[Andrew Richards]

The EULA boils down to this:

One user can use FCPX on multiple Macs he owns and controls. Multiple users can use FCPX on a single Mac in a shared setting. You are not allowed to pay once and put it on multiple Macs that will each be used by a different user.

The actual legalese:

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you obtained the Apple Software under a volume license, maintenance or other written agreement from Apple, you are granted a limited non- transferable license to install and use the Apple Software only on Apple-branded computers that you own or control in accordance with the Mac App Store Product Usage Rules located at [copied below as well]: https://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html#SALE (“MAC APP STORE PRODUCT USAGE RULES”). Except as permitted under the Mac Usage Rules, you may not distribute or make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple devices at the same time. You may not rent, lease, lend, sell, transfer, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software.

MAC APP STORE PRODUCT USAGE RULES

Except as otherwise set forth herein,

(i) You may download and use an application from the Mac App Store (“Mac App Store Product”) for personal, non-commercial use on any Apple-branded products running Mac OS X (“Mac Computer”) that you own or control.

(ii) If you are a commercial enterprise or educational institution, you may download a Mac App Store Product for use by either (a) a single individual on each of the Mac Computer(s) used by that individual that you own or control or (b) multiple individuals on a single shared Mac Computer that you own or control. For example, a single employee may use a Mac App Store Product on both the employee’s desktop Mac Computer and laptop Mac Computer, or multiple students may serially use a Mac App Store Product on a single Mac Computer located at a resource center or library. For the sake of clarity, each Mac Computer used serially by multiple users requires a separate license.

(iii) Use may require sign-in with the Apple ID used to download the Mac App Store Product from the Mac App Store. Mac App Store Products can be updated through the Mac App Store only.

[Andrew Richards]

Meh for now, indeed. Fair enough.

Best,
Andy

[Andrew Richards]

[David Roth Weiss] “You missed the point of my post Andrew. “

Likewise. I meant leaving all the unknowns aside, retraining alone is a reasonable enough justification to avoid FCPX. I get your point though, and I don’t dispute it.

Best,
Andy

[Andrew Richards]

When have I defended Apple’s decision making? They totally dropped the ball yanking FCP7 off the market and their typical silence only made things look worse. Maybe they anticipated this and were always willing to accept it, but it seems out of character for ancompany usually obsessed with PR.

I’m rejecting the idea that Apple’s corporate culture of secrecy and shift in marketing focus make it inevitable that FCPX will never grow up and never be capable of supporting anything resembling a broadcast workflow. It may never grow up, we won’t know for at least a year, probably more. But to say with certainty today that it could never happen without Apple feeling beholden to broadcasters like it used to in 2004, that’s presumptuous. That’s been the point of this thread all along. Today’s FUD is not a leading indicator on how FCPX will develop over time.

Best,
Andy

[Andrew Richards]

[David Roth Weiss] “You must have made a typo here. Right?”

Not at all. For established shops, retraining isn’t a trivial thing. That is a perfectly valid business case for going to Premiere over FCPX, for instance. I won’t presume to know how onerous it would be for his shop to learn an all new NLE. We were debating business logic and this is a sound business decision, IMO.

Best,
Andy

[Andrew Richards]

[Alex Hawkins] “So why would I use their software?”

I don’t know about you, but I chose tools based on the work they can accomplish and not on whether or not the company making them feels compelled to make my use case the centerpiece of their marketing campaigns. The sentiment I keep reading is that Apple has permanently lost customers because of all this. I don’t follow the logic. Don’t use the software if it doesn’t suit your needs today. But if it does in the future, will you ignore it out of spite just because the company making it doesn’t feature your industry in their marketing campaigns anymore?

I guess I don’t see an aggressive marketing campaign and a capable product as being mutually dependent. Maybe Apple won’t ever push FCPX beyond its first iteration limits. That would be a shame. But I’m not writing it off forever just because Apple has a new girlfriend. I’d still like to see Apple compete in this space even if we don’t get blockbuster booths from them at NAB anymore. I see great potential in FCPX and I’d hate for it to never bubble up to the big time.

Best,
Andy

[Andrew Richards]

I started picking apart Helmut’s weaker tea leaves regarding Apple’s motivations, but I scrapped it since I decided I would ultimately be agreeing with you that Apple is not chasing broadcasters anymore. There is really no question Apple is disinterested in fluffing the “Pro” anymore.

I guess you will be opting for Windows for your 2012 workstation purchases? I wouldn’t use Windows on a dare, but that is just my personal preference. The creative pros I know feel the same way. But to each his own. You can buy a Dell or HP instead, everyone knows how much they care about broadcast posproduction.

Retraining is a big deal. Very true. That is the only reason you need, IMHO, to avoid FCPX. Thus I assume you are en route to Premiere, the next closest thing to FCP8.

Kinkos double sided color adds up fast….

By the way, FCPX has dual display support. Albeit not the tearaway tab support of FCP7 or Premiere, but dual display support nonetheless. Yes, Apple considered laptop users when laying out the GUI. Most FCP users, by far, primarily use laptops. And the single window thing is Apple’s direction for all apps moving forward. Makes fullscreening in Lion practical. Maybe you hate it, but that’s where they are going. It has nothing to do with the “pro-ness” of it. Just their new UI guidelines being put into practice.

[Andrew Richards]

Premiere Pro CS 5.5 is the FCP 8 a lot of people wanted all along. Anyone who does a lot of AE work and is coming from FCP would be nuts not to give PPro a shot. And lots of people already own it anyway.

Best,
Andy

[Andrew Richards]

[Herb Sevush] “The only question I have is why would anyone do business and invest money in a company that doesn’t value them? Yes, I could make a race car out of a Toyota Prius if enough third parties could modify it for me, but wouldn’t I be better off starting with a Porsche. And If the Broadcast/Film market doesn’t believe in FCPX, I don’t see AJA, Blackmagic and Matrox investing a lot of resources creating drivers. The youtubers don’t use Mac Pros.”

If FCPX required serious capital investment, your business logic would be very sound. But what risk is there in FCPX? $300? $400 if you spring for the companion apps? I’ve spent more on sheets of paper for a tiny trade show this month. We aren’t talking about an Avid circa 1997 here. I guess if you don’t buy a Mac for your next workstation, that is a real barrier to carrying FCPX. But it is safe to say for the time being that Macs are still very common in creative businesses, if not the dominant platform. FCPX represents very little business risk. It isn’t like you can’t also have Premiere Pro and Media Composer on the same workstation if you want. This stuff is so inexpensive now, having only one NLE in your Applications folder will become a business liability.

If Apple is giving them a way to make drivers for FCPX, AJA, BMD, and Matrox will absolutely make drivers. They aren’t going to waffle on the sidelines and psych themselves out of a potentially huge market based on Internet speculation that all pros that ever wanted baseband I/O for FCP won’t ever use FCPX or want to do so with a proper I/O device. There is negligible risk for them to develop a driver. A little developer time? It isn’t like they need to build custom hardware or anything truly expensive or risky. They aren’t going out on a limb to support FCPX.

I guess if you are so offended by Apple’s handling of this (and it has been very callous indeed) you can choose to shun them in all ways moving forward, but you do so for emotional reasons only. There is very little sound business justification that can be used to defend such a move.

Best,
Andy

[Andrew Richards]

[David Roth Weiss] “What exactly are “all the public statements” and who are “all” those involved parties you referencing? I feel as though I’ve missed something.”

Apple on releasing an API. But you knew that.

AJA committing to further driver support. See the last page for the pledge to develop further.

Red Giant on delivering plugins. Beta coming in August.

GenArts on delivering plugins. Also shooting for August.

Digital Rebellion on all their tools. One is “coming soon” and the other is waiting on Apple’s XML API to drop.

Automatic Duck, of course, already has a product on the market for OMF export.

By all means, remain skeptical, it isn’t a product till it ships. But which third parties are you thinking of that haven’t made a statement of intent on this stuff? Blackmagic and Matrox haven’t posted any press releases that I can find to link to, but I seriously doubt they will stay on the sidelines and yield the FCPX field to AJA.

Best,
Andy