[Tim Wilson]

[Scott Witthaus] “”As Tim pointed out…”

Really? Where are these numbers coming from?”

I’m afraid I don’t remember saying that. I’m not denying it, mind you. LOL I’m just saying I don’t remember.

What I said many times is that I predicted that Apple would make more from the APP version of FCPX would make more each year than they had made in the entire history of FCP-FCS, which was $2 billion.

It turns out I was right that Apple would be making $2 billion every year from FCPX, but instead of accomplishing that in Year One as I predicted, it came to pass in Year Three.

So I was in fact correct that Apple would make more than $2 billion a year from FCPX. I was just a little off on the timeframe.

I’ll note that this was came up exactly 361 days ago. Here’s Marcus Moore’s original post on the topic, which cited guess-timates from Alex4D, and here’s my reply.

If I may say so, it’s one of my better posts here. Certainly one of my most succinct. LOL Highlights include:

…although my timing was off, I was in fact right three years ago: that Apple would be making more from an APP version of the ProApps in a year than they’d made in the entire history of FC Legend.

And

It’s ultimately a confirmation that Steve was right, that a low-cost video creation platform could be a money-maker for Apple, WITHOUT heavy iron, which was never the point. Computer sales, yes. Top of the line computer sales, absolutely not. Monitor sales, absolutely not. It’s no accident that…wait for it…the IMAC is such a sweet spot. That was the plan from the beginning.

It included some other juicy tidbits, including the historical note that Steve had tried to buy Premiere from Adobe as the consumer video software he’d including on the shiny new iMac. It was only when he was rebuffed that he turned to Macromedia hoping to buy the cross-platform Final Cut to turn THAT into the consumer video software he’d include on the new iMac.

That obviously changed in practice, as iMovie spun out of it and Final Cut became a professional offering — even though it was first dismissed as a toy for skaters and fanboys. Sound familiar?

Anyway, again not denying that I said anything I don’t remember saying. There’s a LOT I don’t remember saying that I’m sure I did. LOL I wouldn’t bet any money at all on my memory.

But the idea that Apple would make more the pro app APPS each year than they had in the entire history of FCP-FCS — that one I happen to have a citation for my prediction AND the citation that I was correct.

THAT time. LOL It doesn’t happen that often, so THOSE I tend to remember. LOL

[Tim Wilson]

Hello Chico,

This particular forum is for speaking to the people who operate the COW. Unfortunately we don’t know anything about this problem.

The best place to ask is in the forum for the software you are editing — Adobe Premiere, Apple FCP and FCPX, Sony Vegas, etc. Is it one of those? Here are some links for you. Just click on the name of the forum to take you to the right place.

Adobe Premiere Pro

Apple Final Cut Pro

Apple FCPX

Good luck!

Regards,

Tim Wilson
Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW

Sony Vegas

[Tim Wilson]

[Gabe Strong] “n my (admittedly limited) experience, I have
never seen a windows computer used as a DIT station. “

I have no doubt that this is your experience. It’s not mine.

There are definitely people in the COW with a broader global experience than mine, but in my previous jobs, with editors in the field all over the world, I saw plenty of them. There are also stories all through the COW library of people who are using Windows computers for DIT work, albeit almost exclusively with HP computers.

(In fact, one of my favorite stories about an overnight HP parts replacement was told by a guy in this very forum who was working on location in Brazil. The part came to his hotel, which was admittedly a few hours drive from his location…but it was there, waiting for him.)

Admittedly a lot of my observations are as anecdotal as yours, and no more or less valid. Again, I wholeheartedly believe your observation, and don’t question it in the least. It just doesn’t jibe with mine.

[Gabe Strong] “I’m not sure how statistics about the mix of windows and mac users on the COW or elsewhere means a lot?”for their jobs.

One reason I sometimes don’t post for a while is that I read every post that goes up in the COW. Somebody has to, and it’s me.

Most days, it’s a couple thousand. On a day like the release of FCPX, it was a good many tens of thousands. It took me weeks to catch up that month.

But I’m tellin’ ya man, Windows computers are being used for work in bountiful numbers, in every part of the industry, including DIT, video villages, and the like. I’m certain that Windows is at least equal to Mac in many (but not all) segments of the business, including in the field. In other parts of the business, including entire regions, Windows is much the majority.

I do understand your point that I may have responded to too narrow a part of Claude’s post, and that may be true. But as I mentioned, the combination of my own observations, and what people in the COW say about the computers they use, including in the field, is pretty persuasive.

I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that there aren’t settings where Macs are the MAJORITY; this is certainly the case in much of Hollywood, but that’s a long way from calling them the de facto standard in ANY market.

And please note from previous post, this is by no means a knock on Macs. My own video production business was built exclusively on Macs. I’m just saying.

[Tim Wilson]

[Claude Lyneis] “In my Bay Area film class this week, the teacher who works professionally as an AC and or data rangler said get a Mac if you want to work here because it is the de facto standard. “

Not even vaguely the case, even in Hollywood. It certainly WAS true, but it’s simply not anymore. In much of Europe and Asia, it far skews toward Windows.

I say this having worked for two different companies selling both Mac and Windows software and hardware into markets around the world, including very heavily into Hollywood, and could see the numbers myself.

Here in the COW, the mix is about 60% Windows, 40% Mac. If anything, I would think that the Mac number skews high, because of the number of people who WORK on Windows, but SURF on Mac. I can’t imagine that the there are many people working on Macs and surfing on Windows. 🙂

Hey, if you want to use a Mac, use a Mac. There are ton of great reasons, especially for people who LIKE them. If you like them, don’t let anyone try to talk you out of it.

But among your reasons for choosing Mac should NOT be that it’s the de facto standard. It ain’t.

BTW, if by “Bay Area film class” you mean “Bay Area Video Coalition,” be sure to give everyone there my fond regards. They were pioneers of Mac-based community activist video instruction, and part of the very first FCP-focused user group, SF Cutters. Kevin Monahan, now at Adobe and a frequent poster in the COW, was one of the founders, and can tell you many a tale of the early days…

…including the time that he and I cut straight out of a BAVC meeting to see Sonic Youth at the Winterland. 🙂

My regular visits to BAVC and SF Cutters over the years, starting in 1999 or 2000 (I forget), were among the best parts of my job.

[Tim Wilson]

I dunno, I was one of “those” Apple guys from the late 70s. I took delivery of my first Mac in February 1984. (My father was in charge of manufacturing, sales and distribution for Apple at the time.) I built my business 100% on Macs.

I was also on the board of my local Mac user group, and led the monthly meetings. Macmacmacamac, all day every day.

And I’ve never understood why Mac users have the first problem with Windows. I really truly don’t get it. I find that using Windows after 30 years on Mac to be easier than trying to navigate the differences in the Netflix interface on my phone, TV, and Blu-ray player.

Since all you guys are smarter than me, maybe I’m just too inexperienced or dull-witted to understand how miserable I should be. I’m just not.

WARNING: CAR SIMILE

I mean, sometimes I kick myself for forgetting which of the family cars has the gas on the right and which on the left, or have to think about where the AC controls are in this one or that one, but I have much better things to be annoyed by, eg, almost everything. LOL

Unless you’re complaining that Windows isn’t as pretty, in which case, fine. LOL But otherwise, c’mon. The absolute quintessence of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt imo.

Anyway,

Here’s why I’d always opt for HP over Dell — HP is the only major computer company that has a large division devoted to developing computers specifically for the Media & Entertainment sector.

(There are a number of smaller whitebox developers who develop exclusively for this market of course. They often do stellar work. I’m not talking about them.)

You may not LIKE HP’s stuff, or may not like that it can only run Windows, but I know a bunch of people there whose resumes looks a lot like yours and mine, and product managers who came from key companies in this space, brought to HP specifically BECAUSE the come from this specific space.

At other companies, including Apple, their domain expertise as end-users or developers of key products for this industry might not matter for their development or management work. At HP it does.

It’s how they wind up with a product like Dreamcolor. They spent months at Dreamworks learning what a reference monitor in a film workflow needs to do, and worked with them on every iteration. Again, you may not like the outcome, but they understand what customer focus means.

Whereas Jobs famously, and relentlessly over the full sweep of his career, mocked customer focus as the domain of the soulless and moronic. His most insulting characterization of his competitors’ computers is that they were designed by focus groups.

So he had contempt for customers, even more contempt for companies who catered to customers, and made stuff you like better. Go figure.

(I do think that this is changing under Tim Cook, who has reversed virtually every one of Jobs’ approaches, and has doubled revenue and tripled profit while making Apple a better company.)

Anyway, I also love HP’s support. Need a replacement part overnight? No problem. Not that I’ve ever needed a replacement part for a computer made by anyone. You probably haven’t either. But you can find reports in the COW from guys who were shooting on location, far from home, and had FedEx on site with a new part the next morning.

My one story about Dell came from QA at a company you may have heard of. There was a lot of pressure to qualify Dell workstations for customers who felt that both HP and Apple were too expensive.

The problem at the time (and may still be, but I don’t know) is that Dell components were so commoditized that you really couldn’t know for a fact what you were testing. For one round, the GLUE on the FANS was failing, so the fans were winding up in the bottom of the case pointing in some random direction, and computers were overheating and crashing.

So in the scheme of things, I’d rather pay a little more and get more, just as Apple has trained me to. LOL

But that’s the thing. Jobs-run Apple had open, repeatedly and publicly expressed contempt for customers, and made stuff that you prefer to the results of the passionate devotion to media & entertainment customers, so really, why NOT go with Dell, who neither hates customers nor has any particular interest in this market.

[Tim Wilson]

[Jeremy Garchow] “”30 minutes of TV” does not cost the same per show, per episode, per minute.”

I think the problem is the word “flat.” It’s not “flat” as in one thing costs the same to everyone every time. It’s that, once they’ve told you what they want, you give them a price for the thing as a whole, instead of doing it hour by hour.

Since most of my business was 30 minute tv, I can tell you that I found this incredibly easy to navigate.

One show was on the water and in the wilderness. There was no such thing as a half-day shoot because I might have to hike an hour from an already remote location. Because it was nature doc stuff, I was shooting 10:1, easy. It’s still my favorite stuff to have ever edited, but it took a long time.

Another was land-based, local PM magazine kind of thing. A couple of larger segments, a couple smaller ones, colorful bumpers, out. Didn’t take a long time.

My “flat” rate for the nature episode was multiples of my “flat” rate for a PM magazine episode,

What I did NOT want to get into was, “Hey man, we didn’t have to hike for an hour to the location. We just drove right up to the ranger station. I want a 3-hour break on the price.”

Or on the magazine show, “You only interviewed one person in their office for this segment, instead of interviewing four people on location. It took you a third as much time to produce, so where’s my 60% discount?”

Nononononono. The price for YOUR project is the price…

…but the price is absolutely NOT the same for any two clients.

[Michael Gissing] “The reason for this was that technology was both reducing capital costs and creating efficiencies of workflow…

So then any efficiencies both from technology and also experience in setting up workflows paid off for me“

My emphasis added, because that’s crucial.

As I get better at my job, the hours each job takes go down. Why the hell would I pass that “savings” on to my client resulting in a smaller payment to ME, when I can just as easily give the client a better looking project because of my improving skill AND take more time off.

For me in practice, I was never able to shave enough time off projects to take on more clients. But 5 or 6 hours saved through better After Effects chops, less time for lighting setups, whatever, added up to a couple of extra days off every month, while producing better-looking work and keeping my rates UP, instead of my efficiency pressing them DOWN.

[Michael Gissing] “That makes it in my interest to get involved early, give advice on workflow before shooting and work…”

Also HUGE. True for hourly as well, but in practice, project pricing really did lead to much more collaborative relationships. Again, it being part of my branding that “I’m not at your disposal in exchange for an hour’s payment. My time is as valuable as yours.”

Needless to say, while the consultation made things more satisfying for both of us, my agenda was oriented toward making my life easier. LOL All part of maximizing my efficiency in ways that wouldn’t lower my rate, but WOULD increase my time off, and/or general sanity.

[Michael Gissing] “Removing the ‘can we afford the time to make the creative decision’ process has made it much better value for me and the clients. “

That was my favorite part: the pleasure when it feels more collaborative, which it can when nobody is watching the clock.

This assumes that you’ve done a good job with your internal estimates of how long things will take AND have a good relationship with a client who won’t abuse this flexibility, but I found that switching to project billing made all of my client relationships more enjoyable for both of us.

[Tim Wilson]

[David Mathis] “Would it be fair to slightly increase the cost due to subscription only as a small business? “

Subscription is overhead, just electricity, property rent/mortgage, cell phone, internet, errors & omissions and liability insurance…and frankly, $49 is typically the least of my monthly expenses by at least half. I think water might be the only bill I pay that’s less than $49.

Needless to say, any rate, no matter how it’s calculated, has to at least cover your overhead. 🙂 My suggestion is to calculate overhead — EVERYTHING, including depreciation on your office chair, how much you want to earn, how much you want to be saving, taxes, pencils, etc etc — then at least double that.

That’s because overhead also includes business time that no clients are paying you for….although hey, if you can be posting in the COW on the client’s dime, more power to you. LOL

So then you take that number, divide it by the number of hours you want to work, and there’s your rate. How you bill in order to bring in that money isn’t as important as making sure your rate covers your REAL costs with room to spare.

Speaking as your old Uncle Timmy, this is the mistake I see young ‘uns making all the time: chasing a rate that they think will get them work, instead of charging a rate that they can live on. Nobody can sustain a meaningful gap between those numbers for any length of time.

In general though, I don’t see a way to realistically bill almost ANY overhead costs to a client as a line item. Travel time maybe? Although I’m sure that some of the business whizzes here may have even more creative ideas. 🙂

[Tim Wilson]

[Jeremy Garchow] “This is not a money grab, this is me, being very honest about what it takes to make a living in a modern video world”

I don’t think ANY business model is a money grab, as long as the customer feels they’re getting their money’s worth.

[Jeremy Garchow] “Another agency I know has to bundle their entire gamut of services in to an hourly rate. So, no matter who is working on the job, or how many people at different levels of pay grade, all of that is negotiated in to a master hourly rate for their client.”

I actually get this. To me, the highest value of any approach is to reduce the number of questions between the work and the payment, while offering the balance of control and simplicity you want on the supply side.

I saw the flip side of this in a law office where they charged differently for the principal’s time and paralegal’s time. Clients asked all day every day, for anything short of court time, “Why can’t the paralegals do this?” Of course, he billed the time spent answering those questions to the client as “consultation” LOL but man, that’d drive me insane.

So if I were to go hourly, I’d totally do it this way: this is how much it costs to put the team’s resources at your disposal.

This gets to a project model of course, but I pay the same for a visit to the dentist whether I spend more time with the dentist or hygienist.

[Jeremy Garchow] “. I don’t think it’s my job to determine the value they will get out of it, or how they will use it to assign value.”

I think that Walter is stating the philosophical underpinnings, and doing a much better job than I’ve done in my own attempts to describe my positive experience with project billing.

My own take on the philosophical underpinning is that I wasn’t interested in being evaluated on an hourly price along the lines of “more than a plumber, less than an electrician” or whatever. You want a half hour of TV? This is how much it costs. You want a spot that’s mostly stills? One where I write the script and we shoot on location? This is how much it costs.

Day rate? This is my day rate. More than an hour over that kicks into my half day rate, which is more than half of my day rate. If *I* felt that another set-up or two would make my life easier in the edit suite, *I* added the time on location, but otherwise, clients were well incentivized to be efficient on their part.

I do think it comes back to billing in terms that your clients understand. If most of your clients bill their work to THEIR clients hourly, then sure, trying to fly project pricing past them could introduce unnecessary friction.

In practice, for me, there wasn’t that much friction with clients who charged hourly (such as the aforementioned attorney), virtually all (maybe all) of the other producers in the area also billed by the project.

So, in addition to billing the way clients bill their own work, I suspect there might be regional differences in the approach for the entire environment. Chicago might not let you get away with anything but hourly. It sounds like that might be the case, yes?

[Tim Wilson]

Hello Nigel,

Welcome to Creative COW! I hope you’re able to find what you need here!

The name is very simple: Creative COW was founded by Kathlyn Lindeboom, and she loves cows. 🙂 Her home is full of stuffed cows, pictures of cows, cow clocks, you name it.

The idea was also to come up with an organic name, rather than a technical name. Other tech companies use organic names, of course. Apple and Adobe are the biggest in our industry, but companies like Blackmagic Design and Avid have also taken a non-technical approach to naming their very technical businesses.

The name worked on other levels. Creative COW’s CEO Ronald Lindeboom (both Kathlyn and Ronald have retired from the COW’s day to day business) grew up on a dairy farm. One of our members also pointed out that COW might stand for Communities of the World: Creative Communities of the World. I like that too!

Again, thanks for stopping by!

Tim Wilson
Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW

[Tim Wilson]

[Shawn Miller] “I’m willing to stalk him on YouTube if needed. :-)”

No need! He’s a prolific poster here. Not so much right now because he cuts trailers, and this is peak trailer season. He also posts more often in the FCPX Techniques and Motion forums these days. You’ll as likely find him here as anywhere.