[David Johnson]

And, do you have continuously rasterize on for the logo layer?

Also, although it doesn’t sound like banding is the only problem, for banding in particular, search the forum for tons of tips on how to reduce if not eliminate banding.

[David Johnson]

I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at, but it sounds like you want to put all the layers back on normal blending, precomp all except the background, then multiply blend the precomp.

[David Johnson]

[Mike Chedwick] All successful companies founded and run by visionaries tend to decline when the one with the “Golden Touch” dies.

Mike, As you obviously know, history has proven time and again that you are absolutely right about that part.

[Mike Chedwick] “[Apple] is ripe for ruination.”

However, I respectfully disagree with that part … I just don’t think FCP’s possible exit from the pro market indicates that Apple is either on or approaching the downside of its growth curve as a company. In fact, although I don’t have Apple’s balance sheet in front of me as some other posters seem to, I would be extremely surprised if FCP sales in the last few years represent any more than a tiny fraction of the company’s overall revenue. It seems far more likely that iPods, iPhones, iPads, etc. represent the bulk of the company’s value and I don’t think we’ll see the end any time soon for iDevices and the kinds of massive market share they garner.

[David Johnson]

[Jamie Franklin] “I have to say, the one thing that is getting left out of this discussion is the blatant bullocks Apple pulled on the pros with this App”

You’re absolutely right Jamie … but it was only left out thus far because I was still writing the last paragraph of my last reply.

And, you’re absolutely right that the FanBoy’s will defend to the end … I work with quite a few of them so I know it to be definitively true and also very sad that so many pledge blind loyalty with no reciprocity whatsoever … it’s very cult-like. Perhaps recent events explain why so much time/money/effort was spent nurturing a large crop of FanBoy’s … because they’re the only target market now and those of us who make tool decisions based on merit are no longer needed.

[David Johnson]

Chris, I appreciate your thoughtful reply and seeking commonality … I don’t necessarily disagree with your stated perspective at all … I just don’t think Apple sees the product release as having been mishandled or that it did anything other than exactly what it set out to do … capture the largest market share possible … just of a different market than you and I would have preferred.

Just to clarify, I never said that I think “FCPX is perfect and well focused” … the point I’m trying to make is that I think how that question is answered depends on for whom one asks whether it is perfect and at whom one asks whether it is well-focused? It seems to me that Apple wouldn’t have released it had they not thought it was perfect for and well-focused at exactly the market they were aiming at … and they may very well be right about that. The issue for you and I is just that they clearly weren’t aiming at our market.

I absolutely agree that the release and everything leading up to it was grossly mishandled, but that’s from my perspective as a professional editor who partially relies on FCP to earn a living. It seems the perspective of the target market will be that it was handled perfectly … arguably, what may likely become the best consumer-level video editing software on the market, cheap, immediately downloadable and easy to use.

As far as the valid points of “Why not both? Or, at least, why not ease out of the Pro market in a less passive/aggressive fashion?”, I obviously can’t answer for Apple so I’ll give my opinion as to the answers to those questions. As mentioned in my initial post, both costs money … lots of it … “major recurring R&D investment” for a pro product versus relatively little for consumer products. As far as the “less passive/aggressive” part, that’s just not the Apple/Jobs style … has no one ever noticed until now the arrogant, passive/aggressive, when-we-want-your-opinion, we’ll-give-it-to-you approach to everything that has always defined Apple’s business practices? If not, perhaps take another look at Ron Brinkmann’s comments and how he developed his opinions of what is happening now.

I first dabbled with FCP in its first version however many years ago as I transitioned from various NLEs that were far more established at that time (most of which are also gone now) so I don’t need to go back and read the leaks again to understand your points. I’m not saying that battling factions within Apple don’t exist … just that I think that was not at all the main factor that brought FCP to where it stands now. In other words, would anyone really suggest that Steve Jobs just didn’t know what FCP was being transformed into every step of the way and was somehow powerless to make it what he wants it to be? Perhaps it had to have “a few really great pro features” for two reasons: to somewhat mitigate the backlash from the pro community and because what are now considered “pro features” are very likely to be commonplace consumer features 5 years from now.

With that all said, I’m very sorry if I’ve offended anyone … I am only here to gather information and opinions from others and share my own … not to engage in conflicts about things over which I have zero control. My opinion is that I simply don’t believe that Apple made FCP into FCPX by accident (or QTP into QTX, for that matter) and that I don’t have to agree with the rationale in order to understand it … I actually regard what Apple appears to be doing as very similar to a classic bait & switch con tactic … only on a massive scale never seen before … applied to an entire industry.

[David Johnson]

[TS] FCP has 2 million users and has always cost at least $1000. Do the basic math.

I appreciate your thoughtful assistance, but I don’t think I said that pre-FCPX versions of FCP cost less than $1000. And, I apologize that I haven’t counted how many copies of the pre-FCPX versions of FCP Apple has sold as you obviously have, but you seemed to miss the point and hone in on a vague generalization … or, perhaps you really are suggesting that Apple sold more copies of the pre-FCPX versions of FCP than it does iPods, iPhones, iPads, etc. … individually or combined, you choose.

[David Johnson]

As far as I know, it’s not from an insider like Ron Brinkmann, but another one of the best evaluations of the situation I’ve read is this post from a fellow COW member: https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/5792

Both Ron Brinkmann’s blog and that COW post say basically the same things and both are spot on. As Ron Brinkmann, put it …

“‘Doesn’t Apple care about the professional market?’ … In a word, no.”

So, perhaps the question posed in the title of this post is based on a faulty premise …

“Is the blindness that Apple showed in the FCPX release a portent of Apple’s future?”

Perhaps the transformation of FCP is not at all blindness or accidental, but a calculated direction shift that has been in the works for many years. In other words, it’s not about Steve Job’s health … or battling factions within Apple … it’s about business/money. Having become more successful than ever by focusing all resources on the mass market instead of the tiny pro market, why would anyone expect Apple to care about the pro market once it had gotten what it needed from that market? What did it need? Simple – a boost up from oblivion that lasted long enough to develop and market hot consumer products that are selling by the millions. So, perhaps a cheap App Store download that perfectly complements those consumer market iDevices is not at all indicative of short-sightedness or Apple’s imminent demise … in fact, perhaps just the opposite. In other words, FCPX will sell like hotcakes … just not to the same people who were buying FCPS (once the give-it-a-try wishful thinking wears off). It’s just basic math – sell a few thousand $1000 products that require major recurring R&D investment; or, sell millions of $300 products that only require re-printing a version number on the box … oops, I forgot … no box either.

[David Johnson]

And, why on earth wouldn’t you save the work you did in AE!? You may be starting to realize this now, but just in case you aren’t … that is a VERY, VERY bad practice. Project files are tiny … no reason at all not to save them … I have AE project files from ten years ago or more.

[David Johnson]

Yes, L3s would be redundant, but whether they’re unnecessary is a separate question for two reasons:

1] redundancy is sometimes regarded as a good thing in communications
2] also having the names, etc. in visuals could serve one of several purposes like:

• a little extra notoriety for the clients
• assistance with difficult names
• assistance with relevant info for dummies like me who like watching TV without sound

[David Johnson]

MOV (just like AVI) is a wrapper that contain any one of literally hundreds of video codecs in combination with any one of literally many dozens (at least) of audio codecs. So, whether a file has the MOV (or AVI) extension is not particularly important … what is very important is which codecs the MOV (or AVI) was encoded with. If a file contains codecs that are not on your computer, your computer will not be able to play the file … period.

Video formats and codecs is not a simple subject that one can just stumble through … at least not without wasting tons of time and experiencing lots of avoidable headaches. So, to get more detailed answers to solve your current issue, perhaps search these forums for words like “codecs” and “wrapper” and you will find very many posts with useful info (including many answers to this exact same question). Even better, if you plan to work with video more than once, it will serve you well going forward to do a little homework on the subject … perhaps search the web for such terms and find one of the many good resources that explain the basics of video formats and codecs. Best of luck.