Why everyone is so painfully wrong about FCPX

[Emery Wells]

I think all the FCPX criticism is very curious (i.e. obnoxious). What people fail to realize is this is an entirely new product written from a blank sheet in XCode. Roughly 2 years ago someone at Apple did the following:

1. Launched Xcode
2. File > New Project
3. Stared at a blank white screen

Naturally, you cannot recreate 15 years of development in 2 years and your version 1 app is going to be missing features. What apple has done with FCPX is actually really incredible. It is the most feature rich and professional V1 editorial application the world has ever seen. Does it address the needs of the working professional that deals with online/offline workflows, digital cinema, and large collaborative workflows? No. But that's also the SMALLEST group of FCP users. The VAST majority of FCP users cut by themselves, have no idea what an EDL/XML is, and could care less about tape I/O. Apple knew that V1 of the new FCP would be missing features and they decided to leave out features that would affect the smallest group of users which also happens to be their highest end users. Was this a mistake? Arguable but I don't think it was. I think Apples biggest mistake is failing to communicate to their most passionate and vocal users. They needed to communicate that they know FCP doesn't address all our needs today but that it is in our best interest to hang on and give them more time to flesh out the higher end feature set. So many of Apples products have followed a similar history. When they switched from OS9 to OSX they made a big leap forward while leaving out beloved features that so many OS9 users needed everyday. Some of those features made it back into OSX over time and some of them did not but no one is complaining they want OS9 back.

FCP 7 was the OS9 of editorial apps. It was built on a painfully old architecture and required too much work to salvage. Apple HAD to take this leap if they wanted to continue to stay relevant in the editorial market. FCP was looking like a joke compared to MC and Premiere. It's foundation was old and they needed to start over. The new FCP is based on AV Foundation which is shared with, gasp, iMovie and iOS. Guess what? The old iMovie was based on Quicktime just like FCP but I didn't hear anyone making that comparison then. AV Foundation is Apples next generation framework for doing advanced audio/video Applications. Ask any developer out there which framework they prefer working with, Quicktime or AV Foundation.

In short, Apple has made a mistake by not communicating with it's users and unfortunately, I do not see that changing anytime soon. The good news is, for all of us Pro users, we still have FCP 7, Premiere Pro, and Media Composer. Premiere Pro is essentially free as it comes with the Creative Suite, and MC is more affordable than ever. We all get to continue to use these great products while we sit back and watch how FCPX develops over the next 2 years. Hell, we can even try running the odd project or two through FCPX to take advantage of all the new great editorial features. Ya know, the features that actually help you tell a story (i.e. editing).

[Gavin Greenwalt]

The reason we haven't seen a similarly full featured v1 application in recent memory is because everyone else is smart enough to know that you don't toss out your code and start over--you rewrite it piece by piece. There have been monumental shifts in the underlying technologies behind many professional apps without starting over. It's impressive how much they wrote in 2 years--but it was the wrong decision. Premiere for instance rewrote its entire rendering system--without ditching the rest of the application.

FCPX might be the first pro-app to survive a rewrite. Every other instance I can think of killed it. Everyone abandoned it until it reached maturity and by then the competition had rewritten their cores to continue into the future. I think one of the most impressive instances is 3ds max right now. It's being almost completely rewritten... but still getting annual updates and actually improving backwards compatibility. They had started a stand-alone rewrite about 8 years ago and then tossed out the idea because they knew it would alienate the pro-users.

FCP's saving grace will be its casual users, the iMovie+ crowd who will see it as an upgrade not a downgrade.

Is it a good business move? Yes.
Would I stick with a product where Facebook integration beats out critical core functionality like... Tiff sequences. Not a chance in hell. That's fine. They can have the casual market and make bank, probably far more than off of a pro-app but their priorities are obvious. And eventually it might be a useful product for pro users even if Apple views them as second class citizens but I would much rather take my business to a company who makes my workflow the priority. It's not an indictment of the company they can do whatever they want, but there is no reason to stick with an inferior product.

[Jon Nash]

Phew a breath of fresh air and amongst a storm of twisted panties. I'm interested to see what happens with this brand spanking new platform. For those that have the patience and foresight to stick with it I think it could be interesting times ahead. ( some comms from Apple wouldn't go a miss but I think most of us have worked out it's just a matter of time and it will evolve)

[Paul Duvilla]

Everyone realizes that this is a complete rebuild of the software, and that some features would not be there. But what we didn't expect was for them to get rid of color, server, cinema tools, shake and many others. Yes they integrated them but since they did this it restricts a lot of stuff. Also the lack of Xml, and r3d support is a huge drawback. But perhaps the biggest thing of all which really tells me they changed their target audience and created Imovie on roids is the fact that they no longer support files from previous versions of final cut pro. And they support projects from IMovie. Clearly this is not intended for professional use. Honestly when was the last time you used Imovie for anything, and why in the world would you need a file from Imovie to be used in a professional editor?

[Emery Wells]

Everyone realizes that this is a complete rebuild of the software, and that some features would not be there. But what we didn't expect was for them to get rid of color, server, cinema tools, shake and many others. Yes they integrated them but since they did this it restricts a lot of stuff. Also the lack of Xml, and r3d support is a huge drawback. But perhaps the biggest thing of all which really tells me they changed their target audience and created Imovie on roids is the fact that they no longer support files from previous versions of final cut pro. And they support projects from IMovie. Clearly this is not intended for professional use. Honestly when was the last time you used Imovie for anything, and why in the world would you need a file from Imovie to be used in a professional editor?

Their decision to support iMovie and not FCP projects is dead simple. iMovie shared code and it's easy. FCP 7 does not and rather then spending dev time on backwards compatibility they decided to focus on building the best product they could. Im not saying this is right or wrong, but it's a very Apple move.

[Thor Melsted]

Why not just be honest and call it iMovie X?
This is Final Cut Pro in name only.

It's obviously based on iMovie - so why mince words?

[Steve Sherrick]

Why not just be honest and call it iMovie X?
This is Final Cut Pro in name only.

It's obviously based on iMovie - so why mince words?

Two reasons: To the pro crowd, this would have spoke volumes about where they were heading. And to the prosumer, it would sound like less of an upgrade. I'm sure there are many people who are very excited about being able to move from iMovie to Final Cut Pro for $299. They believe they are getting more pro features (which is true, even in its current state) and the pros believe they will get less features. They needed to keep the branding the same.

Emery's points reflect my own pretty accurately. I think Apple is taking a beating, and they deserve some of it for their lack of communication. But in time, it's true they may redeem themselves with a more feature rich app that bridges the gap between prosumer and professional. Got to give it time. There are other good options out there in the meantime.

[Shawn Nelson]

Great writeup Emery!

[Joseph Mastantuono]

I do agree that we've never had so many affordable & awesome editing applications available, and some of the FCPX criticism has been a bit of the Hater's ball (That admittedly, I have been a part of). Premiere has never been better, and MC has never been more affordable. I also agree that alot of the FCP hate has sounded eerily familiar to what Avid editors complain about FCP not having, because they couldn't be arsed to look in the searchable PDF.

But I think that there are 2 big points that Emery isn't addressing.

Yes, FCP7 still works. However, if I want to add a workstation with FCP7 on it to help with assistant editing tasks, or add an editor, this is currently very difficult. Resellers people have had to ship back unsold product & apple no longer sells it. This is the nail in the coffin kills the current FCP7, and in tandem FCPX for pro-post, as post-supervisors anywhere will likely scramble for the last remaining FCS3 boxes out there and start to look at other solutions. Why apple wouldn't keep the old version on sale for at least 6 months during the growing pains proves that they have no interest in the actual professional market. Especially with a product that loses so many features?


However I think that the biggest and most profound change in FCPX isn't the lack of XML/EDL/OMF, The lack of backwards compatibility, the lack of multiclip, the lack of a "Save As..." button, or the possibility that real Databases and Metadata bring (could every FCPx essentially become a FC Server?), any of that may come from Apple soon, or be provided my 3rd parties soon enough that it won't be super painful.

The elephant in the room that no one is talking about is the abandonment of the "Track" metaphor in favor of a "Primary Storyline" metaphor. Which is an interesting idea until you try to imagine having to collaborate on any sort of complex sound mixing with anyone other than yourself. And then you realize you'll have to create a whole new language just to explain. How do I put all my Music and effects on tracks 7 & 8 when there aren't tracks? How do I put all the shots I want my effects editor to look at on Vtrack 5?

Sure, this could theoretically be solved quite elegantly by metadata in a metadata/database driven software package. I can imagine a 'Keyword Patch Panel' (IE: Make all "Keyword: Voiceover" go to Audio Track 6), but there's no roadmap to imply this is what will happen. The Timeline list view is also quite cool, but ultimately much less useful if you can't rename compound clips which FCPX seems to really want you to use (Can you? I couldn't figure it out).

THAT'S what's so jarring about FCPX. Without Tracks, a lot of commonplace communication every editor deals with everyday doesn't have a quick and easy replacement in this new "Storyline" mode. That means that EVERYONE interfacing with the editor at the technical level needs to learn a new language to communicate with.

I agree that FCS was becoming a band-aided mess that desperately needed to be re-written, and I applaud the idea that one would really try to re-think the NLE from the ground up.

However, in abandoning the 'Track' Metaphor there are a lot of bigger questions they're asking. I could be wrong, as I've only played with FCPX for a few hours, but the "Storyline" metaphor doesn't replace it meaningfully so far. Maybe compound clips become the new "Tracks", but I can't think of an good editor who loved nesting, and wanted it to become the primary timeline organizational tool.

Ok, back to the DaVinci for me. A Piece of software that I've been really happy with.

PS: Also, in playing with the software for a few hours literally just getting a couple clips in, futsing with them on a timeline that's under a minute, playing with one effect, I somehow have a project file of 2.5gb. I turned off all the "auto" stuff I'm aware of, and it's likely just background rendering or something, but it's highly disconcerting in terms of project/drive management over a big project..

[Brandon Kraemer]

The new FCP is based on AV Foundation which is shared with, gasp, iMovie and iOS. Guess what? The old iMovie was based on Quicktime just like FCP but I didn't hear anyone making that comparison then. AV Foundation is Apples next generation framework for doing advanced audio/video Applications. Ask any developer out there which framework they prefer working with, Quicktime or AV Foundation.

I don't think that is an even comparison, first iMovie was created after FCP as a new product with no correlation to FCP other than it used QT and OSX. It'd was clearly marketed and built for consumers not professionals. I also don't think most professional creative editors (not so much colorists and VFX personnel) care much what foundation a tool is built on so long as it works, but from a feature standpoint FCPX is more adaptable to legacy iMovie projects that it is any legacy professional creative projects and that is where (for now) professionals feel they have been sold a bill of goods.

In short, Apple has made a mistake by not communicating with it's users and unfortunately, I do not see that changing anytime soon. The good news is, for all of us Pro users, we still have FCP 7, Premiere Pro, and Media Composer. Premiere Pro is essentially free as it comes with the Creative Suite, and MC is more affordable than ever. We all get to continue to use these great products while we sit back and watch how FCPX develops over the next 2 years.

That is unfortunate, they way they communicate. They went out of their way to tout the positives at NAB but never addressed things like... It doesn't work with SAN, no OMF, etc.... (we all know the list by now). They did miscalculate what professionals expected out of a 1.0 release and you're right, their attitude and communication style are not likely to change. I think the back lash we are all reading about is mostly borne from the failure of Apple to communicate with it's user base and from the professional user base being insulted by what appears to be a consumer product upgrade vs. a professional product advancement and that argument is valid for people that have worked as professionals in the industry for some time who rely on key features to do their jobs. The threats and actions of FCP users in exodus have mostly to do with how people feel Apple has treated them as professionals. I don't see how that makes these customers "painfully wrong".

An analogy: It's like owning a Toyota, and that car will cease to be relevant in 2 years because it will no longer work with the evolving road designs (like evolving OSX 10... bear with me) and Toyota shows you a preview for a new car that is cheaper and faster and lighter and runs on the Sun (64-bit)... but when it is released and instantly consumed by the masses, people find the door handles don't work and it doesn't have breaks. Toyota doesn't tell you when it will retrofit your new car with these missing features but they'd like to you to drive it to work. Wouldn't most drivers be unhappy and potentially insulted and want to drive a Mazda instead which have been running on the Sun for over a year now and have door handles and breaks? It is unwise to minimize your costumer in the equation of launching products.

Hell, we can even try running the odd project or two through FCPX to take advantage of all the new great editorial features. Ya know, the features that actually help you tell a story (i.e. editing).

While the FCPX timeline editing advancements are great, the lack of these new features or alternate approaches to them in other software including FCP7 does not stop anyone from telling a story the way they want to. There are missing features that do stop people from being able to collaborate with other professionals the way people are used to. The faster Apple can implement these features or address the professional community on it's plans to do so in a transparent way, the better for everyone.