Might Be An Interesting Read

[Craig Seeman]

I do think this is a root that lead Apple to develop their direction on software and hardware.

Sales of Macs were driven in part by the sales of Adobe software products, and should the dilemma escalate, Apple could lose a critical supply partner and re-ignite fears of bankruptcy.

One thing I think Apple learned from the above as well as Avid’s pronouncement sometime later that they were discontinuing Mac development (but did not after an outcry) is that Apple would avoid putting themselves into a position to depend on outside software to sell their hardware.

Regardless of what one thinks of FCPX, it is there because Avid and Adobe account for some Mac sales and Apple doesn’t want to suffer another pull out.

BTW the above article points to this from Timeline which is worth a read.
https://timelinebook.tumblr.com/

[Franz Bieberkopf]

… a bit of a dry read, but there was this gem (in the orig excerpt linked by Craig):

If Apple hadn’t decided to buy Final Cut then, it would not exist today, …

… Which is ironic. Because Apple did buy Final Cut. And it doesn’t exist today.

Franz.

[Craig Seeman]

Although look at where Apple went with iMovie. Originally hoping Adobe would make an entry level NLE that Apple could include with Macs and yet they decided to bring it in house.

I think, over a decade later, Apple decided to go the same direction with FCP and do an in house version.
Note that the abandoned apps, Shake, Color, FCP legacy all were from outside code. Whereas Motion, Compressor and the new FCPX are all in house.

This leads me to want to make all sorts of speculative comments, which I will refrain from doing.

[Herb Sevush]

“This leads me to want to make all sorts of speculative comments, which I will refrain from doing.”

Oh, go ahead, it’s a slow Friday, besides, without some wild speculations how could we be sure it’s you.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Paul Dickin]

Quote from Timeline 2:
“Elsewhere at Apple company lawyers had completed the due diligence process on the Macromedia Final Cut deal, and cleared up all issues concerning the use of picture icons (picons) in the editing interface for a potential breach of the Montage patents owned by the Haberman family. “
Hi
Would that still have been an ongoing ‘issue’ in 2011?

[Craig Seeman]

[Herb Sevush] “Oh, go ahead, it’s a slow Friday, besides, without some wild speculations how could we be sure it’s you.”

I’ll get my kevlar vest on. 😉

[Andy Lewis]

Is high-end (avid) post mostly on mac hardware?

If so, this suggests a different way of looking at FCPX (at least to me, maybe I’m slow).

Either way apple have the high end pretty much sown up in terms of income. They are only vulnerable from the consumer end of the market ie. someone developing a nice, cheap, easy-to-use NLE on windows that completely bypasses the established pro sector and takes over as the industry fragments.

It’s actually struck me before that there don’t seem to be any great options for enthusiastic amateurs on the windows side of things. Vegas? I don’t think so. Maybe just one good piece of software in this area could spread very rapidly and become a standard, and apple are aware of this.

Just brainstormin’

[Craig Seeman]

[Paul Dickin] “Hi
Would that still have been an ongoing ‘issue’ in 2011?”

Part of my wild speculation but I’d guess yes actually. I’ve alluded to it before. Apple’s dropping of FCS suddenly and without warning, without their continued EOL sales (as they’ve done with Shake and even iDVD/iWeb as part of iLife) as well as not following the same transitions used between OS9 and OSX as well as PPC to Intel, leads me to believe there was a licensing issue they couldn’t (or didn’t want to) resolve.

In short that some license needed to be renewed and maybe it was at a price they didn’t want to pay for a product they were transitioning away from. I can only imagine that months back they probably thought they’d renew at a much lower cost than they were hit with on the negotiating table.

If you read the history of FCP on Wikipedia, one of the reasons Macromedia sold FCP to Apple was due to a licensing issue they were experiencing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cut_Pro
Macromedia could not release the product without causing its partner Truevision some issues with Microsoft, as KeyGrip was, in part, based on technology from Microsoft licensed to Truevision and then in turn to Macromedia. The terms of the IP licensing deal stated that it was not to be used in conjunction with QuickTime. Thus, Macromedia was forced to keep the product off the market until a solution could be found.

There’s no way we can know this but that there was a license renewal issue seems to be the only rational reason for Apple to make a business decision to EOL and cease sales of FCS so suddenly. Of course some of you just think Apple was being a (expletive of your choice) but I think are being lead by their emotions. Apple’s a business. They don’t seem to be stupid in that department. That it was EOLd was part of the longer plan but that it was pulled so suddenly may have been due to a position they were placed and (and may not have wanted to negotiate out of).

[Bill Davis]

How can IP not be an ongoing “issue” in any transaction between large companies?

Look at the patent portfolio battles of earlier this year with monster corporations joining into virtual cabals in order to secure shared ownership of huge blocks of patents so that they’re shielded from having to pay out royalties on stuff in their own work that might conceivably be deemed derivative in a future court battle.

Software development is ALL about IP.

And if someone sniffs that your solution might be built on somebody else’s patent, the lawyers start drooling because big money can be shifted, sometimes with just the “threat” of legal action.

I don’t know what IP issues were buried in FCP-Legacy. But it would be silly to expect that there weren’t some. So the “blank page” beginning makes HUGE sense if you want to go forward with a product that is clear of as much IP baggage as is possible.

Maybe that’s a small part of what drove the “X” transformation. Clean slate = best way to insure clean Apple IP going forward.

If so, that’s going to be a HUGE competitive advantage for X in the future – and might be why they can do it profitably for $299 on the ITMS. Sure no WMV direct support is a PITA for some users, but it also means no need to carve out dollars to send to external IP owners out of the revenue stream in every transaction.

“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

[Craig Seeman]

[andy lewis] “Either way apple have the high end pretty much sown up in terms of income.”

Ultimately Apple sells hardware. Apple does not want to risk anyone (again) threatening to pull support whether it be Avid or Adobe. FCPX is Apple’s insurance policy. It’s there to sell hardware. It’s going to get a lot of attention from Apple because they don’t want to leave themselves vulnerable. Given Avid’s and Adobe’s history I think it would be foolish for Apple to depend on either for hardware sales.

Of course we don’t know to what extent Avid and Adobe has of the Mac market but the Mac revenues are very close to the iPad revenue (iPhone beating both soundly though). I suspect that Apple wants to INCREASE Mac sales and Avid and Adobe are both cross platform (and some would argue better served on Windows) is something Apple isn’t going to expect of them.