[Herb Sevush]

[Chris Kenny] “Many new users entering the market won’t do that; they’ll pick the path of least resistance, the obvious solution.”

Dedicated professional editors who’s livelihood is based on the tools they use are not going to be put off by having to enter their credit card info at a website.

And I don’t see typical Ap purchasers, used to buying games at $4.99 for their Iphone, purchasing $299 software for their as yet non professional video use.

I don’t see FCPX as a whim purchase. If they’re serious, the xtra 5 keystrokes to download Adobe won’t matter. If they’re not serious the $299 price will matter.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Chris Kenny] “If you believe Media Composer or Photoshop CS6 are showing up in the Mac or Metro app stores, you’re not aware of the restrictions Apple and Microsoft are imposing on developers.”

No, what I’m saying is “one click” software distribution will not be limited to any current ap store. The distribution possibilities are endless, why do you think we/ve arrived at the end game?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Chris Kenny] “They almost always do it with totally new products.”

We seem to be talking in circles here. Yes they take the opportunity to rethink totally new products, but FCP was not a new product. They *chose* to make it a new product because they *chose* to rethink it. It was the market leader, it needed a 64 bit upgrade, it was not a new product and they specifically chose to throw all that out when it was not the case that they did that with other applications. As is the case with Itunes they can also chose not to create new products. So it is not the case that they “always do it” – and changing language from “rethinking” to “creating new products” doesn’t change the truth of the situation.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Tim Wilson] “I’m not saying that any of this was GOOD, or done for any right reasons other than the ones I mentioned: he wanted it to look and act like Apple, and he wanted it to do something completely new.”

My point is that this works with consumer products because SJ was a consumer, he could understand their wants and needs without feedback because his feedback was all the guid he needed. This does not work with technical specialist software – neither SJ nor R. Ubilos is an editor and knows what would make for a “visionary” editing experience. They can make Imovie, a hobbyist editor, because they are hobbyists. To think that the same holds true for pro NLE editing is to think he could design a commercial airliner because he used flight simulator.

I am in no way saying your incorrect as to what actually happened at Apple. I am saying calling the rollout a “success” needs a redefinition of the word.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Bill Davis] “So actually, smart simplification has proved to be an extremely excellent reason for change – and one that vast numbers of people have rewarded with continued patronage.”

Absolutely, in the mass consumer market.

[Bill Davis] “What’s proving problematic is designing software for a small elite cadre of users who’s economic impact pales in relation to the development resources required to serve their niche requirements. For good or ill, fulfilling the software needs of the top 10% of working editors may not be a sustainable model for software development.”

This may be true, but I believe that professional video editing is inherently complex, and that most Legacy users will prefer thoroughness to simplicity. Not that FCPX won’t find a large market, but I don’t know that it will pick up as many new users as it will loose old ones. I don’t see Avid and PPro and Edius users leaving their Aps for FCPX so all of their gains will have to come from new users.

[Bill Davis] “A drop from 54% o 52% as discussed in Phil Hodgetts recent quoted post here just isn’t going to budge a needle enough to notice.”

I posted this as a counter to Tim Wilson’s argument that the FCPX rollout was so successful. Success does not equal loss of market share, unless accompanied by a rise in unit profits, no matter how small the loss. A release of the imaginary FCP8 would have either gained or held market share, not lost it. As many have pointed out the major Legacy migration is just beginning.

[Bill Davis] “And unless Premier is doing many many orders of magnitude better than that”

They are, they’ve posted their increase in seats and it’s up over 20% last year, and that’s before PPro6.

[Bill Davis] “how long can they support the constant and on-going development required of any software company faced with the pace of hardware revision we see today?”

The same way every other software company manages. I don’t see many NLE’s going out of business these days, in fact more are joining the fray, especially with the opening Apple created.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Chris Kenny] “Adobe and Avid NLE products are presently packaged, priced and implemented in a way that makes them impossible to sell either though the Mac App Store or Microsoft’s forthcoming Metro app store.”

Oh, I see, you think the only changes coming down the pike will come from Apple. I’m going to guess that simplified “one click” software distribution is going to be commonplace soon, from everyone. Your so living in the past.

[Chris Kenny] “In many respects, FCP X is the iOS of the NLE market.”

Here I agree with you totally.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Bill Davis] “That certainly worked for song sharing, and it’s really a shame the iTunes store couldn’t compete on price…oh wait, was “value” ever a factor here? I wonder…”

Apparently value isn’t a factor or FCPX wouldn’t be in the running. See how easy it is to play that game. Bill I’ll bet dollars to donuts you’ve never tried Lightworks, I doubt you know anything about it, but in your Apple blindness you think you can make a case for X having more value than Lightworks. I suggest you do some do some research.

[Bill Davis] ” “[Chris Kenny] ” FCP X is from a different world than competing NLEs. But that world isn’t the consumer market. It’s the future. And it’s arriving fast.”

Oh please, spare me.”

Can’t fault that reasoning, Herb. I suppose because you forgot to include any. “

I was referring to the cliched nonsense of the trope “It’s the future. And it’s arriving fast.” That’s as meaningless a statement as you can find. You know what’s in the future and coming fast? Increasing entropy. Death. Another Yankee World Series victory. Tomorrow.

[Bill Davis] ” Chris pretty clearly outlined his foundation for thinking that X is a play for where the market is going. What’s your reasoning for defending that the market should keep pushing where it was going in the prior era?”

And other than the “taxonomy” of tagging, I found fault with each of his arguments. As for why I think the market should honor previous workflow considerations – for the same reasons I thought the DVORAK keyboard a dumb idea, and that keyboard makes a lot more sense than X. I also never thought Esperanto had much of a shot. In both cases the prize wasn’t worth the price.

[Bill Davis] “As Tim compellingly outlined, that was an era of constantly bolting new features into old code to protect the functions that were useful to a minority of users – and that historical approach was prioritized ahead of providing better performance for more users, on more classes of machines, at a lower cost.”

And I am patiently explaining that the upgrade could have preserved what was valuable in the old without tossing the baby out. Adobe and Avid among many others have managed to upgrade their basic software without destroying the workflow of their users. Apple chose not to, basically because Steve Jobs found it hard to edit his family’s home movies. Now there’s a great reason for change.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Chris Kenny] “Because they don’t do it for every generation of every product? Doesn’t follow.”

Because they don’t alwas do it. This is your quote from a previous post:

“It’s not “Apple” to not question basic user interface assumptions”

I am merely pointing out that it is sometimes very Apple not to question interface assumptions. That they chose to do it here cannot be explained by the argument “but they always do that” when quite clearly they don’t “always do that.”

[Chris Kenny] “iTunes was originally an outside acquisition “

When they re-do this very important consumer Ap, we’ll see if they also make it incompatible with the previous version and require users to reload everything and throw out all their song lists.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Chris Kenny] “It’s not “Apple” to not question basic user interface assumptions.”

So where is the “assumption questioning” with Safari?

Itunes is the least “Apple” program they own, I don’t see them tossing it out the window.

This mantra that Apple questions and rethinks everything is PR bullpoo.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Bill Davis] “It will surprise nobody that I agree with Chris’s assessment.”

Nope, no surprises there. But the brevity was admirable.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf