to hear it. Look at some non-Apple centric forums and read up on the implementations of Lion Server, bring some beer, popcorn and have fun because you’re in for a wild ride.And I am not saying by any means that Apple are alone in this boat; there is tons of sloppy software out there. It’s just that they aren’t really any better and they, too, only cook with water.
Apple are just different with great marketing, twisting reality quite a bit and a huge number of people happy to come back for round 2 after having been burned. To me, that’s an admirable persistance but not rational and I don’t really understand it.And about the “the hundreds of millions of other people on the planet who keep rewarding Apple with their purchases are just unable to see the flaws that annoy you so. “… c’mon, Bill, you cannot possible think this is a serious statement.
——
“You also agree that you will not use these products for… the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons.”
iTunes End User Licence Agreement -
[Don Scioli] “I sure hope Apple can continue to “think different” without him”
I think this is (perhaps rather obviously) a huge challenge for the people at Apple. Do they ask themselves, “What would Steve do?” Do they start doing things they’ve wanted to do, but never did or could do under Steve? How will the loss of Steve change Apple?
One interesting change I noticed was Apple’s decision to start paying a dividend to share holders. If I have my dates correct, Apple started paying a stock dividend in 1987, right after Jobs was forced out. They stopped in 1995, right before Jobs came back in 1996. Now, they’ve started up again in 2012.
https://investor.apple.com/dividends.cfm
Perhaps there’s no correlation.
Although several of Apple’s top executives hold a great deal of Apple stock, which vests over a 10 year period. Paying dividends usually results in more interested buyers, which usually drives the stock price up. Having executive compensation based on stock price is good for shareholders. But it might not be good for the future of the company, it’s products, it’s people and it’s consumers.
Either way, we will find out.
-
[Michael Gissing] “But by having one package that had to meet a simple cost point model it meant Apple were never going to spend time improving integration. If they had embraced a more expensive version and used the price difference to develop the integration properly it would have meant they could have dropped Color from a more basic edit package and perhaps made a cheaper version a la FCPX.”
I think this is where we differ. Even if Apple had a separate package for Color I don’t think the end result would’ve been any different than what we got. Apple could’ve done a number of things but they didn’t and I think think having Color as part of the suite tied anyone’s hands. I won’t beat the dead horse named Shake anymore, but Final Cut Server was kept separate and got so little love that almost everyone I talked to thought it was an actual server. I had to explain to them that it was an asset management tool… and then what an asset management tool was good for.
Apple’s attention was elsewhere (iOS/iDevices & FCPX) which is why even the the upgrade from the FCP6 suite to the FCP7 suite was so lackluster, IMO. Looking back I think Color (which made complete sense to me after I watched Walter Biscardi’s training DVD) was a hail mary pass to keep the FCP Suite interesting as Apple let it die on the vine.
-Andrew
2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5) -
[Jules bowman] “You still bang on about those left behind by the advancement often editing paradigm and how those are struggling with this evolution, among many other comments. Do you not see the insult and pompousness of that comment alone? If you don’t Bill, then I would move on from forum posting and perhaps embark in some self awareness programme. “
No thank you.
I see every bit as much arrogance and intolerance in the paragraph above as you accuse me of.
I suspect you’ve earned the right to criticize my opinions in precisely the same way I’ve earned the right to criticize yours. Thousand upon thousands of hours behind the camera and in the editors chair.
As a result of that, we still see things very differently. If nothing else, that should be useful to many others who come here not knowing WHAT to believe.
If you can’t see the shifting of the editing industry, I can’t help you. If you think some vaunted “high end” skill set is enough to prosper in the world where there are millions of new people taking up editing every year – where there once was thousands – again, I can’t help you.
And if you want to keep believing that alternate voices and opinions to yours are the problem and represent nothing beyond arrogance, than I wish you good luck with that view.
I’ve learned quite a bit here from those I disagree with. Even those I spar with regularly typically come up with reasonings that I have to consider carefully to see if there’s value in what they post. But I find I’m learning nearly nothing from you because I don’t remember you ever trying to do much beyond getting mad when someone questions your view.
You have reasons why my analysis of something is wrong say so. Tell me what counter-forces you see that makes a more traditional approach to editing the right path to growing success in a shrinking market. Tell me how YOUR approach will change any editors practice or chances of success beyond what editors have been doing for the past 20 years, and I’ll listen.
Cuz I see a nice group of ideas in X that might just do precisely that.
You’re ball.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
[Alex Hawkins] “Do you really think you’re that outnumbered? I’d place it at almost a 50/50 split.
“You must be new in these parts! For the longest time it was no more than 90-10. Yes, today it’s swinging more towards an even split. If they trend continues – that’s going to perhaps be a bit of a problem for those who just tossed this particular baby out early and never learned the value of the new approach.
My personal opinion is that X was always a LOT harder for people to understand than they imagined when they first looked at it. Remember the “iMovie Pro” meme? Here we are nearly a year later and exceptionally talented editors with fine editing brains and tons of real world expertise are still not comprehending some of the fundamental changes Apple made in this tool.
I get that this is largely because they can’t “live” in it since it doesn’t fit their workflow – but it still indicates that what’s “under the hood” of X is not in any way, shape or form trivial as to an alternate approach to the craft of editing.
The ones who appreciate it best appear to be the ones who use it most. So what does that mean?
Are we fools who confront a bad program but are too self-conscious to admit we’ve made a terrible choice and are just maintaining “appearances” and blowing smoke up our client’s pant legs so they never find out we can’t actually do efficient pro work with this tool? Or have we just taken the time to learn the complexities and nuances of the tools – and after doing that – find that it actually works for us in ways that other software has not?
Because if any other thing is true – wouldn’t we have simply jettisoned it and gone back to the “money” software we used to use – if out of self-preservation if nothing else?
[Alex Hawkins] “Cool. Just play the ball and not the man.
“Works for football (soccer) but fails massively for basketball – where the coach almost universally sends the player in off the bench with an instruction like “you’ve got Johnson”.
That’s my fundamental point in all of this. We’re NOT always playing the same game. So adjustments MUST be made.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
“If you can’t see the shifting of the editing industry, I can’t help you. If you think some vaunted “high end” skill set is enough to prosper in the world where there are millions of new people taking up editing every year – where there once was thousands – again, I can’t help you.”
So, dear Billiam, what exactly is this shifting of the editing industry then? And I mean spell it out, not airy sweeping statements based on your perceptions such as ‘independents leveraging the power of the internet through digital media and an increased flexibility of a trackless paradigm in tune with the social and political evolution of moving image as a viable commercial entity in a high octane capitalist environment that demands delivery yesterday and results right now’: but actually factual proof that my “high end” skill set is not enough for me to continue to make the perfectly acceptable living I have been doing so for 10 years.
Are you suggesting that my business is under threat because ‘millions of new people’ [*notation please, sounds like an airy sweeping statement based upon your perceptions rather than fact] are starting to use FC10? Because that is how that comment came across. I may be wrong, but it sounds to me like you are privy to the shifting of the dynamic of professional filmmaking and I am not and because I insist on wanting tracks on my timeline and a project to be called a project some whippersnapper with a macbook pro and FC10 is going to steal away my clients.
Last time I checked, most major film and TV was done in post houses which will continue, for a rather long tired time dear Billiam, to use Avid first and FCP7 second (with I believe we will see a shift of that section to Adobe over the next couple of years), so can’t see a shift there. And then all the independents will use what they want. Some will want to embrace the work-around-athon of FC10. Others will shift to Adobe. Others still will use other platforms. All of which, again, doesn’t really suggest any sort of shift or threat to my prosperity in what I do.
So what is it mate? What is this shift I cannot see? Is it the internet Bill? The same one i’ve been delivering via for the last 10 years? Or is it digital media bill, rather than tape? The same shift I seemlessly embraced whilst eating my crunchie nut cornflakes? Or is it that someone can enter the market, Bill, with a 13″ macbook, FC10 and an iPhone 4s Bill, and as such because I still use tracks on an EDL over 4 years old all my clients are going to flock to them because they’re, y’know, cool dude?
Or is this shift something else Bill? What is it. Pray tell. Enlighten. Illuminate (*Factually please. Thanks in advance)
You are still throwing around this – YOU WILL FAIL BECAUSE YOU CANNOT EVOLVE – schtick and it is nonsense dear Billiam. To be honest mate I could ditch FCP7 and pick up Pinnacle Studio and I will still succeed. Why? Because I can frame a shot, I am good with people and I can cut a story. I won’t use Pinnacle Studio because currently FCP7 is much better. And I will move to PP CS6 soon enough. I doubt I will ever use FC10 because everything I have read about it suggests to me what you may gain in some areas is completely outweighed by what you lose in others. Plus it doesn’t have tracks.
And guess what, dear Billiam, my business will not suffer a jot because of my choice, laid out above. So you don’t even need to help me. Something which, I may add, pleases me no end.
If you STOPPED with your nonsense about FC10 HATERS BEING UNABLE TO EVOLVE AND GRASP THE SHIFTING PARADIGM OF THE INDUSTRY b*ll*cks, you may actually start feeling a little warmth towards your admittedly somewhat blinkered fundamentalist view of FC10. people may actually go, ‘well that bill fella he has found a use for it so maybe it isn’t as shite as we think. But no mate, you have no sense of anything other than your own navel fluff, and that is why you are so irritating to so many.
-
How much less traffic would there be on here if Bill decided that he’d was not going to post anymore?
Steve Connor
“FCPX Professional”
Adrenalin Television -
Probably the same. But the blood pressure levels of those posting and reading would be reduced and we’d run less risk of causing damage to our eyes through constant rolling of them.
-
You Said
Are you suggesting that my business is under threat because ‘millions of new people’ [*notation please, sounds like an airy sweeping statement based upon your perceptions rather than fact] are starting to use FC10? Because that is how that comment came across. I may be wrong, but it sounds to me like you are privy to the shifting of the dynamic of professional filmmaking and I am not and because I insist on wanting tracks on my timeline and a project to be called a project some whippersnapper with a macbook pro and FC10 is going to steal away my clients.Last time I checked, most major film and TV was done in post houses which will continue, for a rather long tired time dear Billiam,
You are wrong here, The whole industry is under threat from just what you say it isn’t. As far as I can tell the number of true
multi-service “Post Houses” is way down. I am willing to bet that
the average salary of the editing community has actually declined
in the past 20 years ( in actual dollars forgetting about inflation). I used to pay my excellent
CMX/Grass 200/Chyron/ADO/Abekas editors 85,000 a year in 1995
Plus Overtime, Plus Benifits, I’d like to know just how many
editors out there are making this type of money now.
I call your attention to any newspaper classified section circa 1980
(remember those) The hottest job was a “Wang Word Processor Operator”
Jump ahead to now and a 12 year old can’t get out of grade school
without knowing “Word”
As far as your comment on “Most Major Film and TV” your are perhaps
correct but please note that the number of both of these is on the decline. Scripted Drama on TV is being rapidly replaced by much cheaper Reality/Contest shows. Every 200 Million Blockbuster movie
equals 8 or 9 lesser films. -
[Jules bowman] “Probably the same. But the blood pressure levels of those posting and reading would be reduced and we’d run less risk of causing damage to our eyes through constant rolling of them.
“If I was younger I would have done the LOL thing after that comment, but I’m not so I won’t.
….oh, what the hell LOL 🙂
Steve Connor
“FCPX Professional”
Adrenalin Television
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up