Marcus Moore
Forum Replies Created
-
You’re right that money-wise Apple isn’t driven to release FCP X updates on any given schedule. Though based on recent general changes we’ve seen in the company at WWDC, I as much as anyone would like to see Apple leverage their ability to do focused Pro Apps events when they have something to talk about.
As for your point about Yosemite, while improvements to OSX could certainly spur some cool new features after release, features like “Remove Attributes” or enhanced Color Correction tools likely aren’t at all reliant on any new core OS features or functionality.
Personally, I don’t think the FCP dev team would hobble itself by always needing to pace feature updates behind Apple’s yearly OSX update schedule.
-
[Oliver Peters] “Hmm… At NAB in meetings with press, no such statements were made that I’m aware of. What roadshows are you talking about? Were actual Apple employees doing the presentations?”
Yup. This was in… about February I think. I wasn’t there myself but heard first hand from some clients of mine that’s what was said- it’s a general guideline, and obviously not binding- but the release schedule up to now seems to bear that out.
I don’t think there’s any less guarantee of updates than with anyone else (relatively that you can be guaranteed of anything). I don’t buy into the conceit that just because something isn’t Apple’s biggest profit centre that it’s not important to them. Apple does a lot of things for which profit obviously can’t be the primary motivator, especially if you weight it against something like the iPhone or even the Mac.
Until Apple actively shows declining interest in development of FCP X, I don’t see reason to prognosticate that things will suddenly change.
-
At Roadshows Apple has been running over the last 6 months, they’ve stated publicly that their goal is to update about every 3-4 months. So there’s that.
Anything before X (be it Logic or FCP) in terms of development doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the way they’re pursuing software development now. It’s night and day.
Aperture seems to still be waiting for some big “Aperture X” update, which could come who knows when. It’s the last of Apple’s remaining Pro Apps looking for a big overhaul.
For the record, FCP X updates so far (feature updates in bold)-
10.0.0 – 2011.06.21 Tues
10.0.1 – 2011.09.20 91 DAYS Tues
10.0.2 – 2011.11.16 57 DAYS Wed
10.0.3 – 2012.01.31 76 DAYS Tues
10.0.4 – 2012.04.10 70 DAYS Tues
10.0.5 – 2012.06.11 62 DAYS Mon
10.0.6 – 2012.10.23 134 DAYS Tues
10.0.7 – 2012.12.06 44 DAYS Thurs
10.0.8 – 2013.03.28 112 DAYS Thurs
10.0.9 – 2013.07.30 124 DAYS Thurs
10.1.0 – 2013.12.19 148 DAYS Thurs
10.1.1 – 2014.01.16 28 DAYS Thurs
10.1.2 – 2014.06.24 159 DAYS (as of Tuesday the 24th)**bolded 10.1.2 cause I think it will be a feature update.
-
I think we’re VERY close. At 151 days since 10.1.1 (as of today) this is now the longest update interval since FCP X launched. I was putting my money on either today or next Tuesday- so let’s see how I made out a week from now.
-
True enough. There’s of course all these rumours bout A-series process Macs. And I don’t doubt for a minute that just like with IBM almost a decade ago- Apple has those in their labs, in case Intel stables, or if Apple gets to a point with a A12 or A15 that there’s no longer any benefit to sticking with them.
I’m sure Apple would love not to have their Mac refresh cycle dictated by Intel’s roadmap. But I have no clue as to the relative power of today’s A7 chip vs an i5 or i7.
-
In what regard? It’s not that the machines didn’t work.
There’s loads of people who bough pre-Intel machines (myself included), and those machines worked fine for years- and were supported up until Lion in mid-2011. 6 years after the Intel switch announcement.
The G5 desktop stuff was working great, but as portables became a larger and larger share of the market, they had to ditch. IBM just couldn’t do what was needed.
It’s honestly too bad that it’s a one-horse race for processors. Who’s pushing Intel now?
-
Truth is truth- I don’t subscribe to that kind of sliding scale thinking.
Unfortunately going down the rabbit hole of the relative speeds of nearly decades old processors is hopefully something neither of us have time for. Is there an easy way to qualify what you’re saying?
I’m only familiar with Apple’s slides from the G3-G5 days showing performance vs Intel equivalents.
Stuff like this-
https://www.architosh.com/features/2004/g5-interview/2004-interv-g5nem-1.phtml
-
Yeah, but what’s the alternative to that, really? Apple had to know for at least a year out that they were going to make the switch. In fact, Apple had revealed that they’d had parallel development of both for the last several OS’s. But you have to market and sell your products until you’re ready to make the switch.
-
Again, I don’t get it. Because PowerPC couldn’t keep up, Apple switched to Intel. That’s an about face?
EDITED TO ADD Specifically, wasn’t it because IBM wasn’t getting anywhere with power management in the increasingly important Laptop space.
-
I don’t follow- I haven’t seen that news anywhere.