Simon Ubsdell
6
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
[Walter Soyka] “Simon, what does “support” mean to you?
General help using the system? Emergency help when something goes unusually wrong? Bug fixes for the stuff that’s broken?”
Thinking about that purely from my own point of view as a user, I would always expect the supplier to respond to a bug report – even if it’s just with a form letter to say that it’s a known issue. That’s irrespective of whether I was paying for support. Just because a bug is frequently reported shouldn’t, I think, exonerate the supplier from this (ethical) obligation.
Of course, that raises a lot of questions as to what you mean by a bug – it certainly means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, which is where a good deal of confusion comes in.
What do you class as a bug? Would you agree that for the average user the actual technical sense of this is not always easy to grasp?
(One of the things that used to happen back in the day is that suppliers would publish regular updates detailing known issues and even in some cases suggest workarounds. This practice seems to have disappeared almost entirely. Are there legal reasons for that?)
Beyond that, I’d accept that there’s no reasonable expectation of support (with the possible exception of installation issues) – unless you are paying for it via subscription. This is one the attractions of the subscription model – and it works for both parties. Knowing what you can reasonably expect leads to a much healthier relationship.
There’s of course another way of looking at it and that’s asking if buyers would willingly pay more for a product if they knew there was guaranteed support within agreed parameters. The race to the bottom in pricing means that this could be a tricky sell in today’s market – but there’s no intrinsic reason why it shouldn’t be a valid strategy.
Interestingly, I note that Intelligent Assistance are now saying this on their support page:
“Please Note: We’re a small company of two people, who want to make great software and support it as well as we can, but we have to be realistic. With tens of thousands of customers we can’t honestly promise individual support for $10 – or even $50 – apps, and I doubt you reasonably expect it. ”
Which potentially raises the question, shouldn’t they perhaps be charging more for their apps? Perhaps the real enemy in all of this is unrealistic pricing …
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
Noah, Thanks for the chance to discuss this. It’s an interesting subject – to me, at least.
[Noah Kadner] “In the case of FCPX, all feedback is indeed carefully read and where appropriate— replied to. The feedback that isn’t replied to is no less important; it’s just used in other ways. I won’t say precisely how because that would be telling about internal practices.”
Rubbish feedback is tiresome, of course it is, but it’s still valuable information about how your customers feel about your brand. In that sense, none of it, however unpleasant in tone, should be rejected out of hand, or actively not sought.
It is after all, all of it data about your customer base, which is a massively valuable commodity as we all know.
That’s why I picked you up on the suggestion that users should self-moderate before submitting enhancement requests, of all things. In that case, you have users actively engaging with your brand in a positive way.
Enhancement requests have value not so much in the sense that they show you what you should be doing next, but because they’re key information about the mindset of your most committed customers.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Noah Kadner] “More insight here: https://www.fcpworks.com/submitting-better-fcpx-feedback-to-apple/“
I’m really intrigued by your suggestion that the user should rigorously self-censor before submitting enhancement requests to Apple.
What’s the thinking behind that from an Apple perspective?
They don’t have to answer – and of course most of the time they don’t answer. So where’s the harm? What’s the downside for Apple? Most companies are only too happy to harvest the opinions of the client base – it’s valuable market information, whether or not you decide to act on it.
Sorry to keep taking issue with you (but hey, this is the Debate forum, right?) – it’s genuinely interesting to hear your ex-insider’s take on all this, so thanks very much for sharing. I really appreciate it.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Craig Seeman] “Support absolutely costs money but, whether it’s the app store rules or the companies, if you can’t exploit your current customers whether it’s paid upgrades or even new paid versions, you’re being pushed into a model which doesn’t motivate support from the developer.”
This is very true.
Support represents a huge investment of time – for the smaller developer there’s no question that represents an opportunity cost. Not to mention that many small developers are not doing it as a full-time job, but rather in parallel with something that actually pays the bills.
There does seem to be a view among developers who use it that the App Store model tends to keep them at arm’s length from their customer base to everyone’s disadvantage.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Tom Sefton] “So far apple have been great with FCPX.”
That’s great to hear.
Out of interest, what mechanism have you been using to “speak” to them? Email, Skype, phone support? If it was phone, did they phone you back? Did you initiate the contact through the feedback page? How quickly did they get back to you?
What kind of issue were they helping with? Was it a bug, or question about how to operate the software?
Would be really interested to hear the specifics, if you don’t mind sharing some of them.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
Hi Jeff,
Well, actually, I am in total agreement with all of that.
Not least that ultimately Focus as a production is a story about the skill and dedication of the usually unsung backroom guys, who collectively clearly pulled off a phenomenal feat here, and all credit to them.
Apple, of course, won’t be spinning it as a story about anything quite as dull as that and they will make sure that the details of what went down get lost in the wash. And again, why not? It’s all about PR at the end of the day.
But, as you say, Cold Mountain it is not.
On the other hand, if Walter Murch turns round and embraces FCP X after all, then that will be a really big story – and that would actually be Cold Mountain all over again.
And who knows, there’s every chance that he might.
Or someone equally high profile whose reputation does add genuine lustre to the choice.
Has FCP X’s reputation been enhanced by this in terms of its appeal to crusty old editors who need more evidence that it’s a serious proposition? I think not really … and that’s a shame.
My contention is that having a big editing name attached is the factor that will make the major difference and that hasn’t happened yet.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Jeff Markgraf] “I do think the overall tenor of these exchanges has been rather unfair to the editor in question and to the production team. I think a lot of assumptions have been made as to motivation and process, and the leap from assumption to what seem to be negative conclusions is all too short and unsupported by actual facts. “
OK, now you’ve quoted all that back to me, I’ll agree that I over-egged the pudding more than once, though I think I tried to be generous to Jan Kovac at all times, but apologies all round if I seem to have failed in that.
Inevitably on this forum one gets dragged into arguments that one never meant to get involved in – I think I found myself arguing against the contention that feature film editing experience has no real relevance and all that counts is “talent”, which did strike me as a curious position. I still don’t find that I can agree with this position, I’m afraid. But then again, perhaps I was misunderstanding what others were saying – it wouldn’t be the first time.
Let me just restate the reason for wanting to bring this up. In fact, rather than restating it in different words, let me just copy and paste from my last post:
“Cold Mountain was a landmark moment in large part because the choice to use it was made by a universally acknowledged giant in the feature editing world and it was for that reason almost more than any other that Legacy “suddenly” acquired a perceived legitimacy it didn’t have before. Walter Murch’s reputation and experience were the seal of approval that validated the product. You could almost say that his talent as an editor was not relevant in this case …
Focus may well come to change a lot of people’s minds about FCP X but in comparing this moment with the Cold Mountain moment, it is surely not inappropriate to point out that in this case the reputation and experience of the editor are not in the same league. Kovac may well be a super-talented editor, despite his lack of imdb credits, but he doesn’t bring the same credibility to the party as Murch did.
I just don’t see how this can be considered contentious, and mentioning it is really not a disparagement of Jan Kovac.”
Obviously, Focus is important to everyone, not so much as confirmation that X can be used for feature editing, which I think a lot of us knew already, but rather for the PR value of having had a major Hollywood movie choose it.
From that point of view, it is interesting to know who made the choice – if it was Ficarra and Requa rather than Kovac, as everything seem to suggest, who made the choice, then the PR value is of a different order to the Walter Murch/Cold Mountain choice. They’ve made a couple of pretty decent films but I don’t think anyone considers that they have a reputation as editors, though again in the shadows of the cutting room, their talent and experience may be considerable for all we know. But the fact is we don’t know and that in itself is the point.
Within this context, Kovac’s apparent inexperience is surely not without relevance, in the sense that it’s unlikely that he drove the decision single-handedly if at all, and from a Hollywood perspective his validation of FCP X necessarily carries less weight than if it had come from an editor whose work is well known and universally respected.
He may be well-known and universally respected after Focus, but there’s no way you can say he was before now – again with every respect to his undoubted talent.
Does that make sense, or am I still overstating it?
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Bill Davis] “Without judicious frothing – the world would be without cappuccino OR meringue OR margaritas – and therefore a much less hospitable place.”
All good points. I will duly revise my opinion of froth and its place in the world 😉
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
Hi Jeff,
Insofar as you are referring to me here, which seems possible, can I (politely, I hope) answer your first two points?
[Jeff Markgraf] “Curiosity about an unknown and possibly inexperienced editor working on a major studio film quickly becomes a virtual attack on this guy’s skills and credibility.”
I certainly didn’t intend to question Mr Kovac’s skills or credibility – I merely thought it was relevant to flag up his apparent lack of experience as a Hollywood feature film editor, which seemed to me to be worthy of note in this context. The two things are very different but seem to have been confused here.
Cold Mountain was a landmark moment in large part because the choice to use it was made by a universally acknowledged giant in the feature editing world and it was for that reason almost more than any other that Legacy “suddenly” acquired a perceived legitimacy it didn’t have before. Walter Murch’s reputation and experience were the seal of approval that validated the product. You could almost say that his talent as an editor was not relevant in this case …
Focus may well come to change a lot of people’s minds about FCP X but in comparing this moment with the Cold Mountain moment, it is surely not inappropriate to point out that in this case the reputation and experience of the editor are not in the same league. Kovac may well be a super-talented editor, despite his lack of imdb credits, but he doesn’t bring the same credibility to the party as Murch did.
I just don’t see how this can be considered contentious, and mentioning it is really not a disparagement of Jan Kovac, though you seem to have read it that way.
[Jeff Markgraf] “The original subtext (yes, subtext carries over very well on the internet) that there’s something odd or shady going on with this project (producers who want to run every aspect of the process, etc.) morphs into clear evidence that “there mischief afoot!” and “he/it/this whole thing can’t possibly be professional, etc.””
I think, with respect, the morphing is taking place in your imagination. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I use FCP X professionally and was well aware, long before Focus, that it was a viable tool for editing features. In many ways, I like it a lot, and just like any other piece of software I have ever used, there are ways in which is dislike it. (And of course, as I’ve mentioned in the past, there are specific missing features which make my particular niche workflow a bit of a pain, but let’s not go over that again here.) For better or worse, I just can’t bring myself to be partisan, either for it or against it.
What I think does more damage to FCP X than almost anything else is the frothing zealotry of a handful of its most extreme adherents – it really does put a lot of people off who might otherwise be more receptive, though of course their enthusiasm is otherwise highly laudable. At least that’s what I think.
The internet is a very strange place where the majority of communication reveals the failure to communicate.
So apologies for failing to communicate in this instance … and of course, peace and love to all.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Robin S. Kurz] “you need to differentiate between “learning by doing” (which I may unfairly be assuming was the vast position of your learning X, for arguments sake) and learning in a structured classroom environment with a trained instructor. “
That sounds great. Can you recommend any training that might be particularly suited to, say, a German-speaking user?
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com