-
When do you think Apple will pull the rug out from under you again?
-
Yeah – that’s been the only real core improvement for some time now. Pretty sure PPro was the first up on that. Magnetic timeline? That doesn’t qualify as an upgrade.
-
Some great analysis on the discussion of technology advancement in here. Thanks all. Too bad the OP’s ongoing statements/behavior is so childish.
-
Speaking of childish; too bad you don’t have the common courtesy – or would that be courage – to address me personally with your insults.
-
[Michael Sanders] “Don’t know where your based so not sure if you heard about the BBC’s DMI project? The idea was that everything should be online and accessible from where-ever. The BBC decided to build a bespoke system because 5 years ago it didn’t exist. 5 years later on and its doable with off the shelf hardware for a lot less than the £100M the BBC put into the project. “
Not, I think, at the size the BBC needed, and with the flexibility they wanted. The BBC creates material in orders of magnitude larger than pretty much anyone else, including major post houses. It wasn’t going to work 5 years ago, and it wouldn’t work now.
It certainly wasn’t going to work ten years ago when I was making an in-house BBC doc about bomb disposal officers, and I had to explain that if they had this system they wouldn’t be able to to put my rushes onto the common system, nor have my editing notes, because we’d made an agreement with the Army. The IT people didn’t live on the same planet as I did.
Bernie
-
[Jim Hines] “They’ve shown a propensity and no compunction to do so in the past – 9 to x – Motorola chips to Intel chips, FCP 7 to FCP X – USB & Firewire to Thunderthighs – the list goes on. Apple has never been interested in backwards compatibility.
I don’t really know why I’m getting into this conversation. Guess I’m bored, too ;P.
OS9 to X? Seriously? I can only assume you’re baiting people into an argument with that one. Actually, I think you’re baiting us all with your entire post. But I’m game, so here goes.
Motorola chips ran hot. Remember the “blow dryer” G4? Thunderbolt is way faster than firewire – and there’s TH to FW compatible cables. USB3 is backward compatible to USB2. Don’t see the issue with any of this.
FCP 7 to X. It’s been 2+ years. I’ve moved on. It now works much better for me for lots of the projects I’m working on. I’m using both 7 and X. X clients are very happy and I’ve seen a return on my investment in my iMac. 7 clients are legacy jobs or documentaries that started 4 or 5 years ago. FCP 7 still works and I’ve kept a legacy system around for when it won’t work.
I spent a whopping $600 on a 6TB Thunderbolt drive late last year that’s faster than any drive I’d previously owned for that amount of money. I also sold lots of old gear on Craigslist. So, other than a little bit of extra work, which I’ve done every 2-3 years since I started my business in 2000, I’ve not had any issues with this current upgrade path.
For eSATA, get a $20 USB3 to eSATA adapter. They work great.
I also finally sold my waveform/vectorscope. And I said goodbye to tape officially. I’m very happy to move on from both of these pieces of gear that break down or need calibration often enough to be a nuisance.
The huge cluster**** that I thought thunderbolt would be has turned out to be a very easygoing parceling out of gear that either stacks or hides quite nicely on my desk. So, to wrap up, this incremental change worked out just fine for me…
…and I don’t plan on it to last. In a year, if I don’t have a Mac Pro and a 4k monitor, I’ll be left in the dust. Fact o’ life and fact o’ business in a highly competitive environment.
[Jim Hines] “Are any of the “stable” post houses with rich histories and longevity in the industry moving over to X?
I don’t know of any stable post houses. If you come across one, please let me know. I’d love to find out their secret. My feeling is that the post-related facilities who embrace new technology and lead the way (CO3, Light Iron) are the ones who survive. Light Iron seems to be embracing it. I also find that the companies that have their hands in areas other than just post have more longevity.
Many post houses flourish for a time on big budget jobs, suffer when those clients move on, go through ownership transfers and squabbles, get gobbled up by bigger companies, or just liquidate and move on. That’s been my eagle-eye view of the industry since the mid-90s. It hasn’t changed since 1″ was king.
A post house’s success rides on its clients. The equipment they own plays a huge part of that because they need to be able to provide the best product for the price. When word gets out at Computer X can provide Y service. Client Z talks to the post producer and requests the service. If it can’t be provided, Client Z moves to another facility.
When new tech comes out, smaller, lighter companies emerge that can do more for less quicker. I was part of this cycle back in 2000 when FCP 1.0 was released. By 2004, I was coloring syndicated shows and documentaries that the “stable” houses were doing. Because of this, the big companies become top-heavy and the cycle starts over.
By 2011, my company was top heavy. I sold off the detritus, looked at the new landscape and started over. It’s hard as **** but sometimes you don’t have control over it.
If you can figure out a way to end this cycle and allow the post world to exist solely on an upward trend where everyone profits, then you will win the prize.
[Jim Hines] Will the next shareholders meeting vote on cutting loose this low margin aspect of Apples business? “
Can’t the same be said for Avid, being a public company and all?This video has been circling the inter-ways for the past 18 hours or so. Give it a look-see.
https://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/news/1231-michael-cioni-talks-about-innovations-in-post-production-including-final-cut-pro-xMichael Garber
5th Wall – a post production company
Blog: GARBERSHOP
My Moviola Webinar on Cutting News in FCP X -
[Michael Garber] “I don’t really know why I’m getting into this conversation. Guess I’m bored, too ;P.”
: ) That was a pleasant rebuttal. Thanks for passing the time with me.
Just Re: Avid – this is all Avid does. Probably why no one has knocked them off as of yet. Surely you see that the potential is much greater for a company like Apple to simply discontinue this aspect of their business if the shareholders deem it’s a liability?
-
[Jim Hines] “They’ve shown a propensity and no compunction to do so in the past – 9 to x – Motorola chips to Intel chips, FCP 7 to FCP X – USB & Firewire to Thunderthighs – the list goes on. Apple has never been interested in backwards compatibility. “
Apple went from Moto chips to IBM (still PPC though) because Moto pretty much stopped designing new chips and hanged Apple out to dry. Everything was good with IBM at first but then IBM didn’t seem to show any interested in aggressive CPU development so then Apple switched to Intel because they were up a creek again. The move to Intel was about the survival of the company (no exaggeration) and not because they just decided to do something different.
Apple did eventually drop FW (USB 3 is still on all the machines IIRC) but I think the writing as on the wall a as soon as Thunderbolt was announced. ThBolt and FW existed side by side on Macs for 18-24 months before FW stopped appearing in 2013. That’s not a ‘rug pull’ IMO and you can still get adapters to go between FW and ThBolt.
-
Has anyone seen this? MIchael Cioni’s (Light Iron) point of view of Innovation in production & post. The part about X starts at 13:37, the rest ist very interesting too.
-
[Jim Hines] “: ) That was a pleasant rebuttal. Thanks for passing the time with me. “
I try not to get too crazy about these things. But seriously, you post something like this in the lion’s den without anything to backup your claims, prepare to get eaten for dinner!
[Jim Hines] “Just Re: Avid – this is all Avid does. Probably why no one has knocked them off as of yet. Surely you see that the potential is much greater for a company like Apple to simply discontinue this aspect of their business if the shareholders deem it’s a liability?
“I thought at the NAB launch, one of the guys from Apple said that FCP X was their plan for the next decade. When they say something publicly, I feel they are good for their word. Because they are a public company, they could face a backlash for misrepresenting something like that.
This is from Wikipedia: Immediately after the release and its backlash, Richard Townhill, Senior Director of Applications Marketing at Apple, gave a public interview stating that Apple had a 10 year development plan for the software.
As for Avid, you are correct, it is all they do. They were too stratified, so they shored up and are now focusing on their core products. I think that’s great news for Avid editors. But they are not innovating enough for me to jump on board.
The software feels incredibly old and clunky and does not fit into my workflow. Whenever they develop new features, they don’t seem to quite fit with the aesthetic of the rest of the software or the OS. Just a simple case-in-point, the new AMA import window in MC 7. Annoyingly, it doesn’t react like a regular finder import dialog window. It is its own thing.
Also, I’ve called Avid sales managers many times to ask questions and have never received a return phone call. I find that a compelling reason not to move over.
Since FCP X is “new” and has so many hooks into the OS, it feels fresh(er), more responsive. I fully admit this wasn’t the case when it first launched. This has only been my experience since upgrading to the iMac.
Avid has gone through major architectural changes in the past, too. It’s just been a long time (in industry time) since the last one. They’ve also sold hardware (eg my analog Mojo) that are no longer supported.
I’ve only dabbled in Avid, but for the the work I do, FCP has almost always cut the bill. It’s always been forward looking and better suited (again, for my purposes alone) for Quicktime/file-based editorial. The hiccup in that chart occurred directly after the launch and lasted for about a year, right around the time I was restructuring my company and work.
Michael Garber
5th Wall – a post production company
Blog: GARBERSHOP
My Moviola Webinar on Cutting News in FCP X -
#1- Shareholders have no impact on Apple’s business decisions. Certainly not when they’re making this much money quarter to quarter with their primary monetary drivers. When iPhones, iPads, and Macs aren’t the most profitable products in each of their respective categories, let me know and maybe that idea will have some relevance.
#2- FCPX and it’s development has so little weight against their balance sheet, it would save them very little money to scrap them. Based on the last sales numbers we got, and FCPX’s current ranking in the appStore, I think it’s fair to say it’s making it’s development $$ back.
The only reason Apple walks away from Pro Apps is if interest their products dries up, or if THEY decide to.
And there’s no evidence at this point to think they’re walking away from X. They just refreshed Logic. They just refreshed the MacPro.
On a long enough horizon you can question the life of any of the NLEs. Is AVIDs business sustainable to the upper 5% of the market? Is Adobe’s CC gamble going to pay off?
Nothing is certain.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up