John Siracusa on FCPX

[Ron Lindeboom]

Interesting take on things from someone who has clearly never been an editor. Some of his arguments are good but he clearly does not understand why some cornerstones of editing practice and procedure are cornerstones in the first place.

Much of what he says applies to people working in one-man shops but has absolutely no relevance to professional editors working in work groups.

Best regards,

Ronald Lindeboom
CEO, Creative COW LLC
Publisher, Creative COW Magazine

Creativity is a process wherein the student and the teacher are located in the same individual.

“Incompetence has never prevented me from plunging in with enthusiasm.” – Woody Allen

[Andrew Richards]

I’d argue his comments are more to the point about Apple’s typical development agenda and attitude in producing “pro” products in general and not a critique on FCPX’s present and admittedly incomplete feature set. The community around here seems to read Apple’s motivations through a pessimistic lens that is often treated as fact when it is only group-think speculation (granted, Apple’s culture of secrecy and diverse product strategy leaves an information vacuum that makes such speculation the only thing left to discuss). The idea that there is a pattern to Apple’s behavior that “proves” they are forsaking high-end pro video is usually cherry-picked and is always speculation. I merely seek to present an alternative lens worth considering when speculating on Apple’s product plans and motivations.

Best,
Andy

[Ron Lindeboom]

It was interesting, Andy. And his point about Apple dragging the market where they want it to go, rather than programming for standards that Apple views as counterproductive and therefore worth gambling on that they can come up with a better idea and not lose most of their audience in doing so — was worth considering.

But I couldn’t shake the cold slap of reality that kept hitting me as he talked and it became markedly clearer with each word that he had no idea whatsoever as to how professional workflows and workgroups function — and why.

Thank you for adding the viewpoint, Andy.

Best regards,

Ronald Lindeboom
CEO, Creative COW LLC
Publisher, Creative COW Magazine

Creativity is a process wherein the student and the teacher are located in the same individual.

“Incompetence has never prevented me from plunging in with enthusiasm.” – Woody Allen

[Andrew Richards]

[Ronald Lindeboom] “But I couldn’t shake the cold slap of reality that kept hitting me as he talked and it became markedly clearer with each word that he had no idea whatsoever as to how professional workflows and workgroups function — and why.”

Indeed, he is speaking from an insulated perspective of not having a dog in this race, and he did say as much. This is a guy who still complains about Apple’s fundamental changing of how the Finder presents the filesystem in OS X vs OS 9 (see episode 19 for that discussion)!

If Siracusa is correct about Apple’s attitude on FCPX, that they think they can drag the postproduction world away, kicking and screaming, from its entrenched workflows, they are either crazy with hubris or crazy with foresight. We won’t know which for a least a little while.

Best,
Andy

[Steve Connor]

I think that Apple are simply letting the top end go, they clearly have a strategy and FCPX is moving towards whatever their vision of the future is. I honestly don’t think that film and mainstream broadcast editing is something they are targeting, that much is obvious.

Steve Connor
Adrenalin Television

Have you tried “Search Posts”? Enlightenment may be there.

[Andrew Richards]

[Steve Connor] “I think that Apple are simply letting the top end go, they clearly have a strategy and FCPX is moving towards whatever their vision of the future is. I honestly don’t think that film and mainstream broadcast editing is something they are targeting, that much is obvious.”

Your opinion gets to the core of why I opened this thread. Apple “clearly [has] a strategy and FCPX is moving towards whatever their vision of the future is”? When did Apple articulate that strategy? You are certainly free to assume they have such a strategy based on your observations, but unless you are privy to some high-level Apple internal communications, it remains speculation, and nothing more.

I would speculatively agree Apple is not interested in a feature battle with every other software NLE platform out there. They are however unequivocally interested in selling Macs. What’s the only thing selling $9,000 Mac Pros and returning their big, fat, per-unit margins? Apple’s Pro Apps. Final Cut Pro more than any other. So what if Apple doesn’t bake in every niche feature themselves? If third parties can support the niche workflows, what’s the difference?

Compare the nascent FCPX situation with the iPad and iPhone in the enterprise. Apple built a platform in iOS with the minimum system-level guts to be supportable in enterprise IT settings; security, VPN, Exchange email, etc. Everything else is going to be third party. WebEx. Cisco VoIP. Oracle eAM. Apple is confident it is winning in IT with this model.

Now look at FCPX. Apple leaving formerly built-in features to third parties when it comes to niche markets looks very familiar, no? FCPX has 32bit float color rendering just like Resolve. It has database-managed media collections just like Avid. It has very rich extensible keyboard customization like any serious NLE should. Its guts are primed for top-end pro work, it just needs the skin.

So on one hand, Apple’s release of FCPX missing obvious high-end features could look like a clear signal they don’t want to participate in the high-end. On the other hand, maybe it just suggests they are trying to apply a riff on their iOS enterprise strategy to Pro Apps servicing film, broadcast, and other demanding niche workflows.

Either argument is just speculation based on incomplete evidence and broad assumptions about how Phil Schiller and Steve Jobs are thinking about these things.

Best,
Andy

[Robert Brown]

[Andrew Richards] “Now look at FCPX. Apple leaving formerly built-in features to third parties when it comes to niche markets looks very familiar, no? FCPX has 32bit float color rendering just like Resolve. It has database-managed media collections just like Avid. It has very rich extensible keyboard customization like any serious NLE should. Its guts are primed for top-end pro work, it just needs the skin.”

That is interesting. Part of me wants to download it just to test it for performance. They should do the 30 day thing like everybody else. Performance and feel is very important to me coming from years working with Sony Digi Beta which was the best overall VTR ever made IMO. It’s just a shame they had to try to force this new timeline down everybody’s throat, and instead of fixing old essential features, they just canned them.

But I’m actually happy about transitioning to something else since coming from that linear environment, I always thought FCP came up short. Why is the DVE so bad? How come output to tape is +/- a frame when my GVG 251 nails it every time with it’s 186 chip? Why is the KF editor so bad? The slo mos with interlaced material look like crap. The chroma keyer is an absolute embarrassment.

It always seemed to me that they felt they could bypass the entire evolution of video and by doing so never realized a lot of important things had been figured out quite well in the past. This new release seems like more of the same from a company that never got it in the first place.

[Herb Sevush]

Andrew –

You call it speculation, I think of it as drawing inferences. And one of the best articulations of the “Apple is changing direction” theory is right at the top of this forum –

A Final Cutter Tries Out Premiere Pro
by Helmut Kobler
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/8805

He lists the following to consider:

Apple took nearly 2.5 years to upgrade Final Cut Studio from version 2 to 3 (and v.3 was only a moderate upgrade at that). Until then, updates had come at a much more aggressive pace.

Apple cancelled the popular Shake, promising to replace it with a new tool that never came.

Apple got lazy with its Logic Pro app as well, letting development creep along with an upgrade about every two years.

Apple stopped updating the Pro page on its web site long ago. There hasn’t been a new item posted in almost two years: https://www.apple.com/pro/

Apple took more than a year to fix a glaring Final Cut 7 bug that made its Close Gap command unreliable. To break a core Timeline feature like Close Gap and not fix it for 14 months was offensive and inexcusable.

Apple cancelled its Xserve RAID then its Xserve hardware.

Apple started taking longer and longer to release Mac Pro workstations, and absolutely phoned in the latest upgrade last July. 511 days in the making, the newest Mac Pro was one of the most un-inspired hardware upgrades I’ve ever seen from Apple.

Apple pulled out of industry trade events like NAB.

Multiple rumors (and confirmation of rumors) of significant layoffs in the Pro Apps division.

Then you get to FCPX and you can add (and this not counting any missing features that might be re-installed)

Lack of backwards compatibility.

Removal of FCS3 sales and support without notice.

A non customizable single screen design obviously not created with Mac Pro’s in mind.

Apple’s admission that they will not implement any of the missing “pro” IO but instead will leave that to third parties.

I don’t think an inference that Apple is getting out of the Broadcast / Film business is a reach. I think you’d have to be delusional to think otherwise.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Andrew Richards]

[Robert Brown] “They should do the 30 day thing like everybody else.”

Against App Store rules, unfortunately. They need to change this. If ever a new application cried out for a demo, it is FCPX.

[Robert Brown] “It’s just a shame they had to try to force this new timeline down everybody’s throat, and instead of fixing old essential features, they just canned them.”

I actually like where they are heading with the new timeline. Very flexible, but it still needs some tweaks.

[Robert Brown] “I always thought FCP came up short. Why is the DVE so bad? How come output to tape is +/- a frame when my GVG 251 nails it every time with it’s 186 chip? Why is the KF editor so bad? The slo mos with interlaced material look like crap. The chroma keyer is an absolute embarrassment. “

The effects engine in FCPX is very powerful, as it is shared with Motion 5. Motion 5 actually lets you build your own effects plugins for use in FCPX. It’s pretty cool. The sloppy tape ops on the old FCP are all the more reason to leave that stuff to the AJAs and BMDs of the world. Keyframes are handled very differently in FCPX, but I don’t have a strong opinion on them. Chroma keying is apparently very strong too, and for really heavy duty compositing you can use Motion.

[Robert Brown] “This new release seems like more of the same from a company that never got it in the first place.”

Or maybe they know where to stop digging. I’m hoping for a deep API for FCPX that leaves it to the niche specialist companies to deliver the niche specialist features. The underpinnings of a really powerful tool are there for them if Apple opens the door. Again we wait.

Best,
Andy

[Dennis Radeke]

[Andrew Richards] ” What’s the only thing selling $9,000 Mac Pros and returning their big, fat, per-unit margins?”

What if there are other pro apps that sell those $9000 Mac Pro rigs? Photoshop. After Effects. Avid, Maxon, Autodesk. Does Apple really need a ProApps division anymore, especially when their largest sales and profit centers are decidedly non-pro? Perhaps, but the question is definitely a discussion point these days.