Bill Davis
Forum Replies Created
-
[David Roth Weiss] “Oh, I get it now, because Mr. Townhill said it, that makes it so.
Well, I guess we should really take him at his word then – since he said we’re giving “people” the opportunity to see for themselves, and he never said anything about “editors,” that might explain why it’s not a modern foundation for most editors.”
Really? Your argument is that Mr. Townhill doesn’t understand that “editors” are also “people?” Or are you arguing that a person who holds the position of the senior marketing manager at Apple wouldn’t understand his own companies product development thinking?
That’s just nuts.
David, sorry, but what you keep writing reflects the fact that you can’t see anything about the program reasonably or fairly, and are even willing to try to “spin” facts when presented with them.
Daniel said that he read that X was going to be Apples bet for the next decade of pro editing development. Mr. Townhill’s quote directly and incontrovertible proves that’s a fact. You questioned Daniel, and it turns out YOU were wrong.
That kinda stuff happens all the time. What doesn’t happen all the time is people confronting the FACT of their wrongness, yet continuing to try to argue the point anyway. What’s up with you? Did the FCP-X team run over your pet kitten or something? You’re not arguing against FCP-X – you’re now practicing what I think can best be labeled as a personal vendetta against it.
In my personal estimation, this thread deep sixes whatever credibility you might have to write about FCP-X and be taken seriously.
I know you’re a working professional editor, and I’m not questioning your skills or your experience.
But I am questioning you on the issue of personal bias and judgement when it comes specifically to Final Cut Pro X.
I believe that this has revealed that your opinions about FCP-X are based on pre-conceptions, emotion and stubbornness, and that those run so strong in you about this individual topic that you can’t even acknowledge a truth when it’s presented to you in a very fundamental, factual form.
“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
-
Uh, David-
It was Apple Senior Director of Marketing Richard Townhill:
“We are giving people the opportunity to see for themselves how powerful, amazing and revolutionary Final Cut Pro is,” Townhill said, adding that the updated suite offers a modern foundation that will last “for the next 10 years.”“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
-
Uh, David-
It was Apple Senior Director of Marketing Richard Townhill:
“We are giving people the opportunity to see for themselves how powerful, amazing and revolutionary Final Cut Pro is,” Townhill said, adding that the updated suite offers a modern foundation that will last “for the next 10 years.”“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
-
Two personal experiences.
First is talking to a senior exec with a major health care firm. Paraphrasing: “We’re giving 600 of our top people iPad 2s today. What’s great is that they’ll train themselves in how to use them just by having them. Then next year we’ll start rolling out our electronic product sheets, point of sales assets and training – its a no brainer.Second was listening to an IT pro talk about walking into any corporate building and through simple wireless sniffers, he can see precisely the percentage of users on different connected OS’s, how many iOS devices, and how many iPads are actually in use at that moment.
The point being is that Apple et al know precisely what the enterprise market represents because they are all ready inside it. Theyre already a major player thru iPhone and now iPad participation.
Doesn’t really matter if it’s the front or back door – if it’s formal IT requests like my senior exec example or employees voting via personal tech purchases.
The point is all Apple is already inside. If they simply play nice with the house IT folks and execs, they’ll thrive.
And they know it.
FWIW
“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
-
And heaven help you if you’re ever called on to use such a system at the Westminister Kennel Club Show.
“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
-
[Chris Harlan] “Bill, I’m pretty certain that you can find it in yourself to understand that Franz was not trying to set up rules, but was instead complaining about the magical misdirection he seems to think takes place here on occasion. By the way, is this your card?”
Strange argument.
If Franz feels “magical mis-direction” is being practiced here – isn’t it more helpful if he points it out in specifics?.
He impugned that those folks (presumably myself included since I do enjoy using smile and metaphor in arguments because I’m essentially “story” oriented and feel those forms are typically more inclusive and engaging than dry prose) who employ them should be somehow subject to extra scrutiny lest we diabolically slip in argumentative deception or ill-conceived logic! Warning, DANGER all!
Frankly, I don’t have the wit or talent to hide diabolical intent. I just write what I think and hope that some find the thinking interesting at least sometimes.
If Frans believes I’m engaged in logical trickery or even just crappy reasoning, I simply challenge him to do what we all do here regularly. Argue the points being made directly. I think that’s superior to trying to paint a whole group of position holders with a broad brush, a practice that allows him to hide behind a scattershot critique of the form – and avoid proffering specific points that can be argued.
In short, if he sees what he believes to be bad arguments – by all means, point them out.
Then we can all learn from the discussion.
Chris, you disagree with me constantly. And that’s totally fine with me. It keeps me on my toes.
But no matter how much you push back, you push at me openly and under your own name. Thats both respectful and respectable.
Sniping at people from behind a veil “lookee, looked, someone wrote about how dumb arguments can take the form they take here – so be extra wary in case those wiley storytellers bamboozle you” smacks of someone who didn’t want to step up and confront the individual arguments, but rather wanted to put themselves on some imaginary high ground without making any argument to support such a need.
It’s what passes for modern political argument writ cranky… “but you’re a (republicrat -no, wait, WORSE – you’re a metaphoreist!!! – therefore you clearly don’t have a clue what you’re talking about!
Sounds a bit silly doesn’t it?
“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
-
Daniel,
Welcome to the hall of heretics.
I’m sure the torch bearers will show up soon to set fire to your roof, so in the quiet spell in between let me say a quiet hello.
Hang around some and “we who see the value” will eventually get around to showing you the secret handshakes.
We’re a small, but hearty folk. (And we’re getting richer and more productive all the time!)
Welcome.
“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
-
Analogies, schlamologies.
I use them. I’ll continue to use them.
The more insidious and disingenuous tactic, IMO is to try to “re-frame” the argument by establishing that the only rules worthy to govern the game are “your” rules. That’s not only presumptuous, it’s insulting.
We’ve done just fine here for years without the need for you to arbitrate what constitutes proper arguing, and I suspect that we could go along fine for another few decades under the current open discussion system.
You want to argue analogy free – knock yourself out. Heck, you want to argue here without using quotes, capitalization, metaphor, simile, onomatopoeia; or construct thoughts using nothing but dialog lifted straight from early episodes of Star Trek – feel free.
It’s an open board. You don’t like what someone else writes – you have two persistent options that are universally available to handle that. One is don’t read that author. The other is to make a better counter-argument.
But seriously, attempting to to exercise control of the rules is ALWAYS the first glaring sign of someone who can’t compete in the game as it’s already being played.
Metaphores and similes are wrappers. The idea inside is the gift. You want to hang out talking wrapping paper, get a job in a Hallmark store.
FWIW.
(OK, seeing that posted, it comes across snarkier than I extended. But really, this seems quite a silly argument to me. Plus it was fun to write. So Ignore my signature below. This one stands even if slightly uncivil, because I feel truly dumb ideas sometimes actually do deserve to be labeled as precisely that.)
“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
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “That a design team would sit down and reserve this aspect for later development or third party solutions or actually just not think about it boggles my mind.
It doesn’t leave me confused, though.
“But Fritz, I think it *does* leave you confused
Your confusion is thinking that software is a thing with a persistent “now” that must always be fully realized and complete and meet every need you feel it must when you want it to meet that need.
I totally understand that desire. In a perfect world, all software would do precisely that. And we’d all be always happy with our software just the way it is.
But the truth is that this is actually NEVER the case. All software exists in constant states of flux, development, and re-imagining. I bet that like me, you’ve had software that has satisfied you, right up to the point the offering company has changed it – and suddenly it no longer satisfies you. In trying to achieve X, they broke Y.
I think this just indicates that you’re the classic “glass half empty” and I’m the classic “glass half full” type. Which is fine, as long as we’re both self-aware enough to realize that how we feel about the glass has absolutely no effect on the actual level of it’s water.
“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
-
[Richard Herd] “In other words, we all deserve a box of cigars for learning X.”
Well, I’d take the equivalent in low fat frozen yogurt treats!
The big take away is that again, this is a “re-invention” not any sort of “update.”
I think X was made for the era we’re migrating towards where larger data pipes, ever faster processors, and I/O via technologies like Thunderbolt increasingly make handling big caches of data faster and more sure.
To me, this feels like back in the early days of Firewire, where working with anything beyond 3.5Mbps DV was asking for trouble. As the system plumbing and pipes developed, life got a lot easier, quickly – and before you knew it FCP was handling HD and SDI streams as happily as it ever handled Firewire 400.
The hardware had to catch up to the capabilities of the software – and both grew together.
I think that’s simply happening again with X.
In fact I’m pretty sure it is, since I have a lot more issues running it on my Quad core MacPro that’s 3 years old, than I do on my i7 Core Duo Laptop that’s less than a year old.
FWIW.
“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