-
Working Over the weekend…
-
[Craig Seeman] “i think one of the problems, as I see it, in the language used in the forum, is whether “Pros” are “important” but I think the better question is whether “Pros” (broadcast and feature film) represent a profitable margin and what Apple might do, in anything, to make it profitable (increase margins).”
Although I have generally used “important” to mean “financially meaningful” in this context, Apple thinks different.
Are they interested in traditional marketing concepts like “target markets?”
Does business unit profitability matter if the unit doesn’t fit in the long-term strategy? Conversely, wouldn’t an unprofitable business unit be sustained if it were of high strategic value?
Would Apple rather have high profits or high margins?
I think we’ve all been using a nebulous term because more specific ones may not always fit.
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 -
oh I’m one of the “editing country club set” too Bill alright – our nose is easily tweaked!
we’re out there Bill, drinking Daiquiris… and guiding our “privileged sons and daughters” into those plum editing positions…
Keep feeding dat hay Bill!
tee hee.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Craig Seeman] “What I or any of us want can’t viable exist outside of the business market in which companies, whether Apple, Avid, Adobe exist and make business decisions in.
“Of course, but comparing Apple and Avid is like comparing Watermelons and Cranberries. The economic dynamics that effect them are very different.
[Craig Seeman] “None of us get what we want unless it’s profitable to some other entity. I think the two are inseparable. There has to be an economically sustainable balance.
“That doesn’t mean that the only route to profitability is through commoditization of product. It might be for a large company, but it doesn’t mean that small, niche companies can’t continue to exist and make money. Commoditization as it happened in computer industry is a relatively rare phenomenon–based on the fact that it was a new product that no one had–and much of that territory has been burned through.
[Craig Seeman] “If selling to “Pros” (broadcast/feature film) isn’t profitable then something will change. Importance to the developers is guided by their profit margins. Our product choices are guided by their response to those margins and the surrounding market conditions.”
Thirty years ago, broadcast was a niche market, and the prices reflected that. Commoditization of computers, commoditization of Internet access, and proliferation of cheep video cameras has created markets well beyond that niche. Those markets will clearly follow the grassfire of mobilization. That doesn’t mean that the niche businesses aren’t still there, and can’t be supplied by the smaller businesses that serve them. Yes, prices will go up.
[Craig Seeman] “I’m just trying to define importance as a business, rather than emotional term.”
I get that you are trying to do that, but you seem to have it solidly in your mind that their is only one her of business and that riding commoditization grassfire is the only rational approach a business could take. Of course, if you get it to pay off like Apple did with the iPhone, it is unbelievably rewarding. But there are other ways.
-
[Walter Soyka] “Apple is inviting studios to consider PCs.”
[Bill Davis] “Since when did this market segment require an “invitation?””
Did I really need to be clearer?
Apple is giving their entire professional customer base good reason to examine other options. They are creating FUD about themselves!
[Bill Davis] “For shops like his, at the nexus of Hollywood episodic TV work, broadening the toolset from all Mac to Mac, HP and whatever has been very smart. With those budgets you do whatever it takes. “
Why wouldn’t a cross-platform workflow be smart in any market?
I’m finding that running both platforms exposes you to the unique advantages of each and lets you use the right tool for the job at hand.
[Bill Davis] “I actually remember sitting down talking to Rami back at a conference when he was just starting out to help Walter Murch build the “home studio” workflow that he used for Cold Mountain, and I remember his enthusiasm for the brand new possibilities of digital editing via the early FCP…. But I suspect that having been at the table, listening to him talk as a brash young 20 something year old, I suspect that there’s a new kid out there just like young Rami, who sees precisely the same potential in FCP-X.”
Because… it’s $700 cheaper? Or because it has a DAM built in, instead of available separately?
This is the exceptionalism argument that Aindreas was getting at. FCPX is new, but it isn’t magic. The revolution has been under way for over a decade. What’s the big differentiator for FCPX? What’s its unique disruption? Couldn’t it just be another evolutionary step in the industry looking back over the last 15 or 20 years?
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 -
[Bill Davis] “I suspect he would agree that his choice of FCP way back then was a huge driver in his subsequent success.
Bill,
Did we read the same article?
What I read was a survey of many solutions over years – all of which add up to a strategy that seems hardware and software agnostic whenever possible. You need to expand on why you would pick out one of those decisions (though your subsequent statements seem to backpedal a bit).
[Bill Davis] … I suspect that there’s a new kid out there just like young Rami, who sees precisely the same potential in FCP-X.”
There’s all kinds of kids with all kinds of ideas; I suspect that those that get caught up with one brand won’t get far. I haven’t seen or heard anything persuasive about FCPX as a superior or even particularly special tool – Apple is claiming a “revolution” but so far all I see is an interface change and some undercooked software. Frankly, the idea that the revolution will come from something like Lightworks or some other underestimated corner is more compelling.
Franz.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “guiding our “privileged sons and daughters” into those plum editing positions…”
Perhaps it never works that way on your side of the pond… but if I had a dollar for every production pro I’ve ever talked to who lost a position to someone “better connected” by birth or marriage to a working pro in the industry, I’d be able to… well, to buy a lot more nice toys.
I don’t even begrudge it. Heck, I’d hire my own kid over a stranger unless there was a clear expertise gap – and even then I’d probably find a way to keep him on the payroll just like you would. That’s the whole point of family.
So dismiss that all you like. Just let us know how holding onto the fantasy that it’s a “level playing field” out there for everyone works out in the real world.
At least FCP-X for $299 helps a little bit since those who don’t have a full $1000 in disposable income can get their feet wet in building real-world editing skills.
Doesn’t really matter much, I saw a statistic once that indicated that significant wealth, unless it’s really massive, seldom lasts past 3 generations.
The grit to amass it takes a particular orientation, the next generation has it so much easier, that they typically pass on little of that grit to their kids, and eventually the even more “entitled” grandkids just spend it down to nothing.
And so it goes.
“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’Connor
-
[Walter Soyka] “They are creating FUD about themselves!
“But is that a strategy, or merely an artifact of the fact that they’re keeping their eye on the game of development, rather than wasting too time explaining themselves. I remember back at FCPv1 when a bunch of us “discovered” 2-pop.com and a guy named Ralph Fairweather who could actually answer questions and help us understand how the then new software operated. It was many, many months before we discovered that Ralph was actually part of the FCP development team.
My point is that they didn’t do this publicly, they did it quietly and the few of us who stumbled into the right place at the right time benefitted. You could claim that not having “official spokespeople” even back then was also driving FUD – but the difference is that back then, nobody much cared about FCP. All I see is Apple doing precisely what’s worked well in the past (keeping things close to the vest and letting the work speak for itself) and that the only thing that’s changed is the massive perceived “need” in the minds of thousands of us on boards like this that being privy to their plans is the only possible key to our happiness.[Walter Soyka] “Why wouldn’t a cross-platform workflow be smart in any market?
“I actually don’t think so in a lot of cases. In some ways I think it’s like an individual trying to be both a guitar and a banjo player. You can become “competent” at both. But to really excel, I think most musicians typically concentrate on one instrument. There are exceptions, and I suppose it’s a bit based on whether you want to see the editor as a “technician” (operating a variety of tools) or an “artist” (attempting to achieve absolute mastery of one). Both views are rational. Pick one, I guess.
[Walter Soyka] “What’s the big differentiator for FCPX? What’s its unique disruption? “
Good question.
I think the answers is that it presents TWO compelling “market differentiators” to editors at a time when increasing numbers of people are interested in exploring the skills for their personal purposes.
Price is clearly one. Its a two thirds cut in the cost of entry. (Actually more if you compare X+Motion5 to Studio Plus Motion in the past) So the barrier to adoption and use are significantly lower.
And the second “differentiator” is its new editing paradigm – which I view as a good match for the kinds of practical projects that will be increasingly common in the future. To expand on that, I used to make lots and lots and lots of 30 to 60 minute duration corporate training videos. I haven’t had a job like that in years. Today, the market wants significantly shorter, web deployable “modular” training. Not monolithic “sit in a room for a day and get trained” content. And I think that’s a clear “sweet spot” for X.
It’s the kind of content in the “Videos” section right here on the Cow.
That kind of common “web site” embedded content didn’t exist until VERY recently in your timescope of “the past fifteen to twenty years”
And now it’s increasingly the NORM in audience expectations.So I think that’s where the “content” market is increasingly headed.
Whether we like it or not.
“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’Connor
-
[Craig Seeman] ”
i think one of the problems, as I see it, in the language used in the forum, is whether “Pros” are “important” but I think the better question is whether “Pros” (broadcast and feature film) represent a profitable margin and what Apple might do, in anything, to make it profitable (increase margins).
“lets posit another definition of professional and apply it to FCPX.
Say I am a professional editor (very much maybe), which is simply to say that it is the declared manner in which I earn my living, it doesn’t mean I’m cutting Jim Cameron, it simply means I put food on the table by providing editing services. – I may meet multiple unknown scenarios, involving online, broadcast, corporate, or otherwise.
I may be required to operate solely, or in conjunction with others, the software may be in my hands or provided to me freelance by the production company.
The software needs to be, as professional software, applicable to these multiple scenarios right? It needs to be a shared container for their needs and mine. It needs to encompass multiple use scenarios. This engenders complexity, because it has to be open. As in a blanket which, when you throw it down, covers an acceptable portion of the total editing market – otherwise why term it an editing solution?
With regard to Apple’s actions and motivations here in developing FCPX – as they looked at that whole existing universe of editing in practise, and potential client demand, is there any serious argument that they chose instead to construct an approachable enhancement to iMovie? They share methodology, concepts, events, the playdo draggable selections, the near identical basic GUI – the lot.
Apple’s goal with this software – which I’ve already said oodles of times before – was specifically, and with direct intent – to monetise the iMovie user market. They had no broad complex ten year intentions with this software. I find that stuff really funny. they had a very simple motivation: to monetise iMovie users. They produced software directly born out of, and adhering strictly to, iMovie conventions and logic. Gone is the source window, gone is three way colour correction, hello to iMovie and iPhoto events, goodbye to all industry standard norms such as tracks and selectable edit targets.
these were not actions taken to boldly drive editing forward, these were actions taken to produce a piece of software attractive and recognisable to the casual iMovie user.
now you can argue that Apple is somehow fostering the middle future or whatever, but in simple terms, they are monetising the imovie market. they are (if at all) seeing future editors in terms of their own casual current imovie users. And, frankly, they may not really care, as long as they get three hundred dollars out of them right now. that’s an ipod every time. with no parts or shipping. Let them learn Avid later.
Apple consciously used the defunct and recognisable FCP marque as a come hither to provide a monetisable software draw to the imovie customer base within their consumer ecosystem. That is why the software was created. To be sold in the appstore, to enthusiast consumers.
So then say that is how Apple view the professional editing market – if its not growing slowly out of iMovie, they could not care less about it. the market will not re-configure to this software, indeed it is being rejected en masse, and apple has no intention of re-configuring a product specifically designed for imovie graduates into the kind of software required for broad professional market use. Some of us may delve in – fine they’re fine with that – we are not their bread. their bread is the monetisable consumer. They see editing as something else in their terms – and the complexity required of a professional product does not match their market.
there will be sops – sure – they’ll code in bits and pieces to allow for a plausible paradigm, god knows what multi-cam will look like (an audition carousel?) but – this will never be other than what it is: a strong revenue generator in the appstore. Nice, direct download, import your imovie projects. Just as it was intended.
If they care about professionals it is only to the extent that they might foster them directly from their direct to consumer enthusiast software.
FCPX is (come on please) never going anywhere in the editing market as we understand it and apple is completely fine with that. They’ll be vaguely nice about it, drop the odd sop to the pro every half year or so, but this software is an explicit monetisation of the imovie user market – that is a large succulent market. that is the market for this software.
Apple could care less about the current requirements of editing, and that is not changing anytime soon.
that half a million on the appstore is… 85% imovie graduates?
ok, sure lets argue about the 85% figure then – but do you think Apple had any other number in mind?
do you think Apple feel desperate now? as they read this forum?
do they now feel market driven to provide multi-cam (they’ll throw out something), licensed OMF or designatable tracks?
what would be their impetus?
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Bill Davis] “But is that a strategy, or merely an artifact of the fact that they’re keeping their eye on the game of development, rather than wasting too time explaining themselves. “
Well, again, to each his own opinion. I think it is just bad, bad software and an arrogant attitude by the company behind it.
[Bill Davis] “I actually don’t think so in a lot of cases. In some ways I think it’s like an individual trying to be both a guitar and a banjo player. You can become “competent” at both. But to really excel, I think most musicians typically concentrate on one instrument. There are exceptions, and I suppose it’s a bit based on whether you want to see the editor as a “technician” (operating a variety of tools) or an “artist” (attempting to achieve absolute mastery of one). Both views are rational. Pick one, I guess.”
Sorry, but this is getting a bit out of hand. We are talking about a piece of software, nothing magical here, compiled by nordic, blonde virgins in the first full-moon night after an eclipse to turn it into anything other than a plain and simple software tool to get work done.
I am not aware of a single, serious posts house that doesn’t run cross platform in one way or the other. -
[Frank Gothmann] “We are talking about a piece of software, nothing magical here, compiled by nordic, blonde virgins in the first full-moon night after an eclipse to turn it into anything other than a plain and simple software tool to get work done.”
LOL. Wasn’t your software handed to you from the heavens on stone tablets like everyone else’s?
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up