-
Will FCPX be continued?
-
[Walter Soyka] “Wouldn’t that require Apple to change their development methodology?”
Yes, but it depends how one interprets feature updates. 10.0.1 including XML, Stems, Roles and such in September and then Multicam and Broadcast Monitoring and whatever else they do coming about 6 months apart might be considered closer together than normal but that’s certainly subject to interpretation.
We obviously don’t know the internal decisions but I can see them getting out an update with a major feature complete even if others aren’t (locking those out maybe) rather than holding things up. Basically they have some flexibility now if they need it. Another way of looking at it, is that they can develop fewer features more frequently rather than more with a target release date much further out.
-
[Walter Soyka] “Wouldn’t that require Apple to change their development methodology?”
[Craig Seeman] “Yes, but it depends how one interprets feature updates. 10.0.1 including XML, Stems, Roles and such in September and then Multicam and Broadcast Monitoring and whatever else they do coming about 6 months apart might be considered closer together than normal but that’s certainly subject to interpretation.”
True! There’s a separation between how users perceive features and the development effort and schedule required to implement them.
Speculation begins here:
XML, Stems, and Roles were all fundamentally data-driven features. I suspect the major architectural work for these was done for 10.0.0, but the user-facing portions were not yet completed (or fully tested).
I’d further assume that FCPX 10.0.0 was designed with the intention to eventually add multicam and broadcast monitoring, so there may be relatively little architectural work necessary to get those features into 10.1.0.
Once the development team reaches the end of the feature schedule that they’ve laid extensive groundwork for, development will naturally slow down, as the addition of new user features may necessitate deeper changes to the architecture of the application.
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 -
[Craig Seeman] “Everybody has downloadable patches so Apple doesn’t have any special advantage in that.”
That’s incorrect. In the last two updates with FCP X, the folks on Lion only required an installer of about 100MB that patched the app. Folks on SL had to download a full installer of 2GB (?) that replaced the entire program. Most smaller apps download a full installer that replaces the app in the background as part of the install. It looks like a patch, but in fact isn’t.
If you update Aperture or iTunes via Software Update it’s usually a full install. It simply occurs seamlessly and picks up existing prefs so you don’t think about it. If you update Media Composer on the Mac it’s a full uninstall/re-install, whereas on Windows it’s true patch.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
That’s a good example of “piecemeal” for me at least. They can get things out the door as they’re ready and “lock out” what isn’t. As it matures, it may slow or they may decide to tackle, let’s say, one feature and get it out sooner, rather than three features with an 18 month roadmap. That’s why we might get some idea what happens between the next “big” release this Quarter and the one that follows. Of course they have the flexibility to vary things but it will be interesting to see what kind of release schedule ensues.
It’s even possible this can be impacting by marketing in that a more frequent schedule with fewer features may give the perception of faster forward motion even if they’d end up at the same point 18 months later overall. It might even give them the option to shift development priority as the market shifts (or users scream).
-
Do you mean to say Apple has an advantage but only Lion specific in that FCPX bug fixes don’t require a complete program replacement?
I didn’t realize a Media Composer patch (bug fix for example) requires a complete uninstall reinstall.
What about Premiere Pro? -
[Craig Seeman] “That’s a good example of “piecemeal” for me at least.”
My point was that the pace of updates has nothing to do with electronic delivery of the software; the release schedule is likely governed by development and QA, not packaging for release.
The App Store is a red herring.
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 -
[Craig Seeman] “…Apple has an advantage but only Lion specific in that FCPX bug fixes…”
Yes.
[Craig Seeman] “Media Composer patch (bug fix for example) requires a complete uninstall reinstall”
Yes, but only on Mac.
[Craig Seeman] “What about Premiere Pro?”
Not 100% sure on that. Adobe makes updates via their own Adobe Updater. I’m not sure how big their patches typically are. I think they are actually patches rather than full installs, because Adobe uses their own Air platform, but I could be wrong. I just haven’t paid that close attention.
Note that in the case of both Avid and Adobe, this is separate from camera-format plug-ins, like the RED camera importer or the AMA plug-ins. These can be separately removed, updated, re-installed, etc. just like codec support.
The big difference in the structure of FCP X is that nearly everything is contained inside the self-contained Package Contents of the app itself. No frameworks files and other junk spread all over the hard drive like FCP “legacy”. I guess under Lion, there is a mechanism by which Apple can replace components inside the Contents without replacing the entire app.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “I think they are actually patches rather than full installs, because Adobe uses their own Air platform, “
Yes they are, and they work very well in my experience
“FCPX Agitator”
-
[Walter Soyka] “he release schedule is likely governed by development and QA, not packaging for release.”
I’d disagree at least about the potential. They can develop fewer features and release more frequently rather than more features with longer development and QA cycles common in the old distribution model. There’s no reason to have 18-24 month cycle. They can have can have less ambitious upgrades in a 6-9 month cycle for example.
-
So all this would indicate the disadvantage to MC Mac and Final Cut “and friends” on Snow Leopard.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up