[Chris Kenny]

[Andrew Kimery] “Apple could have given FCP 10 the familiar look and feel of previous FCP versions and still switched everything around under the hood just like they’ve done with their operating systems. “

Huh? OS X has a very different UI from OS 9.

[Andrew Kimery] “Apple chose to launch with things like “Share to Facebook”, iMovie compatibility and iTunes & iPhoto integration instead of things like OMF or baseband video out support. Apple chose to sever the ties that they did.”

Apple chose to launch with a feature set targeted at the largest possible user base and then expand into more niche markets. This is the same thing they did with FCP the first time around.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Chris Kenny]

[Ethan Young] “Within 1 year it will eclipse Avid and Adobe. The only ones to suffer in the interim are the very high end post houses, they’ll come around.”

I’m going to tell you the same thing I keep telling the “Apple has no time to fix anything because everyone will be on Avid by October” crowd: nothing moves that fast, least of all large facilities.

I believe there is a distinct possibility FCP X could dominate the industry in the long run, but if it does it will be because it builds bottom-up momentum that eventually overwhelms other options even at the high end. That sort of thing takes years.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Chris Kenny]

[Chris Harlan] “This is apparently no easy fix, and I’m guessing it will be a long time before it is taken care of. “

FCP X is based on AV Foundation. Any third-party video I/O drivers would hook into AV Foundation, not FCP X itself. AV Foundation is not a public framework in Snow Leopard, meaning that there is no public API for third-parties to hook into.

AV Foundation is a public framework in Lion. This does not necessarily mean the required hooks for broadcast video out of FCP X will be there on day one. But what it does mean is that no substantive conclusions about Apple’s long-term (or even short-term) intentions with respect to broadcast video output can be drawn from the fact that the current version of FCP X doesn’t support it under Snow Leopard.

[Chris Harlan] “It is becoming very apparent that broadcast monitors were never supposed to be a part of FCP X.”

No, it really isn’t.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Chris Kenny]

[Michael Hancock] “When they sat down to develop FCPX, they had a list of features that had to be in v01. XML, OMF, Multicam, etc… obviously weren’t on that list. It’s not like they started writing this software on a whim a couple months ago and someone said, “Hey guys, this is going to be released next week. Wrap up what you got!”. It was years in development, and they chose not to include certain things. Chose to. It’s not that they weren’t ready – they chose not to include them.”

They chose not to include features in the initial release that were not absolutely necessary to make FCP X a commercially viable product. This is consistent with a well-established pattern on Apple’s part, and does not have the implications with respect to Apple’s future commitment to high-end workflows that many people have claimed it does.

Looking at one of the most successful technology companies in the world and saying, with absolutely no knowledge about any of the details of FCP X ‘s development, “It looks to me like they should have been able to get more done in this period of time”, is ludicrous. Honestly, it always looks like that with software development, even to developers themselves, which is why so many software projects take much longer than originally anticipated. (Probably even at Apple; the public just doesn’t see it at Apple because they don’t publicly announce things until they’re almost done.)

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Chris Kenny]

[Chris Harlan] “Chris, if you are right, that’s great. I guess my question would be, if this stuff is all so doable in such a short period of time, why wasn’t in done in the years before this current release?”

Because as hard as it is for people in this forum to understand, these features have always only been relevant to a small fraction of the FCP user base.

[Chris Harlan] “Also, I think you greatly underestimate the number of items needed for it to be a comparable high-end tool set.”

I’m curious what else you see missing. Most other “I can’t use FCP X because it’s missing Z” criticism that I’ve seen revolves around subjective user interface issue. While some people will probably stick to their guns and continue to claim the new UI is unusable for serious editing, others already believe differently.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Chris Kenny]

[Chris Harlan] “MAYBE, it will be useful in a couple of years.”

I keep seeing comments like this. I don’t get it. For high-end workflows, it’s missing all of about four critical features:

– Some way of exporting sequence data.
– Some way of mapping audio clips to tracks on export.
– Support for ‘real’ video output third-party I/O hardware.
– Multicam.

Sequence data exporting was promised in a few weeks (and that was over two weeks ago now). Audio track mapping has been promised for “this summer” (probably September, based on how software companies usually use the word “summer”). Support for ‘real’ video output is coming “soon”, according to reports from the London briefing. With these three features (and some third party support that will probably show up pretty quickly, once they’re available)… it might be possible to cut a feature in FCP X by October or November.

Multicam (necessary in some ‘pro’ workflows, but entirely irrelevant to others) has been promised for the next major release, which I would guess will happen closer to 12 months from now than 24.

What takes “a couple of years” here?

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Chris Kenny]

[Jamie Franklin] “Good grief…you are getting tired.

Tit for tat now? What are they claiming there Chris? Taking it to the extreme is your problem, not theirs. If they feel what has happened here was done in bad faith, and that brought on a major inconvenience to their future with Apple, who are you to judge that? Or sit on your throne badgering them with “you can still get it on ebay” or “if you are the type that needs a future seat, that’s your problem not Apples, you’re in the minority””

My opponents on this particular issue keep raising it in unrelated threads, arguing as if FCS3 is literally unavailable, attributing frankly crazy motivations to Apple (like deliberate sabotage of their market segments), and making dire predictions about FCP X’s future market prospects as a consequence of Apple’s behavior here.

I’m stepping in and pointing out FCS3 is not literally unavailable, that reading active malice in a company’s decision to EOL a product is not especially sensible, and that realistically, people are not going to hold this against Apple forever, if FCP X is the best product for their needs in the future.

And for this, I get accused of being a blindly faithful and dogmatic ideologue who’s taking things to extremes. Um… OK.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Chris Kenny]

[Jamie Franklin] “You continually marginalize the point like everything else in Apples favor. Because there is a “loophole” in being able to still obtain an EOL copy, you argue this point simply because you can…THAT is dogmatic Chris.”

It’s “dogmatic” to point out that a situation other people are claiming is back-and-white actually isn’t? That rather sounds like the opposite of dogmatism, actually.

(And, responding to your “continuously” claim, I am not the one who keeps raising this issue in otherwise unrelated threads.)

[Jamie Franklin] “And inexcusable to Apples moves. Period. “

I believe it’s bad that Apple stopped selling FCS3 so quickly. I am not “excusing” this. But what does it mean to say it’s “inexcusable”? That nobody should ever adopt FCP X? That nobody should ever buy any Apple product again? That Randy Ubillos should be tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity?

Frankly… Apple did something that’s inconvenient for some people. That’s too bad. But there’s nothing left to say about it at this point. And again… I’m not the one who keeps bringing it up.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Chris Kenny]

[Dan Stewart] “The EP reassured me they were in touch with Apple and it was all going to be fine, missing crucial features will be added, possibly by third party etc.”

So, good. More confirmation of Apple’s intentions, for the doubters.

[Dan Stewart] “Apple, or their shills, are out there seriously f-*&ing with people. They clearly just hijacked the FCP PRO name to sell imovie+ to people who don’t know better and are OBFUSCATING and DECEIVING PEOPLE. They have no intention of making good, just smiling and telling people it’ll be fine while the gang climb out the rear window and plan to monetize some more of their predecessors hard earned rep.”

I’m sorry, are you claiming Apple is out there telling major networks that FCP X is intended to be a pro product, and that more pro features are on the way… but is lying about this? And they’re doing this why? To sell maybe a few extra copies of a $300 app before people catch on? It sounds like that’s what you’re claiming.

That’s bordering on clinical paranoia.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Chris Kenny]

[Jamie Franklin] “Wow…

This has become completely dogmatic for you. Ideologically argued at every turn…

I’ve seen this kind of argument more so in politics than frakkin software. In your faith based attempts for everyone else to see the light, you have completely blinded yourself…”

Seriously? It’s “Ideological” and “dogmatic” to point out that while Apple should have left FCS3 on sale, their decision not to has not actually made it literally unattainable? Or to point out that the inability to buy additional seats of it direct from the vendor may be inconvenient for some, but will not actually do substantial material harm to anyone?

Meanwhile, others have called Apple’s decision to EOL FCP X a “dirty trick” (see a couple of posts up) and even claimed Apple did this to deliberately sabotage existing users. That’s perfectly reasonable, I suppose?

Some people have utterly lost anything resembling sane perspective on this issue.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.