Simon Ubsdell
6
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
[Scott Witthaus] “Editors are notorious for resisting change.”
This is a time-worn cliché that is easily falsified by the massive take-up of FCP Legacy … without which this forum (among others things) would not be here today.
[Scott Witthaus] “I highly doubt Apple cares. They see a great big world outside of Hollywood and the US where the product seems to be doing better than the rest.”
However the subject of this thread is the take-up of FCP X in Hollywood, so while this might be true it’s also not relevant to the discussion.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Bill Davis] “If people are making it work at ALL levels of production – successfully – all around the world. It’s hard to argue that the problem lines in the programs inherent capabilities.”
I’m confused about your argument here, because on the one hand you are arguing for the wisdom of the market (the widespread adoption of FCP X outside Hollywood) and on the other hand you are ignoring the influence of the market and blaming a specific section of consumers for not making the switch.
If FCP X is self-evidently the best product at the best price with the best support (and so on), then market forces tell us that it should be the de facto choice everywhere, including Hollywood.
Whether because of Apple’s positioning or because of the product’s own lack of appeal or because of other factors, the market is not pushing the adoption of FCP X within this segment – and it’s had seven years to try and make an impact here.
Something isn’t right.
If I can’t sell my product to a particular segment of the market after a significant period of trying, the problem isn’t the foolishness of the customers I am targeting, it’s my fault and/or the fault of my product.
Perhaps the efficiencies of FCP X just don’t have enough of a practical appeal in every day terms within this sector. It’s not that they haven’t been recognised as efficiencies but rather that they are not perceived as sufficiently game-changing because they speak to edge “problems” rather than to core workflow needs – within this sector.
In other words the factors uniquely attractive about FCP X to the world outside Hollywood don’t count for anything like as much within it – and other factors (delivered by other solutions) are more important and are the drivers of choice.
And a major difference is that within this sector the decisions are enterprise-driven, they’re not driven by individual users. Hard-headed business choices are being made above the level of personal preference.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Jeff Markgraf] “And yet, here you are adjudicating…”
Not really.
It was an alternative hypothetical explanation to a phenomenon that could be interpreted in any number of different ways.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Jeff Markgraf] “After 7 years, the level hostility and misinformation is breathtaking.”
Or alternatively there is a problem with the application or with Apple’s positioning of it or both.
Not for me to adjudicate on that but it’s a point worth making, I think.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Neil Goodman] “That’s part of the problem – why after 7 years do people still doubt FCPX as a viable tool?”
It is indeed a very interesting conundrum.
Anyone who has been a regular here over the years (even Herb!) will readily admit that FCP X is an entirely viable solution for most if not all editing scenarios.
So what is the problem? Why has it failed to take off in the traditional environment? Because it remains unarguable that it hasn’t taken off, and that FCP Legacy puts it to shame in that department.
I’m going to be contentious and hazard one guess – though the reality is that there must be a whole number of interlocking factors.
I’m going to say “timecode”.
In many top end scenarios you can probably get away without agonising about timecode, but if you do need to worry about it, there’s no question that FCPX lets you down. It’s just not even remotely as good as the competition.
Some of us, some of the time, need this level of timecode feedback, instantly available, without fuss or fiddle.
The competition provides it – FCP X falls far short.
I would stress that I’m not in any way suggesting that this one thing is a deciding factor, but it’s definitely one of several.
FCP X doesn’t think this stuff is important. To those few to whom it is important, that feels like a kick in the teeth.
And while we’re at it, whatever happened to Gang Sync and true Replace Edit?
Sometimes these things are mission critical. If you’re not an editor to whom that applies, I can only say, “Lucky, lucky you.”
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Oliver Peters] “On a more concrete level, it’s informative, because many of us use the same techniques and workflows in projects that have nothing to do with big-screen entertainment. For instance, if I work with shared storage using FCPX or PPro, then I’d like to know what pitfalls were encountered or workflow decisions were made by someone in Hollywood using those same tools. “
Exactly.
And this is why the work that Adobe did with Vashi and others was so effective.
It got the message out there (to sceptics like me!) that not only was Premiere up to the task of handling intensive/complex workflows, but more importantly that Adobe were not just listening but actively engaged in coming up with solutions to specific problems raised by a demanding group of editors.
Apple haven’t succeeded in conveying a similar message.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Steve Connor] “I know lots of people using FCPX and not one of them cares about what they use in Hollywood, it doesn’t seem to have affected global sales at all.”
Quite.
But given that the title of this thread is “Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood”, perhaps that’s a little off the point 😉
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Andy Neil] “This is the same group of people that broke out the Holy Hand Grenade when Avid added the smart tool, a relatively minor UI adjustment.”
While it is true that there is nothing you can do to shift the perceptions of a certain class of AVID editors, this argument is not as strong as it used to be.
Many “intransigents” migrated to FCP Legacy, and many then made the jump to Premiere. In other words while there is a tiny contingent that are not prepared to accept change, there is clearly a much larger class who don’t have a problem with change in itself but to whom FCP X doesn’t seem sufficiently appealing.
That being the case, it’s Apple’s fault for not making FCP X appealing enough to them … arguably.
What’s really missing from the FCP X picture in terms of this segment of the market is convincing peer to peer “marketing” – not to say it doesn’t exist, but it has yet to achieve the tipping point and maybe never will for whatever reason.
Another part of the story is Apple itself.
Adobe made a big thing with Premiere of embedding itself in a number of high profile feature films projects (helped massively by the charismatic and talented Vashi Nedomansky) and the relationship was one where Adobe were rewriting the application on a day to day basis to accommodate requests from the editing teams.
And you simply cannot imagine that Apple in their current incarnation would ever consider being that accommodating.
Of course, Apple don’t really care that much about any of this from a business point of view. They’re presumably perfectly content with their success in other markets and don’t need to go chasing this one. But I bet there’s part of them that would still love the halo effect.
And talking of halo effects, perhaps that’s also part of the story. The perception of a product is created as much (if not more) by the users that attach themselves to it as by any other form of marketing. Broadly speaking FCP X has attracted a type of user that doesn’t necessarily shed lustre on the brand, but quite possibly has the opposite effect …
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Andy Neil] “I find a lot of my peers that I talk to about X are still carrying around the perception that it just can’t cut in a professional environment. “
This is no doubt true. But can we really, at this very late stage, attribute all the blame exclusively to intransigent editors who refuse to see the light?
There must at some point be something about FCP X itself as an overall package that isn’t chiming with enough users in this segment of the market.
There have been enough presentations and showcases and user stories and updates and general razzmatazz by this point that even if you’re deeply sceptical you will have been made fully aware of the benefits.
So what is the missing ingredient?
At some stage we have to recognise that Apple themselves aren’t succeeding in their sales pitch, surely?
Isn’t that what Apple do? Marketing? Isn’t that why they are richer by far than the gods on Olympus? Because of their ability to sell things to people?
What are they doing wrong?
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
One can’t help feeling that if, more than two thirds of the way through its probable lifecycle, you’re still having to proselytise for a product to this degree to a particular market segment, then something is not quite fitting at a basic level.
There are many things I like and admire about FCP X but only the most starry-eyed enthusiast will try to dispute that it really hasn’t taken off in the traditional NLE market.
And maybe that speaks to its very real and very impressive strengths, which are elsewhere.
Obviously there is no good reason from the point of view of most aspects of functionality that it’s not competing at this level by this late point in its development, but perhaps we have to face the fact that some indefinable spark is missing.
Like most relationships, if the magic isn’t there, it’s probably never going to happen.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki