-
The Macintosh – Is it a Time Bomb for the Hard User?
-
[Christian Schumacher] “”Regarding FCP(and Studio) what were them? A consistent improvement overtime.
Why wouldn’t they be OK with that? And why wouldn’t they be pissed at them for this X?
Surely cutting them out translates as “screwing” in my book.”I was commenting on Walter’s comment:
“Apple seems to be pushing into more consumer-oriented solutions, leaving questions about their interest in professional- and enterprise-level solutions.
I can’t get a solid read on Apple. On the whole, I’d argue they’re trending consumer. FCPX has some decidedly non-consumer architecture elements and features, but that’s counterbalanced by apparent low prioritization of the requirements to support complex workflows.”
This isn’t new. This has been happening for a while at Apple. Yes FCP7 was an effort of consistent improvement over time, but there was never any news, there was never any hints, just rumors. It didn’t seem to keep FCP7 from becoming a very popular editing method, which is why I said people must have been OK with it, right?
Do you think development of FCPX has stopped? Despite it being a new application, what has changed in regards to Apple’s message? I would say that we know more about future updates to FCPX then we had ever known about future updates of FCP Legacy.
Jeremy
-
OK, I gotcha. Now moving on to your question.
I think the talk from Cupertino is damage control.Extensively, I think that FCPX’s development is the same in that regard.
It’s just all damage control to blend in the transition to a future closed ecosystem.Ultimately, those closed restraints are going to piss even more people(*) off.
Maybe even you, Jeremy. Why not? Wasn’t Color dead at 1.5?
What we have now instead? -the board? Pfft! Here’s a good link on this:https://www.taoofcolor.com/510/final-cut-pro-x-merged-with-apple-color/
(*) useless power users
-
yeah…no one can tolerate the loss of the mac start up chime.
-
My argument goes down to this; being a platform developer
why Apple should care about the hardcore users?
IF THE CHOSEN PLATFORM DOES NOT FIT THEM?For a while they will keep luring some into their cage by offering a PRO bait.
Eventually the trap will set them up for good. -
[Christian Schumacher] “OK, I gotcha. Now moving on to your question.
I think the talk from Cupertino is damage control.”Yes, there is probably some of that, for sure.
[Christian Schumacher] “It’s just all damage control to blend in the transition to a future closed ecosystem.”
Explain, please. What is closed about FCPX? Yes, it requires a new XML language to control the different structure of FCPX. Ultimately, is this a bad thing? More control? Doesn’t almost every media tool have it’s own language at it’s core? The example I would show you is Foolcut which allowed FCPX to AE transfer (and R3D conform), with no API and no official XML language. Does that represent a closed ecosystem? CatDV can already go from FCP7 to FCPX. Does this really mean that I can’t work with FCPx because it’s closed?
[Christian Schumacher] “Ultimately, those closed restraints are going to piss even more people(*) off.
Maybe even you, Jeremy. Why not? Wasn’t Color dead at 1.5?
What we have now instead? -the board? Pfft! Here’s a good link on this:”I have read that link, and we have had discussions about the Color board. Perhaps it isn’t for everyone, and it’s not the best or most logical of interfaces when comparing it to color theory, but it does give many options and the quality is pretty damn good; much better than anything that resided inside of FCP Legacy. Also, there are a few attainable options out there if a dedicated grading system is necessary, wasn’t it announced that Resolve will support fcpxml in a future update (v8.1)? I will miss Color that is certain, but if I don’t have to do another XML jockey and rerender when late changes come and I can get a quality output, doesn’t that allow me to still do my job at the level my clients expect?
Jeremy
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “This isn’t new. This has been happening for a while at Apple. Yes FCP7 was an effort of consistent improvement over time, but there was never any news, there was never any hints, just rumors. It didn’t seem to keep FCP7 from becoming a very popular editing method, which is why I said people must have been OK with it, right?”
Check out the timeline in my article [link]. I argue that from roughly 1998-2008, there was a steady string of video-oriented development across Apple’s entire product line. From roughly 2008 on, the focus seems to shift away from that, with video-oriented development efforts ending and consumer development efforts ramping up.
FCP7 was popular because it built on the foundation that Apple established with FCP v1-6 and the rest of the Final Cut Suite (including Cinema Tools, Color, DVD Studio Pro, and Soundtrack Pro), plus ancillary video-oriented products like Shake, Xserve, XSAN, and FCSvr. Apple had invested significant resources in video, and their consistent efforts over time created a high degree of confidence.
That changed as Apple began their move away from these products, but it really hit hard with the EOL of Final Cut Suite and release of FCPX.
Remember that when FCP7 was released, it felt like a relatively minor update. It wasn’t multithreaded or 64-bit. It didn’t feature GPU acceleration. It didn’t have any better support for tapeless workflows than its predecessors. People continued using because they liked the interface, or because they had built a workflow around it, and because they expected the awesome FCP8 rewrite to address their concerns.
It would have been myopic to think that FCP7, with its weak media management, poor performance, and all-transcode workflow had its competitors beat on feature set.
In short, I don’t think FCP7 was popular entirely on its merits; it was a bridge from previous versions of FCP (which were much more competitive, prior to things like Avid’s AMA or Premiere Pro’s MPE) to the future release of what everyone assumed FCP8 would be.
FCP8 was supposed to leapfrog the competition; FCPX takes both forward and backward steps. If Apple had pre-announced in 2009 that FCP8 wouldn’t ship with the ability to read FCP7 projects, interchange with other apps, or handle video I/O, I’d guess a lot of people would have jumped ship then.
This post is not meant to rip on FCPX (parts of which are really starting to grow on me), just to point out that Apple used to be on a consistent trajectory with FCP prior to FCPX, showing a clear interest across many post-production needs, and with each release of the software building on what had come before. Now that trajectory strikes me as far less clear.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
I created this thread to point out how Apple’s big plans don’t
include hardcore platform users in the future – cos’ they are shifting focus.
Most of the responses goes along those lines too, so is a good read.Any chance of a MacPro-as -it-is? I don’t think so.
Still, Apple will have its own kind of hardcore platform for a while.
They’ll come up with something to alleviate the pressure from the platform transition.
Expect them to keep the name MacPro as they did with Final Cut Pro.For me, FCPX is a transitional product in itself. The same goes for the new MacPro(X?)
I see the “way-outs” from FCPX as damage control to ease the transition.
(Strangely enough, they all have appeared after the roll-out)The technique forum is going to stem with workarounds for a while.
And this one is for debating ideas and opinions, isn’t it?
There’s a profusion of opinions nowadays, I understand.But I appreciate very much the insight of some fellow adult users in here.
Anyway that is what it is. My opinion. You are welcome to have yours too, Jeremy.Cheers,
-
[Walter Soyka] “Now that trajectory strikes me as far less clear.”
As always, those are all fair points, Walter. Thank you.
I would ask, since we can only see what Apple has released, you don’t think FCPX represents a delve in to spending money on video oriented developments? Perhaps FCPX is the result of all the investments you mention, albeit in a very incomplete stage? Do people realize how hard developing software is?
The strength of a timeline is that you have history on your side, the future is not yet written, and the immediate present does not offer perspective. Emotion often “fuzzes” the present.
Again, I am not apologizing for the way Apple has done business. As users, all of us would benefit from a more open development dialogue and more gradual transition periods to other options/workflows. From Apple’s perspective, I am not sure what advantage it would give them, or more accurately, the negatives would probably outweigh the positives from more open dialogue and long transitions. Again, I will mention Red and what they have decided to do as they grow and their technology becomes ever more accessible to users:
https://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?62908-Philosophy-change…&p=813888&mode=threaded#post813888
XSAN is now built in to Lion. Yes, the XServe is gone, but perhaps it’s not going to be needed? As a technology company and from a business standpoint, why develop something that you know is going to be obsolete?
What was an XServe? In a server environment, it is a metadata controller that had access to high speed connection protocols (PCI/PCIe) that was rack mountable and had some server like redundancies (power supply et al). Have a look here, (Click on the expansion tab once you get to this link):
https://sonnettech.com/product/thunderbolt/index.html
Minus some crucial redundancies (raid 1 boot drives, and power supplies) couldn’t this represent the future of an XServe? Since XSAN is built in to Lion, what more do you need? You have data control, you have access to high speed storage and networking, you have a fast enough CPU to manage the relatively low level tasks of passing data around.
[Walter Soyka] “Remember that when FCP7 was released, it felt like a relatively minor update. It wasn’t multithreaded or 64-bit. It didn’t feature GPU acceleration. It didn’t have any better support for tapeless workflows than its predecessors. People continued using because they liked the interface, or because they had built a workflow around it, and because they expected the awesome FCP8 rewrite to address their concerns.”
Yes, but a few high level additions were added in the form of more ProRes variants for high end (4×4) and broadcast (LT) should not be taken lightly when thinking in the grand scheme since ProRes is now the backbone of Apple editing products.
And as far as the tapeless support that isn’t in FCPX right now, I think the Camera SDK is a very smart decision. Really. Camera formats are all over the map, and even the tried and true formats change a little bit (and some go obsolete or turn legacy). The camera SDK puts the onus on camera developers to support their ever changing requirements. If they want to sell their extremely complex tapeless variants and have those variants adopted across all platforms, then have at it. Support your own format. It had already started in FCP7 with Log and Transfer plug ins for every camera, let’s hope this new SDK will allow even greater and more direct access to the tapeless media essences.
As far as development, I am sure FCPX was already in the works when FCS3 was released, so again, why spend a bunch of time, money and effort on something that you know is going to drastically change in a relatively short time period? Why keep speaking Latin when you know you are going to speak Spanish tomorrow?
[Walter Soyka] “In short, I don’t think FCP7 was popular entirely on its merits; it was a bridge from previous versions of FCP (which were much more competitive, prior to things like Avid’s AMA or Premiere Pro’s MPE) to the future release of what everyone assumed FCP8 would be.”
And I think FCPX is the answer to the development of other NLE companies, it was just a really shoddy release and marketing strategy. They have definitely burned many bridges as people some can’t wait for what is to come, they need it now. That is completely understandable.
[Walter Soyka] “FCP8 was supposed to leapfrog the competition; FCPX takes both forward and backward steps. If Apple had pre-announced in 2009 that FCP8 wouldn’t ship with the ability to read FCP7 projects, interchange with other apps, or handle video I/O, I’d guess a lot of people would have jumped ship then.”
I do think that the anticipation was certainly there.
The loss of FCSvr I think is the under rated blow to the entire Suite. I do think that eventually, FCPX will include FCSvr capabilities, or perhaps Apple just decided why develop something like this when there’s specialized companies that can do it better/cheaper/faster (such as SquareBox). They stopped developing the XRaid for similar reasons, I bet. I don’t know now, I don’t know what we will know in the future in regards to reasons why the decisions were made this way, but I am sure history will give us the perspective when we add a few more things to your timeline. Which brings us back to:
[Walter Soyka] “Now that trajectory strikes me as far less clear.”
Yeah. It isn’t clear, and in my opinion it really has never been quite clear. OS Lion is very unclear to me at this point, it feels like it’s not done. It has been mentioned on a panel discussion that Apple is a technology company and that’s how they think. That part, is crystal clear.
-
[Christian Schumacher] “I created this thread to point out how Apple’s big plans don’t
include hardcore platform users in the future”What does the hardcore platform user of the future look like? What will the requirements be?
Thunderbolt (as one example) changes this definition. What regular iPhone user needs Thunderbolt? The AJa ioXT can probably do 3G HDSDI on a MacBook Air. That’s pretty hard core and there’s no “pro” name in there any where.
[Christian Schumacher] “Any chance of a MacPro-as -it-is? I don’t think so. “
You are right. I think it’s safe to say we can pretty much guarantee that the MacPro won’t be around forever.
[Christian Schumacher] “For me, FCPX is a transitional product in itself. “
Again, you are absolutely right.
[Christian Schumacher] “I see the “way-outs” from FCPX as damage control to ease the transition.
(Strangely enough, they all have appeared after the roll-out)”Yes, they did. They definitely botched the release and pre-release, no question. But they talked, it’s a step in some sort of direction.
[Christian Schumacher] “But I appreciate very much the insight of some fellow adult users in here.
Anyway that is what it is. My opinion. You are welcome to have yours too, Jeremy.”And there it is. This keeps happening. I ask you to explain what you mean, you don’t, and I am the bad guy. It must be in my delivery.
You said FCPX is a closed ecosystem. I ask you to explain what you mean for further clarification (and show a few examples of how it might not be), You respond and tell me I get to sit at the kids table. That’s cool, we will color outside the lines and tell fart jokes.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “the Color board. Perhaps it isn’t for everyone, and it’s not the best or most logical of interfaces when comparing it to color theory, but it does give many options and the quality is pretty damn good; much better than anything that resided inside of FCP Legacy.”
OK so the quality is better than than the FCP legacy 3-way, thanks to floating point implementation, but really in every other respect it is surely inferior. Above all the granularity of the interface is really unbelievably coarse, to the point that I can’t believe that anyone is taking it seriously as a grading tool, except for rough and ready client approvals. There is no way to make adjustments with any degree of finesse.
It’s one the of the areas that needs a lot of work, and that means a pretty basic rethink in my view rather than a update tweak. I think the Color Board has had a really easy ride in this whole discussion …
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up