John Siracusa on FCPX

[Andrew Richards]

[Herb Sevush] “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.”

I already argued that pro I/O would be better handled by a third party, so I actually see this as an advantage. What difference does it make if Apple writes your Log & Capture window or if Blackmagic does?

I totally agree Apple has left the Broadcast/Film market. I said as much. They left it to third parties because a few thousand niche users among millions of FCPX users is a distraction they don’t need to service themselves. Apple invested a decade cultivating an entire economy of third party partners to be able to stop doing everything themselves. They get to consolidate their software development and still be a desirable platform for creative work. They still need to prove some things with the upcoming FCPX API and the third parties need to do their thing, but I see no reason to believe they won’t given all the public statements to the contrary from all parties involved. A lot of editors are insisting their FCP days are behind them, but the way things are going, who is going to have only one NLE installed on their workstation?

Best,
Andy

[Andrew Richards]

[Dennis Radeke] “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.”

All of those applications you listed will run on either Windows or Linux on (often) less expensive commodity PC hardware. Apple only does software to sell hardware. That has been their business model since Jobs returned. The Mac is still a huge chunk of Apple’s revenue stream, and they don’t sell as many Macs without compelling software that only runs on Macs. OS X, iLife, Pro Apps, all of these exist to move iron-ahem-aluminum. Maybe a lot of pro users would still prefer to run their cross-platform creative tools on a Mac for love of OS X alone, but Apple apparently would just as soon sweeten the deal by putting what they surely hope is must-have software on those Macs as well.

Best,
Andy

[David Roth weiss]

[Andrew Richards] “They still need to prove some things with the upcoming FCPX API and the third parties need to do their thing, but I see no reason to believe they won’t given all the public statements to the contrary from all parties involved.”

Jeeze Andrew, if I’d just landed here from another planet and read your words above, I would think that the word “all” in your statement above implied both a number of (i.e. many) statements and possibly many involved parties, or that Apple had actually made some substantive statements would in some way account for the missing numbers of those represented by the word “all.”

But, I’m from this planet.

What exactly are “all the public statements” and who are “all” those involved parties you referencing? I feel as though I’ve missed something.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
https://www.drwfilms.com

Don’t miss my new tutorial: Prepare for a seamless transition to FCP X and OS X Lion
https://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/FCP-10-MAC-Lion/1

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™

Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.

[Andrew Richards]

[David Roth Weiss] “What exactly are “all the public statements” and who are “all” those involved parties you referencing? I feel as though I’ve missed something.”

Apple on releasing an API. But you knew that.

AJA committing to further driver support. See the last page for the pledge to develop further.

Red Giant on delivering plugins. Beta coming in August.

GenArts on delivering plugins. Also shooting for August.

Digital Rebellion on all their tools. One is “coming soon” and the other is waiting on Apple’s XML API to drop.

Automatic Duck, of course, already has a product on the market for OMF export.

By all means, remain skeptical, it isn’t a product till it ships. But which third parties are you thinking of that haven’t made a statement of intent on this stuff? Blackmagic and Matrox haven’t posted any press releases that I can find to link to, but I seriously doubt they will stay on the sidelines and yield the FCPX field to AJA.

Best,
Andy

[Alex Hawkins]

I’m sorry but I just got angry listening to that.

Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia

[Herb Sevush]

I totally agree Apple has left the Broadcast/Film market… because a few thousand niche users among millions of FCPX users is a distraction they don’t need to service themselves

We are totally in agreement here. The only question I have is why would anyone do business and invest money in a company that doesn’t value them? Yes, I could make a race car out of a Toyota Prius if enough third parties could modify it for me, but wouldn’t I be better off starting with a Porsche. And If the Broadcast/Film market doesn’t believe in FCPX, I don’t see AJA, Blackmagic and Matrox investing a lot of resources creating drivers. The youtubers don’t use Mac Pros.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Andrew Richards]

[Herb Sevush] “The only question I have is why would anyone do business and invest money in a company that doesn’t value them? Yes, I could make a race car out of a Toyota Prius if enough third parties could modify it for me, but wouldn’t I be better off starting with a Porsche. And If the Broadcast/Film market doesn’t believe in FCPX, I don’t see AJA, Blackmagic and Matrox investing a lot of resources creating drivers. The youtubers don’t use Mac Pros.”

If FCPX required serious capital investment, your business logic would be very sound. But what risk is there in FCPX? $300? $400 if you spring for the companion apps? I’ve spent more on sheets of paper for a tiny trade show this month. We aren’t talking about an Avid circa 1997 here. I guess if you don’t buy a Mac for your next workstation, that is a real barrier to carrying FCPX. But it is safe to say for the time being that Macs are still very common in creative businesses, if not the dominant platform. FCPX represents very little business risk. It isn’t like you can’t also have Premiere Pro and Media Composer on the same workstation if you want. This stuff is so inexpensive now, having only one NLE in your Applications folder will become a business liability.

If Apple is giving them a way to make drivers for FCPX, AJA, BMD, and Matrox will absolutely make drivers. They aren’t going to waffle on the sidelines and psych themselves out of a potentially huge market based on Internet speculation that all pros that ever wanted baseband I/O for FCP won’t ever use FCPX or want to do so with a proper I/O device. There is negligible risk for them to develop a driver. A little developer time? It isn’t like they need to build custom hardware or anything truly expensive or risky. They aren’t going out on a limb to support FCPX.

I guess if you are so offended by Apple’s handling of this (and it has been very callous indeed) you can choose to shun them in all ways moving forward, but you do so for emotional reasons only. There is very little sound business justification that can be used to defend such a move.

Best,
Andy

[Robert Brown]

Maybe they’ll prove us all wrong, but for now I’m going with the guys who are obviously headed in the right direction instead of maybe. I’m not really upset anyway. I already buy Adobe CS every time a new one comes out but EDL out, and OMF out are important to me so I’m glad Adobe has that all working. And I much prefer AE over Motion anyway so for me this is a good thing.

[Herb Sevush]

Let’s talk about these negligible costs and my emotional decision making.

But what risk is there in FCPX? $300? $400 if you spring for the companion apps?

That’s a load of crap and you know it. Automatic Duck alone is $500. The true cost of FCPX for Broadcasters, will be around $700 – $1000 once all the necessary third parties are accounted for. Again, not that big a deal – oh except maybe once your talking about 3 seats, now we’re at 2000 – 3000. Still not the cost of a decent RAID, but not peanuts either.

In January 2012 my business plan calls for me to upgrade 2 of my computers. FCPX was specifically designed NOT for Mac Pros – it was designed for laptops, Imacs, and I’m sure Ipads will be next. None of those computers can do the work I need done. Am I being irrational when I say I can’t see investing $8000 – $10000 in computers made by a company with Apple’s recent track record and direction, I don’t think so. (you can refer back to Helmut Kobler’s article here – I notice you had nothing to say about his comments.)

But most costly is my time. Retraining for a new workflow will be the biggest cost in migrating platforms. And FCPX is the least compatible system to FCP7 on the market.

I’ve spent more on sheets of paper for a tiny trade show this month.
Apparently you use a lot of paper.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Andrew Richards]

Premiere Pro CS 5.5 is the FCP 8 a lot of people wanted all along. Anyone who does a lot of AE work and is coming from FCP would be nuts not to give PPro a shot. And lots of people already own it anyway.

Best,
Andy