Andrew Richards
Forum Replies Created
-
[Dennis Radeke] “What if there are other pro apps that sell those $9000 Mac Pro rigs? Photoshop. After Effects. Avid, Maxon, Autodesk. Does Apple really need a ProApps division anymore, especially when their largest sales and profit centers are decidedly non-pro? Perhaps, but the question is definitely a discussion point these days.”
All of those applications you listed will run on either Windows or Linux on (often) less expensive commodity PC hardware. Apple only does software to sell hardware. That has been their business model since Jobs returned. The Mac is still a huge chunk of Apple’s revenue stream, and they don’t sell as many Macs without compelling software that only runs on Macs. OS X, iLife, Pro Apps, all of these exist to move iron-ahem-aluminum. Maybe a lot of pro users would still prefer to run their cross-platform creative tools on a Mac for love of OS X alone, but Apple apparently would just as soon sweeten the deal by putting what they surely hope is must-have software on those Macs as well.
Best,
Andy -
[Herb Sevush] “Then you get to FCPX and you can add (and this not counting any missing features that might be re-installed)
Lack of backwards compatibility.
Removal of FCS3 sales and support without notice.
A non customizable single screen design obviously not created with Mac Pro’s in mind.
Apple’s admission that they will not implement any of the missing “pro” IO but instead will leave that to third parties.
I don’t think an inference that Apple is getting out of the Broadcast / Film business is a reach. I think you’d have to be delusional to think otherwise.”
I already argued that pro I/O would be better handled by a third party, so I actually see this as an advantage. What difference does it make if Apple writes your Log & Capture window or if Blackmagic does?
I totally agree Apple has left the Broadcast/Film market. I said as much. They left it to third parties because a few thousand niche users among millions of FCPX users is a distraction they don’t need to service themselves. Apple invested a decade cultivating an entire economy of third party partners to be able to stop doing everything themselves. They get to consolidate their software development and still be a desirable platform for creative work. They still need to prove some things with the upcoming FCPX API and the third parties need to do their thing, but I see no reason to believe they won’t given all the public statements to the contrary from all parties involved. A lot of editors are insisting their FCP days are behind them, but the way things are going, who is going to have only one NLE installed on their workstation?
Best,
Andy -
[Robert Brown] “They should do the 30 day thing like everybody else.”
Against App Store rules, unfortunately. They need to change this. If ever a new application cried out for a demo, it is FCPX.
[Robert Brown] “It’s just a shame they had to try to force this new timeline down everybody’s throat, and instead of fixing old essential features, they just canned them.”
I actually like where they are heading with the new timeline. Very flexible, but it still needs some tweaks.
[Robert Brown] “I always thought FCP came up short. Why is the DVE so bad? How come output to tape is +/- a frame when my GVG 251 nails it every time with it’s 186 chip? Why is the KF editor so bad? The slo mos with interlaced material look like crap. The chroma keyer is an absolute embarrassment. “
The effects engine in FCPX is very powerful, as it is shared with Motion 5. Motion 5 actually lets you build your own effects plugins for use in FCPX. It’s pretty cool. The sloppy tape ops on the old FCP are all the more reason to leave that stuff to the AJAs and BMDs of the world. Keyframes are handled very differently in FCPX, but I don’t have a strong opinion on them. Chroma keying is apparently very strong too, and for really heavy duty compositing you can use Motion.
[Robert Brown] “This new release seems like more of the same from a company that never got it in the first place.”
Or maybe they know where to stop digging. I’m hoping for a deep API for FCPX that leaves it to the niche specialist companies to deliver the niche specialist features. The underpinnings of a really powerful tool are there for them if Apple opens the door. Again we wait.
Best,
Andy -
I’m very much looking forward to your post, especially in light of your prior work and Apple’s controversial new GUI metaphor, the trackless Magnetic Timeline.
Best,
Andy -
[Steve Connor] “I think that Apple are simply letting the top end go, they clearly have a strategy and FCPX is moving towards whatever their vision of the future is. I honestly don’t think that film and mainstream broadcast editing is something they are targeting, that much is obvious.”
Your opinion gets to the core of why I opened this thread. Apple “clearly [has] a strategy and FCPX is moving towards whatever their vision of the future is”? When did Apple articulate that strategy? You are certainly free to assume they have such a strategy based on your observations, but unless you are privy to some high-level Apple internal communications, it remains speculation, and nothing more.
I would speculatively agree Apple is not interested in a feature battle with every other software NLE platform out there. They are however unequivocally interested in selling Macs. What’s the only thing selling $9,000 Mac Pros and returning their big, fat, per-unit margins? Apple’s Pro Apps. Final Cut Pro more than any other. So what if Apple doesn’t bake in every niche feature themselves? If third parties can support the niche workflows, what’s the difference?
Compare the nascent FCPX situation with the iPad and iPhone in the enterprise. Apple built a platform in iOS with the minimum system-level guts to be supportable in enterprise IT settings; security, VPN, Exchange email, etc. Everything else is going to be third party. WebEx. Cisco VoIP. Oracle eAM. Apple is confident it is winning in IT with this model.
Now look at FCPX. Apple leaving formerly built-in features to third parties when it comes to niche markets looks very familiar, no? FCPX has 32bit float color rendering just like Resolve. It has database-managed media collections just like Avid. It has very rich extensible keyboard customization like any serious NLE should. Its guts are primed for top-end pro work, it just needs the skin.
So on one hand, Apple’s release of FCPX missing obvious high-end features could look like a clear signal they don’t want to participate in the high-end. On the other hand, maybe it just suggests they are trying to apply a riff on their iOS enterprise strategy to Pro Apps servicing film, broadcast, and other demanding niche workflows.
Either argument is just speculation based on incomplete evidence and broad assumptions about how Phil Schiller and Steve Jobs are thinking about these things.
Best,
Andy -
[Matt Callac] “not to mention your neck and back from hunching over the touchscreen all day.”
Think less upright display, more drafting table. Fullscreen mode in Lion could also be a portent of a convertible iMac with a Touch enabled display that could pivot into more of a horizontal orientation that is conducive to large-scale touch. I could imagine the act of pulling the display down to table mode would even automatically shift the active app to fullscreen touch mode, just like the iPad Smart Cover wakes its host from sleep on open.
It could happen.
Best,
Andy -
[Ronald Lindeboom] “But I couldn’t shake the cold slap of reality that kept hitting me as he talked and it became markedly clearer with each word that he had no idea whatsoever as to how professional workflows and workgroups function — and why.”
Indeed, he is speaking from an insulated perspective of not having a dog in this race, and he did say as much. This is a guy who still complains about Apple’s fundamental changing of how the Finder presents the filesystem in OS X vs OS 9 (see episode 19 for that discussion)!
If Siracusa is correct about Apple’s attitude on FCPX, that they think they can drag the postproduction world away, kicking and screaming, from its entrenched workflows, they are either crazy with hubris or crazy with foresight. We won’t know which for a least a little while.
Best,
Andy -
I’d argue his comments are more to the point about Apple’s typical development agenda and attitude in producing “pro” products in general and not a critique on FCPX’s present and admittedly incomplete feature set. The community around here seems to read Apple’s motivations through a pessimistic lens that is often treated as fact when it is only group-think speculation (granted, Apple’s culture of secrecy and diverse product strategy leaves an information vacuum that makes such speculation the only thing left to discuss). The idea that there is a pattern to Apple’s behavior that “proves” they are forsaking high-end pro video is usually cherry-picked and is always speculation. I merely seek to present an alternative lens worth considering when speculating on Apple’s product plans and motivations.
Best,
Andy -
[Brian Mulligan] “…how will this ‘new’ XML get adopted if it is dissimilar enough to XML for people to rewrite code for?”
XML parsing is pretty trivial, and while FCPX is getting beaten up right now, I don’t think it will have trouble finding third party support for its XML. You have hit on an important point though. Having XML output support is only half the equation. Everyone else needs to add support to read it as well.
Best,
Andy -
Apple said in their https://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/faq/ they would be releasing an API to get at the new XML very soon. But until that happens, there is no XML out of FCPX.
Best,
Andy