-
Since when was the law written you had to upgrade to the latest?
-
That’s all going to change IMHO. FCP1 wasn’t trying to catch up with itself. It wasn’t trying to be an instant Avid killer.
FCP1-7 was till locked into the “roll everything into a replicated disc and ship” model. It’s WAY TOO EXPENSIVE (IMHO) to do that every 6 months or so. FCS3 wasn’t the biggest upgrade because they were likely already looking at FCPX. No sense in investing limited development resources into something you’re about to leave behind.
There’s no way you can compare old distribution model to Mac App Store. You also can’t compare old timelines to a situation where a 1.0 app has to replace the features set and code that began nearly 14 years ago at Macromedia for a product now the market share leader and heavily integrated into professional workflows.
-
[David Cherniack] “I think this rather exaggerates their concerns”
I think some people here have done the exaggerating. People proclaiming features dropped when they just don’t know. People saying they’re moving to Avid/Premiere when they’re really waiting. There’s a difference between speculation and the declarative statements some are posting. All this based on a sneak peek of a beta which was already a few months old, not an official product announcement.
[David Cherniack] “And like you I do believe they have more up their sleeve for June….as that’s their style. But I doubt it will be much more…the rest will take a year or three.”
Yes, will have a complete current picture in June. I do think they’ll move faster than a year though for the first significant additions (depending on what they might be). I suspect they may be working on some major things that may not be ready in June but aren’t going to take a year to finish. It might be a year for a paid new version (no paid upgrades in the App Store as of current policy) but we will see some new features added at no cost (I’m not talking about additional suite apps if they go that route).
-
they could have set out to deliberately replicate the existing application, feature for feature and UI element for UI element, with entirely new code
I was with discreet *edit when they took 2 years to re-write their code. When they were done the new software had many great new features, new ways of handling rendering, clip management, multi-clips — all major improvements. But it was basically the same UI, the same software. The users were very happy – up until auto-desk EOL’d it, but that’s a different story.
So yes, I was hoping this was what Apple was going to do. Why not? NLE’s have been around for over 15 years, it is not a new field. They are not coming up with the I-phone here. Why try to re-invent the wheel – it was not as if editors around the world were clamoring for a new way to do this work – they just wanted the old way to be faster and less error prone.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
Fair enough Craig but I think we have to consider the true nature of what Final Cut is really doing for us as professional editors. In and of itself, FC is just a basic editor and when compared side-by-side with Avid it’s feature set was weak. For instance, Avid provided (and continues to provide) animatte, excellent keying, tracking, exceptional motion effects, cloning, painting and so on all in a unified interface. FC offered none of these. The best FC could offer was a cheaper cost point especially when installed with third-party hardware such as Aja and BM. By introducing FC as a bundle in FC Studio Pro they could now go head to head with a mature product such as Avid. To tout FC as a a great edit system by itself is subjective and depends on the individual (for the record, I happen to like Final Cut) but it really doesn’t have the tool set to give it traction on complex editorial jobs. The days are gone when clients will accept a rough cut without those complex details already worked out – details that require a robust tool set. So you have to look at the development cycle for the entire FCP Studio as a basis for discussion because the editor by itself just won’t do. Based on that history, Apple has an abysmal record of updating their product. A notable item in this discussion is Quicktime which is the foundation of FC. Quicktime is perhaps the worst format for moving media around if you care about color management. They introduced Quicktime X which took away so much functionality while ignoring core issues that we rely on in a professional workflow. Do you know any professional editors who are using Quicktime X? If past is prologue, does the FC update history or QT improvement tell us anything about Apple’s future offerings?
Cam Khoury
One Eyed Dog, LTD
oededit.com
248-613-8966 -
[Herb Sevush] “Why try to re-invent the wheel – it was not as if editors around the world were clamoring for a new way to do this work – they just wanted the old way to be faster and less error prone.”
Back to the Henry Ford Faster Horse quote which I assume you’ve heard. Randy Ubillos and team probably did a lot of UI research. There’s good reason why iOS isn’t a netbook. Apple’s history for the beginning of its OS and computer design has been about new UI. Apple wants a GUI they believe will be much faster and efficient. I think iMovie was their testing ground . . . and that bothers some people. I don’t think they made changes just for the sake of changes.
-
You’ve just given a very good post why Apple scrapped the whole thing and started over again. FCPX isn’t even based in Quicktime (at least as we have known it).
I was an Avid user from 1989 until around 2002 with some overlap with early FCP. I have major complaints about FCP that were never resolved to my satisfaction (and to many others as well). I have a hunch from what I saw and what I know, that Apple is doing the smartest thing possible by throwing it all out and doing it with a different code base instead of dealing with a patch quilt that began at Macromedia around 1997.
-
FCP X isn’t based in QuickTime. I think I heard it’s based in A/V Foundation. But that’s a good thing I think.
Jerry
Apple Certified Trainer, Producer, Writer, Director Editor, Gun for Hire and other things. I ski. My Blog: https://blogs.creativecow.net/Jerry-Hofmann
Current DVD:
https://store.creativecow.net/p/81/jerry_hofmanns_final_cut_system_setup8-Core 3.0 Intel Mac Pro, Dual 2 gig G5, AJA Kona SD, AJA Kona 2, Huge Systems Array UL3D, AJA Io HD, 17″ MBP, Matrox MXO2 with MAX – Cinema Displays I have a 22″ that I paid 4k for still working. G4 with Kona SD card, and SCSI card.
-
[Jerry Hofmann] “FCP X isn’t based in QuickTime. I think I heard it’s based in A/V Foundation. But that’s a good thing I think.”
Yes, True as I also understand it.
-
“by cam khoury on Apr 26, 2011 at 11:54:14 am
Fair enough Craig but I think we have to consider the true nature of what Final Cut is really doing for us as professional editors. In and of itself, FC is just a basic editor and when compared side-by-side with Avid it’s feature set was weak. For instance, Avid provided (and continues to provide) animatte, excellent keying, tracking, exceptional motion effects, cloning, painting and so on all in a unified interface. FC offered none of these. The best FC could offer was a cheaper cost point especially when installed with third-party hardware such as Aja and BM.”
Ah Here is the real NUB of IT
I get a kick out of all the Pissing and Moaning about what will
or will not be. I don’t know anyone or any edit house that bought into FCP because it was better or even close to Avid 9 or 10 years ago, But it was way way CHEAPER. End of story
How many here are in their own shops now because of the entry point
in terms of dollars that FCP offered? Who cares what is or is not going to be in the new FCPX? Avid and Adobe have now adjusted their
pricing to be more in line. So the solution is now PICK WHAT
YOU WANT, there is not going to be a huge cost difference.
What most are worried about is What is it going to cost if I decide to switch? What have you all done, subjugated your free will
to APPLE. Throw the hammer back at APPLE.
I quaranty they are more worried about how many Ipads and
Iphones they sell in MAY than the amount of FCPX they sell in the next 10 years. -
Lets look at the numbers, not speculation.
Now understanding that the purpose of FCPX is to sell Macs and that Thunderbolt on those Macs is geared to Pros for high speed storage, video I/O, possible high speed networking.MacPros certainly aren’t a big portion of Mac sales but Thunderbolt is on MacBook Pros and will likely be on iMacs as well. FCPX completes the picture for the low cost video workstation that isn’t PCIe card dependent.
Don’t discredit the portion of Apple’s revenue dependent on Macs though. Certainly iPhone leads but Macs overall are still ahead of iPads and FCPX is designed to boost those Mac sales.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up