The Paradigm of the App Store

[Andrew Richards]

[Marvin Holdman] “Over the course of the last week I’ve been thinking a lot about the incremental update that just came out and what it might mean in the broader picture of how FCPX will continue to develop. It would appear that it’s going to be a slow process to see this application get the functionality and integration capabilities that its predecessor had.”

They put out a .0.1 release with a non-trivial feature payload 91 days after they shipped 10.0. This is a slow rev cycle? Compared to what?

[Marvin Holdman] “Given the fact that Apple was and is very tightlipped regarding what they are doing with their product, combined with the their suggestion that the app store delivery of FCPX will allow more frequent upgrades and their severe limitation of releasing their API’s, I wonder if this isn’t the sign of an app that is getting ready to be a continuing heartbreaker?”

They posted an FAQ stating what they were working on, when they would release it, and they have adhered to those statements. They have reiterated they will be bringing two more critical features (broadcast monitoring and multi-cam) in the next rev. This is tight-lipped? Apple might not have an emissary on these forums, but they have been uncharacteristically candid (for them) about their plans for FCPX.

And what is the “severe limitation” in their APIs?

[Marvin Holdman] “It seems obvious to me that part of the design criteria was to create a program that was App Store friendly. It would seem that much like the hardware appliances that Apple has created, they were hoping to turn this “Pro” app into vehicle to create more App store purchases. While many Apps on the store are selling for way less that $100, this one is selling for $300 and is one of their top grossing apps, as I type this. “

Certainly, Apple is all-in on the App Store as their distribution channel for software. But that isn’t because they make their money there, it is because they think it lets them deliver a more cohesive user experience for the people who buy Macs (where the real money is). The App Store isn’t a cash cow. In fact, Autodesk said the only reason they aren’t selling the full version of AutoCAD on the App Store is that there is presently a cap on prices at $999. If the App Store is anything like the iTunes store, its profits are a drop in the ocean.

[Marvin Holdman] “When you look at what they chose to launch with as a 3rd party app, Automatic Duck, I think we’re seeing what they envision their partners to be like. Higher priced plug-ins for more specialized applications. I don’t know for sure, but I would also suspect that App Store sales by these venders put a percentage of the sale in Apples pocket. Higher prices, higher profit for Apple for being nothing more than the gatekeeper.”

Yes, they want to pass off niche functionalities to third parties (though OMF is arguably not so niche). Regardless, Automatic Duck was never for sale via the App Store. And I doubt Apple had any say in what the price was. If anything, Apple’s attitude about software pricing is to make prices disruptively low.

As I type this, I see no accessory apps (aside from tutorials) for FCPX on the App Store outside Apple’s own Motion and Compressor. I do agree there is a race-to-the-bottom effect associated with pricing FCPX at $299, but in the world of AE and Pro Tools, it is common for plug-ins to cost more than the app they are sold for. If Apple has some nefarious plan for making fistfuls of cash off the FCPX ecosystem, there isn’t even a whiff of that happening yet despite plugins and helper apps already available for sale outside the App Store.

Besides, a lot of the third party software for use with FCPX will be FREE. DaVinci Lite? AJA Control Room? BlackMagic Media Express? You can bet the forthcoming camera-native codec support will be gratis as well. The stuff they are leaving to third parties will not cost extra very often. $500 Automatic Duck OMF support will be the exception, not the rule.

[Marvin Holdman] “The more time passes by, the more it seems that FCPX was designed in the boardroom by the marketing department. The fact that it seems to advocate a less functional core with a much higher degree of 3rd party dependency seems unrealistic for an enterprise level application. “

I’ll agree that product marketing executives have a lot to do with steering product development, but the way Apple seems to be handling development for FCPX looks very shrewd to me. Think about it: what were FCP’s big development shortcomings in the past? Codec support limitations that had to wait for major revs every 18-24 months to address. Brittle legacy QuickTime frameworks that were not designed to handle the rigors of accurate video. Now? Apple is actually baking broadcast video muscle into the OS frameworks. Instead of asking the Pro Apps team to deal with low-level stuff like new codecs, they are now free to work on high-level features.

I don’t think the thing that makes rapid development practical is the App Store as we’ve heard a few times from Richard Townhill. I think they get rapid development because they have a proper foundation to build on. If they deliver on their promise for the next version, they will have achieved critical feature parity with FCP7 in less than a year. That’s impressive.

[Marvin Holdman] “I don’t remember anyone asking for further proliferation of 3rd party vendors in their editing software? It certainly wasn’t a feature that I even remotely imagined, but then again, I’m not on the board.”

What is so bad about building a platform? FCP was as successful as it was because it was so open to third party enhancement at a time when Avid only worked with Avid hardware (right down to the hard drives they “qualified” and marked up by 300%). Apple has been adamant that they think an ecosystem is better than a monolith. Maybe no one was blogging about how much they wished Apple would leave tape transport to AJA and BMD, but there were plenty of people complaining about how spotty the Edit to Tape function was in legacy FCP.

Best,
Andy

[Derek Andonian]

[Andrew Richards] “If they deliver on their promise for the next version, they will have achieved critical feature parity with FCP7”

That’s not true. FCP7 could open projects from previous versions.

______________________________________________
“THAT’S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine… But after this windmill it’s the future or bust.”

[Greg Burke]

[Marvin Holdman] “The more time passes by, the more it seems that FCPX was designed in the boardroom by the marketing department. The fact that it seems to advocate a less functional core with a much higher degree of 3rd party dependency seems unrealistic for an enterprise level application. “

Nicely said…..

I wear many hats.
http://www.gregburkepost.com

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Andrew Richards] “they will have achieved critical feature parity with FCP7 in less than a year. “

seriously?

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Marvin Holdman]

[Andrew Richards] – “They put out a .0.1 release with a non-trivial feature payload 91 days after they shipped 10.0. This is a slow rev cycle? Compared to what?”

Actually, I believe I mention that releases would be more frequent, but even so, with this new reliance on 3rd party vendors, it’s going to be a slow road to functionality. I don’t doubt the release cycle will increase and that’s part of the problem. Just because minor changes may come more frequently, it doesn’t mean overall functionality will do the same. Here’s a quote straight from Apple, via Townhill, “the first foundation stone in a building that’s going to be assembled over the next ten years.” Sounds like a slow train to me.

[Andrew Richards] – “Apple might not have an emissary on these forums, but they have been uncharacteristically candid (for them) about their plans for FCPX.”

I would have to say this is due mostly to the blowback that came from this release. All indications are that they will return to “business as usual” regarding this particular software. Look at Townhill’s revisionist statement regarding the matter, “The professional [editor] is critical to Apple, and it’s a customer we don’t want to lose.” Pretty much just blows off any criticism regarding the release. Sure it’s a statement, but it really doesn’t say anything other than “What problem?” I wouldn’t call spin “candid”.

[Andrew Richards] – “And what is the “severe limitation” in their APIs?”

My bad, should have read “severely limited RELEASE of their API’s”. To date, only a small handful of select vendors have received the API’s. This seems odd for an application that has continually stated the plans for 3rd party vendors.

[Andrew Richards] – ” If Apple has some nefarious plan for making fistfuls of cash off the FCPX ecosystem, there isn’t even a whiff of that happening yet despite plugins and helper apps already available for sale outside the App Store.”

As they’ve stated this is a “long range” plan, I think we just haven’t seen it come to fruition yet. Perhaps it’s because they haven’t had widespread release of the API’s? perhaps they are still trying to define what exactly FCPX is going to be? Who knows, we can only speculate on the long range plan for this. I’m not saying I’m right regarding the App Store, I’m just saying it seems like a plan to me. I don’t know that I would call this plan “nefarious”, but I’m not sure it’s the best way to create this type of software either. Frankly, there is a lot I like about the App Store. The convenience and lower price points overall make it pretty practical. The “whiffs” I’m getting are coming from the fact that the app store concept is an expanding one that goes beyond Apple. (Windows 8 anyone?)

[Andrew Richards] – “What is so bad about building a platform?”

FCS7 was “open” in as much as there were a fair amount of plug-ins available for it. Most of the core functionality, like tape control, EDL, XML was handled in the program. This, combined with a single source for OS, hardware and app, made for a very competitive product. Given the fact that we’ll probably see some of the “dumbed down” included functionality enhanced by 3rd party vendors (like more control over effects) it seems like getting anywhere near the built in functionality of FCS7 is going to require quite a bit more 3rd party involvement.

What is bad about that? More pug-ins + more frequent upgrades + uncommunicative mothership = challenge to keep system current.

[Andrew Richards} – “I think they get rapid development because they have a proper foundation to build on.”

I agree. I just wonder if this suggested architecture is “proper”. It’s a question that has been asked quite frequently in respect to timelines and metadata, I just wonder about it in terms of what Apple’s suggested re-definition of what a NLE is. In a day when all the other NLE seem to be moving towards native inclusion of functionality, Apple’s suggestion that it can all be outsourced is certainly radical. I just wonder about it’s practicality, based on history. Perhaps Apple DOES have some nefarious plan to issue shock collars with API’s in order to keep their 3rd party vendors in line? Maybe that’s the delay? Working the bugs out of the hardware for the “Vender Motivation Program”?

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv

[Franz Bieberkopf]

“They posted an FAQ stating what they were working on, when they would release it, and they have adhered to those statements. They have reiterated they will be bringing two more critical features (broadcast monitoring and multi-cam) in the next rev. This is tight-lipped? Apple might not have an emissary on these forums, but they have been uncharacteristically candid (for them) about their plans for FCPX.”

You have just listed – almost in its entirety – all communications Apple have made about their plans. It may take another sentence or two to complete the picture.

You think this is good communication? You accept this as being forthcoming?

One assumes they’ve taken down the FAQ because that communication is no longer relevant to their plans.

It is ridiculous that you have to qualify “candid” (“for them”) and you don’t see the irony …

Apple is a company that doesn’t communicate – it uses marketing.

Franz.

[Andrew Richards]

[Greg Andonian] “That’s not true. FCP7 could open projects from previous versions.”

Fair enough, and Apple has stated they aren’t going to chase that dragon. However, with the new XML capability, CatDV can convert FCP7 sequence XML into FCPXML. Not a perfect translation, but then nothing could be. Interchange between any two NLEs will lose some level of detail like effects, titles, etc.

The more salient point is that the barriers to using FCPX in any real world workflow are quickly coming down. Then it becomes a matter of preference instead of outright missing capabilities.

Best,
Andy

[Andrew Richards]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “seriously?”

What were the critical workflow capabilities missing from 10.0?

• XML I/O = solved
• Multi-track audio output = solved (and very elegantly, IMHO)
• Shared storage support = solved (though not as wide open as it was with legacy FCP)
• OMF export = already supported by 3rd party (Automatic Duck)
• Legacy project support = already supported by third party (CatDV)
• Multi-cam = next rev
• Broadcast I/O = next rev

They also addressed some less than critical omissions like sequence starting timecode and connected clip transitions.

The theme here is that the debate must shift from what FCPX can’t do at all to what we think about how it does everything it needs to do in order to play ball. Plenty of valid points on both sides of that debate, as we’ve seen in some threads around here.

Best,
Andy

[Walter Soyka]

[Andrew Richards] “XML I/O = solved”

What can I do with FCPXML today? What other apps support it? Can FCPX successfully roundtrip an edit to itself via FCPXML?

[Andrew Richards] “Multi-track audio output = solved (and very elegantly, IMHO)”

The commentary I’ve seen here from the video-oriented posters is that roles are great; the audio-oriented posters remain unconvinced.

[Andrew Richards] “OMF export = already supported by 3rd party (Automatic Duck)”

Where do I buy this? Not from https://www.automaticduck.com — that’s a news release about AD’s new relationship with Adobe.

[Andrew Richards] “Legacy project support = already supported by third party (CatDV)”

Isn’t this extremely limited?

[Andrew Richards] “The theme here is that the debate must shift from what FCPX can’t do at all to what we think about how it does everything it needs to do in order to play ball. Plenty of valid points on both sides of that debate, as we’ve seen in some threads around here.”

Although I don’t think we’re nearly as far along as you’ve argued (see above), I do think you’re calling out the right theme going forward. I expect that many of the “missing” capabilities will be added over time, and then we can get back to debating the merits of the design decisions in FCPX.

Of coures, by then, we may also have a better idea what to expect from CS6 and MC6. I don’t expect it to get dull around here anytime soon.

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

[Andrew Richards]

[Marvin Holdman] “Just because minor changes may come more frequently, it doesn’t mean overall functionality will do the same. Here’s a quote straight from Apple, via Townhill, “the first foundation stone in a building that’s going to be assembled over the next ten years.” Sounds like a slow train to me.”

Except I would argue that the one minor rev we have so far added significant critical functionality and it did so in a very short time (by software development standards). The long tail Townhill is referring to is software that can grow with Moore’s Law for a long time, not that they will drag their feet getting features added. They’ve already proven they can deliver big features on a short schedule. If the updates slow to a crawl after the next promised rev in “early 2012”, then I’ll eat crow. For now, they are doing just what they said they would.

[Marvin Holdman] “Look at Townhill’s revisionist statement regarding the matter, “The professional [editor] is critical to Apple, and it’s a customer we don’t want to lose.” Pretty much just blows off any criticism regarding the release. Sure it’s a statement, but it really doesn’t say anything other than “What problem?” I wouldn’t call spin “candid”. “

They have been claiming to love the pro all along, it just rang (rings?) hollow when you see the product. The candidness I was referring to was the FAQ and the bottom of the new feature page. Apple almost never talks about future product like that. They published their timeline and they hit their first deadline.

[Marvin Holdman] “To date, only a small handful of select vendors have received the API’s. This seems odd for an application that has continually stated the plans for 3rd party vendors.”

I’d rather see this stuff up on the Apple Dev site too. But practically speaking, we don’t really know who is and isn’t included on access to the camera SDK. If it turns out to be Sony, Panasonic, JVC, Canon, RED, and ARRI, will it matter the APIs weren’t opened up?

[Marvin Holdman] “…I’m not sure it’s the best way to create this type of software either. …The “whiffs” I’m getting are coming from the fact that the app store concept is an expanding one that goes beyond Apple. (Windows 8 anyone?)”

It’s just a distribution channel, and unlike iOS it isn’t the exclusive distribution channel. Third parties need not participate. If anything, the way Apple has limited the spec for what is allowed for sale on the App Store precludes much of the post world’s apps and plugins since they are not self-contained applications. Most of them wouldn’t qualify for sale on the App Store even if they wanted to be there under the present rules. Apple has bent itself over backwards to use the store for its own non-self-contained-app software (Lion, Xcode 4), but the rest of the place is very much slanted to the casual consumer. If they ever make the App Store the only way to get software on a Mac, then I get very upset.

[Marvin Holdman] “Most of the core functionality, like tape control, EDL, XML was handled in the program. This, combined with a single source for OS, hardware and app, made for a very competitive product.”

It also made for the bad old days when an innocent QuickTIme update for iTunes would bring FCP to its knees. Tape control in FCP was well known for its flakiness. XML is a moot point now, and really so is EDL (has anyone written an AppleScript to convert FCPXML to EDL yet?).

[Marvin Holdman] “What is bad about that? More pug-ins + more frequent upgrades + uncommunicative mothership = challenge to keep system current.”

The outsourcing of features strategy can be a double-edged sword, yes. However, we always needed drivers to be updated for AJA and BMD cards in the past (for instance), and they have almost always been johnny-on-the-spot with them following revs to FCP. Everything else takes place with XML, and just like XMEML before it, FCPXML will have versions with varying levels of features added over time. The addition of FCPXML 2.0 someday won’t break what works with FCPXML 1.0. The downside is users heavily reliant on third party stuff will need to be more cautious when upgrading, but again, how is that different from when Apple’s new QuickTime update would break Apple’s Pro Apps?

[Marvin Holdman] “I just wonder if this suggested architecture is “proper”. It’s a question that has been asked quite frequently in respect to timelines and metadata, I just wonder about it in terms of what Apple’s suggested re-definition of what a NLE is. In a day when all the other NLE seem to be moving towards native inclusion of functionality, Apple’s suggestion that it can all be outsourced is certainly radical. I just wonder about it’s practicality, based on history.”

I was thinking more of the underpinnings of the app, not so much the UI and its metaphor or the strategy to let third parties pick up any slack. But the underpinnings in the OS for handling video (AVFoundation, CoreMedia, and CoreVideo), for tracking project data (CoreData), and for rendering (shared engine with Motion and Compressor) mean less low-level tinkering by the Pro Apps team and more high-level feature work on a shorter timeline with fewer development resources. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see them encourage third parties to jump in and solve problems and then add the features directly the app down the line. They’ve done it over and over before, so I doubt they will stop now.

As an aside, for anyone still doubting Apple’s corporate commitment to pro media, I ask why they are putting so much exclusively professional media handling capability into the core of OS X? They are going from having a motley crew of apps with different guts and development legacies to a suite of tools that all work from the same bones (I’m including Logic in that statement, anticipating Logic Pro X to be built on all the same bones). That’s the ten year plan: stop duplicating work and let the OS do the heavy lifting. This serves at least two purposes. It lets the Pro Apps teams focus on the visible stuff, and it acts as an incubator for the OS team to see firsthand how third party developers will interact with their APIs. OS X is on the verge of relevance in the IT world at large, and being ready with tried and tested development platforms is a good thing for the platform and ultimately for Mac sales.

I empathize with your concern over the whole outsourcing of features concept, but on the whole I think what they are doing is a net positive.

Best,
Andy