[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Oliver Peters] “But from everyone I’ve talked to that actually works with it as a developer, they have a lot of frustrations with it. It keeps changing and based on my experiences, seems to be very open to interpretation, as evidenced by the fact that one developer can get completely different results than another.”

Oliver,

I’d be interested in a more detailed post about FCPXML, its history and related issues … if you were considering such a thing for here or your blog.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Marcus Moore] “I just doubt you’ll find too many people around here who’ll think Philip would present info as verified unless it was.”

Marcus,

One could leave the trustfulness of Philip out of the question entirely and still have concerns about information for discussion.

I’ve demonstrated before how meaning shifts in memory aided by intention:
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/72008

What we now have is you claiming that Apple has posted official numbers through Philip. “… anything that he puts up on his blog regarding numbers can be considered official.” What we don’t have are the actual words that Apple used in such an announcement, and as we have seen (above), Apple is quite careful about the words they choose.

If he is remembering something that someone told him in a Las Vegas hotel room, he should post the information as such. If he is quoting an Apple spokesperson, he should post it as such. If he paraphrasing what he understood from a private discussion from a source he doesn’t want to identify, he should post it as such. All three have different implications.

Questioning such does not impugn his reputation at all, and I can’t imagine why he would be insulted by the question. I don’t understand what you find controversial about this.

As to Mac sales, there is a significant segment (oft mentioned in these parts) of editors who do not purchase their machine to fit their NLE software, but in fact purchase their software to fit their machine. For this segment, an increase in general Apple market share impacts on options – you can’t buy FCP if you don’t have a Mac.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Marcus,

I cite the source as Philip Hodgetts or Larry Jordan or whoever – if they are reticent to name the Apple spokesperson or the little birdie then they are the source, and people can judge for themselves how much faith they wish to put in such.

Some people will believe the word of Deepthroat or whoever in a Las Vegas hotel room.

If Philip is now an Apple spokesperson I’d be interested to know.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Steve Connor] “Cant use that I’m afraid”

Well then I think we have it:

Points or Tangents: The Debate

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Marcus Moore] ” I had a quick chat with Philip Hodgetts and anything that he puts up on his blog regarding numbers can be considered official”

Marcus,

Sure. With citations and attributions.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Marcus Moore] “I’m inclined to believe that Apple (and as noted by Philip who I trust on these points) counts sales as SALES. Over 1 million = over 1 million x $299.”

Marcus,

Apple very pointedly hasn’t announced sales of FCP X.

The “over 1 million” announcement was “installations” according to Larry Jordan. If you have other info, please share.

All other announcements were “users” except where noted.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Marcus Moore] “Here’s the chart showing FCPX’s placement on the US Top Paid Downloads (NOT highest grossing)”

Marcus,

Thanks for this. Vaguely interesting. Would be good to see back to release date.

[Marcus Moore] “If top rank has any correlation with the number of sales (which I can only assume it must) …”

Actually we have no idea what the charts of the App Store mean. Apple makes no claims nor provides any information on what they represent.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

I see no one caught that I transposed the 1999 & 2001 numbers to 2001 & 2003 (accidentally! and I spent so much time on it all!).

That doesn’t change anything of substance.

But I’ll use the opportunity to emphasize the two points that seem to have gone largely missed by comments so far: the first is that this Apple’s portrayal of itself, and the second is that the slopes are more interesting than the points.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[James Ewart] “What we were taught in history about Luddites here in the UK more closely resembles the Wikipedia definition … My Shorter Oxford Dictional definition … Or Meriam Webster online “

James,

Yes, but the smithsonian article is specifically addressing the broad understanding of the word (which is one thing), which is amorphous, noting for example that:

“People use the word now even to describe someone who is merely clumsy or forgetful about technology. (A British woman locked outside her house tweets her husband: “You stupid Luddite, turn on your bloody phone, i can’t get in!”)”

… an delving into the historical facts (which are another thing):

“Despite their modern reputation, the original Luddites were neither opposed to technology nor inept at using it. Many were highly skilled machine operators in the textile industry. Nor was the technology they attacked particularly new. … In truth, the secret of their enduring reputation depends less on what they did than on the name under which they did it. You could say they were good at branding.”

… which may or may not be interesting in light of its use to describe certain straw men.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Steve Connor] “Almost as tired as the endless speculation about sales figures”

Steve,

Fair comment. But the information that the speculation is based on isn’t tired.

I’ve got a post about that when I have time.

Franz.