[David Lawrence]

[Walter Soyka] “My question for the forum is this: what do you think we can look for from Apple over the next 6 to 12 months to indicate if they are truly dedicated to the professional (or “complex workflow”) market or not?”

Thanks for starting a really interesting sub-thread, Walter. These hardware scenarios all sound pretty cool even if it’s all speculation right now.

I also think we need to think about software, since tight integration between hardware and software is one of Apple’s greatest strengths.

[Craig Seeman] “Apple’s motive though is to use FCPX to boost the sales of Macs so their potential ROI on the R&D is much greater even if it doesn’t come close to matching iOS devices.”

Agreed, but given the huge dominance of iOS hardware and software on Apple’s bottom line, how do you think iOS will impact Apple direction with the Mac OS platform moving forward?

I’m thinking specifically of Mac OS Lion as a first step in Apple merging the Mac OS and iOS platforms. Professionals and consumers have very different needs. Many UI decisions in Lion that seemed aimed at convergence and simplicity for consumers would not be tolerated in a professional setting. Some, like autosave seem downright dangerous.

What do you think Apple’s software direction says about their interest in professional workflow?

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Jamie Franklin] “I feel like a painter that just had all my brushes taken away and I was given a sword to paint with…Bob Ross found his niche (showing my age) in the painting world…but it’s like they shaved his fro and took away his ability to place happy little trees wherever he wanted…”

lol, great analogy!

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Andrew Richards] “I too wonder about the political implications of not having an SVP of Mac Software Engineering, but I don’t think Lion is a weak update. There is a huge amount of new guts there, particularly for media. They basically replaced QuickTime in Lion with all new frameworks in the form of CoreMedia and AVFoundation. Not trivial stuff. I hate the new look of iCal and Address Book, I yawn at Mission Control and Launchpad, but that isn’t everything going on in Lion.”

Agreed. Just like FCPX, there’s lots of deeply good engineering under the hood and hopefully in the next 4 to 6 months it will be ready to put into production.

But Mac OS software UI is a mess right now. It really feels like no one’s minding the store. I mean Apple wrote the book on human interface and these days it seems like they don’t even follow their own guidelines half the time. It’s odd finding not just bugs but obvious UI usability mistakes in major software from one of the world’s leading UI design companies. If no one’s really in charge right now, that would explain a lot.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Craig Seeman] “I think individually, Apple not only has great managers like Cook but visionaries like Ive and Ubillos. The challenge will be the ability to mesh since there is no one individual to push the boundaries of the market. Also Jobs is an excellent negotiator and marketer and it’s not clear to me where the leaders are in those parts of Apple’s DNA.”

I think it goes beyond just pushing the boundaries of the market. Jobs’ attention to detail and visionary leadership have driven the excellence of Apple’s products since his return to the company. It’s true he’s surrounded by some of the best and brightest in the industry but he’s the filter through which their work passes. It will be interesting to see how much of his vision has transferred to the institution.

I was looking at the new Apple leadership chart and noticed something interesting and revealing.

https://www.apple.com/pr/bios/

Notice the role not on that chart?

Scott Forstall is Senior VP of iOS software. Who’s his senior management equal for MacOS software? From this chart it looks like no one. This would explain a lot about the declining quality of Mac OS software releases this summer. Especially if Steve’s been too preoccupied and marketing and engineering are driving development.

Things are probably set for the next couple years but in the long term who knows what Apple will look like? Interesting times.

I wish Steve Jobs nothing but the best. He changed my life and the lives of millions of others for the better.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[alban egger] “FCPX has a lot of single-steps that have been multi-steps.
That is definitely Not the problem of FCPX, the prpble, is some steps are not possible at all, but those paths that are open are better than in FCPX (but that’s my 2 cents and i know 90% here disagree)”

Alban, I’ve enjoyed reading your megatest blog and appreciate your reporting on both the pluses and minuses you’ve experienced. Real-world benchmarks like yours are valuable in helping us understand what FCPX is and is not good for.

I’m curious about what specific things you’ve found in FCPX to be single steps that were multiple steps before. My experience has been exactly the opposite so obviously we work differently.

[alban egger] “you would find it also when switching to Windows7 or any other NLE that some steps are different.”

This is true and it’s a big reason why I’m so disappointed with what Apple has done to FCP. If I have to retrain, I’m going to retrain on a system that is industry standard and supports universal workflows.

[alban egger] ” It is the choice of the software designers and if they would leave everything as it was…there would be no upgrade.”

Have to disagree here. They could have left the UI as is and built on top of a new 64-bit metadata-based engine. They could have added new UI features to the old. Lots of ways they could have gone that would have added new power without sacrificing flexibility and alienating a majority of their user base.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

My prediction:

Apple drops the price to $199, rebrands it iMovie Pro, and exits film and broadcast. You heard it here first.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “And none of them will want to work in FCP7’s horrendous audio capabilities either.”

Minor annoyances aside, I think you’d be surprised how productive FCP7 is for audio. I can do 80-90% of a complex mix right in the timeline. OMF out if I’m working with my sound guys or round trip thru Soundtrack Pro if it’s just me. Or if time’s tight, I’ll often just stay right in FCP. Could it be better? Sure. Horrendous? I don’t think so.

[Jeremy Garchow] “Since FCP7 doesn’t have busses I still don’t see how X is that much different, from a truly practical perspective, when it comes to audio.”

Well for one thing, you don’t have to deal with only one “track” that’s locked in ripple mode. That and the connected clip concept get the biggest laughs.

The metaphor of the open timeline functioning as a musical score especially applies when working in audio. Tracks are a natural way to organize channels of sound and ripple is the last thing you want as the default.

I really don’t think Apple’s thought thru sound with their new UI. I’m curious how they’ll solve multichannel mixing with only one track.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Whatever you say. I, of course, am always wrong.”

Not always, just in this case 😉

[Jeremy Garchow] “I am talking about the pen tool adjusting parameters (you know, mixing).”

Mixing is way more than just using the pen tool. I’m talking about working with multiple channels of audio in a flexible, open workspace (you know, mixing). BTW, I think FCPX’s pen tool and fade handles are awesome. I wish I could use them.

[Jeremy Garchow] “I have spent more than 30 minutes checking this out.”

Same here – about two months in my studio.

I spent 30 minutes at the Apple store because I was curious how Apple thinks a project should be structured. It’s interesting and revealing — especially for audio. A big tell is they resort to the same clumsy workarounds discussed in these forums. The one I found most revealing was the gap clip at the head with one long connected audio clip labeled “final soundtrack”. No multichannel mix, just a final which is conveniently brought in as a single clip. Then they add some sound effects connected as needed along the primary. They stage everything so it looks great for a demo. They ignore any real world scenarios that break the model.

I really, truly, cannot imagine any audio engineer wanting to work with the magnetic timeline. Feel free to disagree, but I think the facts are on my side. Every audio/music person I’ve demoed FCPX to reacts the same way when I ask if it would work for them. They laugh.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “A lack of an audio mixer is not good, but the audio mixing is much more useful in X than in 7”

Sorry Jeremy, this is just factually incorrect. FCPX is incredibly awkward and constrained for multi-track audio. Things that are absolutely trivial to do in a track-based system are currently impossible or require all sorts of workarounds in FCPX. Realtime filters don’t help.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Clint Wardlow] “there is an apple store close by, and maybe they well let me take FCPX for a spin.”

This is an excellent way for you to check out FCPX, I did it just the other day. The nice thing is you can play with Apple’s car demo project, the same one you see in all of their marketing videos. So it gives you an idea of how Apple thinks a project should be structured. Even though I have a copy of FCPX and have been playing with it for a couple months, I found this very informative. I suggest everyone try this.

Hint – unless you’re using Lion and are used to “natural” scrolling, the first thing you should do is go to system prefs and turn it off. Otherwise, you will go insane.

I was able spend about a half-hour on a laptop trying things out. You won’t have any trouble getting your hands on it and learning enough to assess if it fits your needs.

[Clint Wardlow] ” do a lot of projections and non-linear narrative (along with more traditional stuff). However, I currently use tracks extensively to layer audio & video and my biggest fear is that the magnetic timeline will limit my ability to control these elements to the degree I want. “

I do this kind of work too. My gut is that if this is what you need, you’ll find the magnetic timeline unusable. It really favors simple, linear assembly and doesn’t offer the flexibility you get with tracks for the kind of layered, non-linear projects you describe. If you need multi-track audio mixing, you’ll hit a wall immediately. There’s a reason that you don’t see any audio mix screen shots in any of Apple’s FCPX marketing material.

But do check it out and report back. I’m curious what you’ll think.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl