-
Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “they’re poking an entire craft with sticks to find fresh money.”
This pretty much sums up a lot of the for-profit production industry. So, it’s fitting, eh? Seriously though, let’s think about this for a second from the business side of things since this point is now raised.
Yes, profits are a motivation, not the only motivation. I can’t work for free, not sure anyone in these forums can. Are all these “switch” deals that are happening right now are out of the “goodness” of other company’s hearts? No. It’s carpe diem with your fresh money. They want people to buy themselves in to their club by knocking down the cover charge.
I do not think the release of FCPx was necessarily the smartest business move in terms of keeping an installed user base, wouldn’t you agree? I am not apologizing for Apple. We can’t use FCPx in the shop as it stands, but they are no dummies. If you look at their recent history, the moves they make are deliberate when it comes to releasing new products.
It wouldn’t be a smart to grab $299 from everyone now, and nothing from them in the future.
The shake-the-tree-to-see-if-money-falls-out argument doesn’t quite add up.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “in shoe drop, thought experiment terms: what happens when (hypothetical) they buy 3DSMAX, Softimage, the autodesk line of flame smoke etc? “
Autodesk (Discreet) like Edit*, Cleaner, Combustion?
[Aindreas Gallagher] “how can you trust this company?”
Like Avid announcing dropping Mac support (but they did a quick back peddle) or Adobe leaving the Mac market after Premiere 6.5?
Like Media 100 844/x?
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Apple’s godly perception of the market, what it means in their eyes, and what it means for the people pursuing that market as a livelihood is gone weird.
We are not, all of us, simply in a financial software skills petri dish of their making, to be mixed up in some future pot skills bunsen burner – there is some real stuff here.Apple are gone a bit weird and they will, it appears, do just about anything that comes into their heads. Anything. Industry, craft or livelihood bedamned.
“I totally agree. They should just get out of pro media and leave it alone. I remember reading some of the sad stories from Silicon Color people about people getting laid off after the Apple acquisition and now all of their hard work is a dead product. These companies are just playthings for Apple. They have a pretty big list of products they’ve acquired and killed once they got bored with them.
-
[Chris Jacek] “and you could still open most XP apps in Windows 7.”
Actually lots of stuff was broken. So much so that they had an XP compatibility mode (so I give them that much). While 7 was an “upgrade” from Vista, it was not an upgrade from XP. It was a completely new OS that had to be installed from scratch. That’s assuming your computer met the minimum specs otherwise you just had to buy a new computer.
-
[Chris Jacek] ” That’s fine. If they did not name it FCP, and put a higher number on it (albeit not the 8 you’d expect), we’d have much less to complain about.”
OSX was not really an update from OS9 either. Nor could OS9 software run on it. Although Apple did have “Classic” that one could run inside OSX. In fact the key difference is able had no transition period between FCS2009 and FCPX.
-
[Bill Davis]You can’t open “legacy” projects in FCP-X because the underlying database structure is COMPLETELY different.
This statement is completely ignorant of the software coding process. You can’t open legacy FCP6/7 projects in FCPX because Apple didn’t want to spend time developing that. Period. No matter whatever fancy doodads you put in the UI, the end result is still clips, transitions, effects, ect. and there is no technical reason why there cannot be a FCP project import feature.
-
Walter,
I understand your point, but I think you’re defining it too narrowly.
You say “All FCP users must either continue work on EOL software, or migrate to another platform (be it Avid, FCPX, Premiere Pro, or something else entirely).” and that is certainly ONE way to interpret it.
Another equally valid view is to say “All FCP users must make the choice to continue using traditional editing paradigms as represented by Avid, FCP-Legacy, Premier Pro, or something else entirely, or accept that to move into a world where superior data flexibility and new capabilities NOT POSSIBLE under legacy software architecture is finally possible, they must accept that they will lose current capabilities as they adapt to the new architecture.”
Your statement is true. So is mine. The perspective shift is the ENTIRE argument here, IMO.
The core is that people are miffed (some incensed!) that Apple has changed direction. The real question is whether the team behind FCP-X is right or wrong in thinking that making such a FUNDAMENTAL architectural change will be a better bet than merely building more rooms on the old mansion.
Sometimes remodeling is smart (as Avid, PP and Vegas continue to do. Sometimes people with a nice piece of property decide that the old house is getting long in the tooth and a scrape is required.
I don’t think this is anything more than that – with the attendant hue and cry of those who had come to like the old design, very, VERY much – albiet after years and years of repair, remodeling and patchwork.
As to your second point, I couldn’t agree with you more.
Well said.
“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’Conner
-
Jim,
THAT is an attitude that will serve you exceptionally well, always.
“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’Conner
-
[Steve Connor] “Wow, do you actually realise just how arrogant you sound?
“Actually, he doesn’t. I’ve read David’s posts on and off for years and he has provided a terrific public service. I don’t think he sounds arrogant at all.
-
oh no harm here I am usually cool and professional… 😉
Are we here not talking about the good old Pro and FCPX story?
Well you wrote
[Chris Harlan] “Because I can’t do my job with it?
“
And I am referring to the previous post with my sarcasm, well I am telling I could not do my job with Avid, I had to use something in the lines of Maya or Cinema 4D.
Do you get where I am going with this?By the sorry about the misspelling, I am trying this Samsung Tab out at the moment… Yeah it sucks, not pro enough 😉
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up