-
Might Be An Interesting Read
-
[Bill Davis] “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.”
I absolutely think this was a driving force in Apple’s decision. They dumped all outside code. It may even relate to some of the changes in naming conventions.
I think fundamentally Apple’s handling of FCS to FCPX were in part due to legal/licensing/IP reasons.
[Bill Davis] “but it also means no need to carve out dollars to send to external IP owners out of the revenue stream in every transaction.”
This why I think FCS was killed so suddenly. I suspect a long transition was not viable given certain licenses/IP, etc.
-
[andy lewis] “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.”
Adobe Premiere Elements is cross platform and was just made available in the App store. $80. I understand it’s getting good reviews in the outside world. It only has one review in the app store though. 5 stars. I had to chuckle when I saw only 2 of 31 customers found the review helpful (but all they said was Great app so it truly is a useless review).
Personally the more diversity in cross platform NLEs, the more likely Apple is going to invest in their Mac only NLEs. Every crossplatform product is a potential hook to move people to Windows hardware at some point down the road.
-
“This why I think FCS was killed so suddenly. I suspect a long transition was not viable given certain licenses/IP, etc.”
Which might make sense except for the fact that, under duress, they put Legacy back on the market. As far as I know they are still selling it thru some channels. If the licensing issues were so problematic in June, how did they resolve them by August? And is they could resolve them by August, what stopped them from resolving it by June?
Questions, questions…
“[Bill Davis] “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.”
I absolutely think this was a driving force in Apple’s decision. They dumped all outside code. It may even relate to some of the changes in naming conventions.”
Writing your own code from scratch does not in any way inure you to the threat of IP violations. It is the concept that is often at issue not the actual code. Picons in a browser, film strips in a browser, there are a lot of lawyers willing, for a fee, to prove that their is no difference, both are a visual representation of a clip … blah blah blah.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “Which might make sense except for the fact that, under duress, they put Legacy back on the market.”
Only through phone sales directly from Apple. I do think that even that restriction may have involved “legal” handling. We don’t know what the agreement was that hung Apple. Perhaps as long as all marketing through web, retail, etc. has ceased they can do this. Perhaps there was another potential conflict regarding closing off facilities to additional seats without warning. I’ve heard various permutations of this. Nothing that could even be remotely confirmed and many aspects refuted. One example is that there was a claim that only “current FCS license holders” could be additional seats but the refutation is that’s not being enforced.
I don’t think we’ll know the details for a long time or ever (well, until the “tell all” book comes out). I do think there’s a legal tangle involved or the avoidance of one.
[Herb Sevush] “Writing your own code from scratch does not in any way inure you to the threat of IP violations.”
It’s not just the code but the code and what they do, don’t do with it that allows them to build a more defensible wall. I think Apple is doing that quite deliberately.
Just because a kevlar vest doesn’t prevent you from being shot in the head doesn’t mean you eschew it . . . just as seat belts won’t protect from death in every imaginable form of auto accident, you still wear one. Apple is creating a defense. That’s the reason. Nothing isn’t impenetrable but that doesn’t mean you don’t do to the best of your ability.
-
[Craig Seeman]
Apple does not want to risk anyone (again) threatening to pull support whether it be Avid or Adobe … because they don’t want to leave themselves vulnerable.
Of course some of you just think Apple was being a (expletive of your choice) … Apple’s a business. … [This] was part of the longer plan …Craig,
You never fail to amaze me with your flattering speculation about “Apple’s position”.
But I think you need to read your statements above and think about the business decisions that people have described here (actual decisions, mind you, not speculation) in light of certain “vulnerabilities” that Apple’s recent moves have made apparent – vulnerabilities of long term support, vulnerabilities in terms of reliance on one vendor.
We have facts about motivations for one set of decisions (which you seem to dismiss as “emotional”) and speculation about another set of decisions (which you seem to feel is sound business).
Your sympathies are always apparent, but what I often see in your posts is a real emotional investment (or maybe other kinds?) in the success of a company.
What is good for Apple is not at all synonymous with what is good for many editors. Discussion of that reality should not be dismissed as “emotional”.
On the other hand, if you were talking about Aindreas …
Franz.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “But I think you need to read your statements above and think about the business decisions that people have described here (actual decisions, mind you, not speculation) in light of certain “vulnerabilities” that Apple’s recent moves have made apparent – vulnerabilities of long term support, vulnerabilities in terms of reliance on one vendor.”
Yes Apple’s strategies is based on people accepting a primary reliance on a single vendor . . . Apple. It’s worked for them with iPhone, iPad, iPod and the tie to iTunes.
You may not want to rely on one vendor but that’s Apple’s business model it is very successful.
In every case their “one vendor” model also involved third parties. ITunes and the App Store are vehicles for third parties to sell through. Thunderbolt is a vehicle for third parties in which Blackmagic, Matrox, AJA, LaCie, Pegasus, Sonnet and others are jumping on.
It’s a successful business model regardless of how you FEEL about it.
If Apple meets my business needs that’s a FINANCIAL decision. -
[Herb Sevush] “”This why I think FCS was killed so suddenly. I suspect a long transition was not viable given certain licenses/IP, etc.”
Which might make sense except for the fact that, under duress, they put Legacy back on the market. As far as I know they are still selling it thru some channels. If the licensing issues were so problematic in June, how did they resolve them by August?
SNIPIf they had a bunch of unsold product in warehouses wouldn’t that have simply fallen under their old licensing agreements? (just guessing as I’m clearly NOT an IIP attorney .) But I *think* it might have been possible that Apple could legally sell anything produced under their existing agreements – making the decision to make Legacy available easy. What they might not have been able to do was produce NEW product if there wasn’t a new agreement. That would make some sense.
“[Bill Davis] “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.”(Craigs comment snipped)
Writing your own code from scratch does not in any way inure you to the threat of IP violations. It is the concept that is often at issue not the actual code. Picons in a browser, film strips in a browser, there are a lot of lawyers willing, for a fee, to prove that their is no difference, both are a visual representation of a clip … blah blah blah.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions”To my knowledge, nothing can ever insulate anyone from being sued for anything. The key is having the strongest possible defense to the allegations. The act of starting from a blank piece of paper to develop a program might be a pretty good beginning, in my non-professional opinion.
Maybe there was a roomful of lawyers somewhere at Apple reading this very forum and after seeing all the posts about how the FCP-team had “destroyed what FCP-has been” ” they grinned ear to ear.
What better evidence that you’ve “destroyed” the old and created something radically new — than a bunch of “haters” publicly arguing exactly that day after day in open forums.
Be kinda ironic, actually.
“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
-
Proprietary worked for Apple with their consumer products (so far, let’s see what the future will bring), it didn’t do them well in most other areas and more often than not turned out to be a waste of time and money for the adopter.
FCP was a success because the of the back-then incredible price point which essentially devaluated the entire NLE market. The idea was to push hardware sales via “subsidised” software and it worked. That need is gone.
Reading through your other posts in this threat and others (put on that Kevlar vest) where all this might lead to, why they did it and what not, I seriously think you’d be great in one of those Hitler-in-the-bunker spoofs on Youtube. Pushing around imaginary armies and proclaiming final victory when things went pretty much pear-shaped long time ago. -
“But I *think* it might have been possible that Apple could legally sell anything produced under their existing agreements – making the decision to make Legacy available easy”
If it was so easy why didn’t they start that way in June? No matter what possibility you come up with the facts are these –
Apple announces immediate EOL in June.
Customer uproar.
Apple announces limited sales in August.What would have stopped them from this scenario –
Apple announces limited sales in June with future EOL
Customer much less uproar.Unless you can reasonably explain why the second path wasn’t taken, then you really aren’t explaining anything.
“The act of starting from a blank piece of paper to develop a program might be a pretty good beginning, in my non-professional opinion.”
Somewhere around 1972 George Harrison started with a blank sheet of paper and wrote the song “My Sweet Lord.” About 5 years later he was successfully sued by the author of the Chiffon’s hit “He’s So Fine.” The court ruled that even though G. Harrison wasn’t aware he was copying the song, he had heard it before and unconscious plagiarism was still an infringement.
I’m guessing that starting with a blank sheet means nothing. There seem to be conventions in NLE editing that have been copyrighted; if you infringe you might get sued, whether you write the code from scratch or not.
And since I have no legal training whatsoever, you can take that opinion for what it’s worth.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Paul Dickin] “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. “”
I used to own a Montage, so I was pretty familiar with the company. It is my belief that the patents expired around a decade ago.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up