Franz Bieberkopf
Forum Replies Created
-
[Marcus Moore] “Until we get some better idea of specifically how many users are using competing NLE platforms, I think any judgement of the 1mil+ number is entirely lacking in a frame of reference.”
Marcus,
We’ve discussed this before. Recent reports are thus:
– Adobe Premiere Pro, 2.5 million (Fall 2012)
– FCP 1-7, 2 million (NAB 2011)
– FCP X, 1 million (NAB 2014)
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/67769– Avid 3 million (NAB 2014)
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/67876
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/67797[Marcus Moore] “Adobe’s most recent announcement of 1.8million CC subscribers from March is for ALL products; and I wouldn’t even hazard to guess what percentage of those people are Premier users versus those in graphics, audio, web, photography, graphic design, or publishing. I think HALF would be very generous.”
Adobe was reporting 2.5 million “seats” and “number of users” for Premiere Pro in 2012. I suppose they may have lost two-thirds of their users since then, but if you’re claiming that you should probably support it.
If you’re going to qualify in some way about “current users” then this qualification should be applied to FCPX as well.https://www.beet.tv/2012/09/adobepremiere.html
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/67774[Marcus Moore] “Considering that more than a decade of Legacy FCP development lead to 2 million licences, FCPX is on track to be far more successful than is predecessor.”
Again, I think you should also consider this in context of the number of Macs that sold in the decade of FCP 1-7 vs. current sales.
https://lowendmac.com/musings/10mm/record-mac-sales.html
https://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/01/30/steve-jobs-pcs-trucks-apple-aapl/My squinting guestimate is that Apple has probably sold maybe twice as many Macs in the 3 years of FCPX as it did in the decade of FCP1-7. I’d be interested in more exact numbers if anyone has the resources.
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “But why would these require tracks and not roles?”
Walter,
I’m open to seeing a role-based mixer, but as I outlined above I think it presents many problems for designing a UI.
If I have 3 clips of sound and then suddenly 1 finishes and then 9 more begin, what is happening to the UI of the mixer?
A role may have several simultaneous clips – would there be a simple “expand” function – how will this affect other clips being currently mixed. How will they implement multi-track clips (a similar problem)?
When you imagine the hardware and software control surfaces – often designed around groups of 8 faders – you start to realize the problem.
I’m not saying it can’t be done. I’m interested to see it. But I’m skeptical.
Franz.
-
[Marcus Moore] “I don’t think either of those things are out of the realm of possibility with Roles-based organization”
Marcus,
Perhaps. But really I’d have to see the implementation.
But I can imagine moving from a stretch where there are 3 sound clips, to one where there are 11 – and suddenly your mixer controls switch. I think it is just fundamentally difficult to implement in a way that maintains the simple, direct, intuitive interface that the current mixer UI offers.
That Apple kept “tracks” for Logic suggest that they see their fundamental value and use in time-based A/V editing applications.
Franz.
-
[Marcus Moore] “Apple’s released statement of 1million+ installs isn’t “bad” by any measure, and is in fact much faster adoption than Legacy FCP.”
Marcus,
One million in just under three years is pretty weak by some measures – particularly when you consider the number of users of FCP 6-7 that they haven’t been able to “upgrade” or “convert”.
It also suggests that they’re (still) competing with developers like Avid and Adobe (and now Blackmagic etc.) where there was some initial speculation that they were attempting to expand and appeal to other types of users.
Franz.
Edit:
[Marcus Moore] “… and is in fact much faster adoption than Legacy FCP.”
I’m not sure that’s true, but you should also consider these figures in the context of overall Mac sales – I think Apple now sells about 4 or 5 times as many Macs in any given period compared to when FCP was released.
-
[Marcus Moore] “When they do that, I don’t see any advantages to the track system …”
Marcus,
… a mixer and real-time mixing.
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “… would so many still clamor for tracks with better (more) use of roles in the timeline?”
Walter,
Those who think that a mixer and real-time mixing are important are probably not “so many” in the target demographic.
Franz.
-
[Marcus Moore] “Here’s the little chart I keep in my notes”
Marcus,
So, isn’t the pattern between feature updates thus:
91 days
133 days
266 days
428 days… and doesn’t that suggest a growing lag between feature updates, the next of which would be something like 600 days after the last feature update. (If you’re looking for patterns.)
Franz.
-
[Greg Lee] ” Is Resolve the missing NLE?”
Greg,
Many people happy with Avid, Lightworks, Adobe CC, etc. etc. etc. I’m still not convinced by any single option so it’ll be interesting to see what happens with Resolve.
Reposting my questions about audio – you could probably compile additional lists for many features and workflow issues. In other words, we don’t really know much about the software, and so we can’t really judge it on any meaningful level.
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/67909
“How does it handle multiple source channels on clips? Do I have versatile control of mutes and levels on individual channels?
Stereo, mono, multi-channel tracks?
Separate master controls? Does it allow grouping or any sort of routing? What kind of metering?
How does it handle audio plug-ins? Can I apply them to clips and/or tracks? Third party?
Support for control surfaces?
Will it take any audio interface? Can it deal with sync offsets if that’s an issue on playback?
What’s the quality of speed effects on audio?”
Etc. etc. etc.
Franz.
-
[walter biscardi] “… he’s allowed to have a “moment.””
Walter,
While I find your embrace of emotion reassuring, it should probably be applied to all, including those in the forum who occasionally have an outburst.
[walter biscardi] “All the vitriol directed towards people who had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to go subscription does wear on you after a while.”
The other Walter expresses the opinion that for Adobe the “business model” and the “development model” are linked – that one informs the other. In response, it’s fair to note that for users, the features and the “business model” are linked – one affects the other and it’s quite fair for them to discuss all aspects. And users also had “nothing to do with the decision to go subscription” – one might claim they are also not responsible for the repercussions.
It seems clear that one of Adobe’s PR strategies on this is not to have anyone available to discuss the subscription controversy – you won’t find it in the forums except in carefully qualified statements. It’s probably a savvy strategy (from a business point of view), but the weight of that is going to fall on people like Al Mooney and Todd and Kevin here in the forum. If they think they can simply dismiss discussions with claims of “not my department” they’re being naive about their role and the intelligence of those posting here.
Or, to put it another way: if Adobe wishes to relieve Al Mooney from questions about the subscription model, who did they send to NAB to discuss it?
Franz.
-
Change The Forum Name or Not: The Debate
Franz.