Final Cut Pro X Released

[Chris Kenny]

Thanks, useful info.

So could this also be interpreted as a major move away from QuickTime ?

and if so what implications may this have both good or bad ?

It is a major move away from QuickTime, yes. Which, frankly, has been in the cards since OS X shipped. It was inevitable that sooner or later there would be a modern Cocoa API capable enough to replace QuickTime.

Good implications are better performance, support for working with non-QT encapsulated media, color management, easier integration with 64-bit apps, and richer capabilities for developers to use. Potential bad implications are loss of compatibility with some old codecs, because I can't imagine Apple will bother to implement every old codec QT supports in AV Foundation. But at least for the foreseeable future QT will still remain in the OS alongside AV Foundation, so this isn't really a huge program. One other short-term bad implication is that I'm pretty sure the lack of video output in FCP X is related to capture/output device support not being fully implemented yet in AV Foundation, but it's inconceivable this isn't being worked on.

The attitude of the FCPX developers on this specific item is indicative of their attitude about the whole product. They know more than the people who actually use it, and those of us in the professional end of an industry should bow to their superior knowledge and realize that they're smarter than us, and that they know all about what we need and use.

Except that they don't.

There appear to be a series of fairly complex tradeoffs here; conflicts between backwards compatibility and new features/approaches, the potential benefits of trying to deliberately push the industry to change, etc. Users always want complete backwards compatibility, but if you always give it to them, your software will suffer in the long run both as a consequence of the resources devoted to providing that compatibility and the limits that compatibility imposes with respect to the kind of changes you can make.

Apple is much less conservative about backwards compatibility than most companies. I'm a little confused that this is a surprise to anyone, because it has been true for a long time and there have been many high-profile examples of it over the years. In my opinion, FCP moving to a new XML format or (the direction I think they'll go in) an API rather than a standard interchangeable static format, will be a lot like Apple axing 64-bit Carbon. When that happened, I got into a bunch of debates with people who said Apple was permanently crippling the Mac platform because Adobe would never port Creative Suite to Cocoa, and might even decide to just abandon the platform altogether. Adobe, of course, has now ported Creative Suite to Cocoa. Half of the reason Apple canceled 64-bit Carbon in the first place (which was working pretty well in Leopard developer previews) was probably to make Adobe do precisely this.

If Apple thinks they've got something better than the current XML format, and they support that exclusively in FCP X, I suspect it will have a similar outcome. Regardless of the current antipathy in certain circles, FCP X is going to sell a lot of copies and there's going to be demand for tools that interoperate with it.

Note (before the accusations start flying) that I'm saying all of this as someone who will be directly impacted if FCP X doesn't implement compatible XML exporting; I am not telling other people not to worry about an issue that doesn't affect me or that I don't understand the significance of.

 

[Chris Kenny]

You write the same thing over and over and most of the arguments are assumptions based on nothing. I'm not the only one who's saying this and there's nothing to really argue against because there is NO real substance. Don't say that others are failing to engage actual arguments when you firstly don't have any or those you have already been answered, secondly fail to engage in arguments yourself.

You have entirely ignored my argument that my theory of Apple's motivations fits the facts better than yours, as presented in this post.

They haven't, the "media outlet" is the different pages online citing the article that we know have errors in it, like the one about Red support in development with Red. No one can be sure that the rest in that article is correct, but you seem to make your own truth.
If you have any other page you can show me with official statements from Apple about FCPX, please show me, show all of us. Don't "vaporware" your own arguments if you don't have any real citations to show.

Pogue, Philip Hodgetts and Studio Daily report having direct contact with Apple. This is not merely regurgitation of the Pogue article, as you appear to be claiming.

I don't know who is lying, but the point about Red and Apple collaborating with a R3D support fix is a lie, not true, a false statement or whatever you want to call it. Red said it themselves, it's false.
So how can we trust the rest of the information? Or are you just not addressing this in such rational ways?

You are using what is probably a misunderstanding on Pogue's part (he's a journalist, not a digital workflow expert) to attempt to cast doubt on fairly specific information that Apple has independently conveyed to at least three different sources.

What you are doing is the definition of FUD.

Wow, other companies seem to be able to address things directly, seems to have communication with the professional community and so on. There's no way they have not noticed what people miss and complain about with FCPX. How do YOU know that this is about them trying to figure things out first? That is an assumption, that is once again something not based on anything else then a wish that it's what they are doing right now.

It's based on how long Apple took to respond in to, for instance, the much bigger firestorm over the iPhone 4 antenna issue. Your entire argument is like this... you claim it's based on Apple's actions, but you selectively ignore any that are inconsistent with it.

Actually, even Jim said that they need to communicate now or else it's too late. Everyone agrees on this, but you seem to defend Apple in their thinking... a thinking you clearly don't know anything about, no one does.

I have said repeatedly Apple has not communicated well in this instance.

 

[Tim Morten]

SUMMARY

These points seem to have broad consensus:
1. FCPX is missing features that most professional editors need
2. FCP7 is no longer available, but works if you already own it
3. Apple screwed up and has not communicated well

This point seemed to get grudging agreement:
1. Apple intentionally put consumers before pros with the first FCPX release

Both these perspectives were controversial, and might be considered extreme:
1. Some feel that FCPX is fundamentally a bad platform and won't ever be a contender
2. Others feel that FCPX will be the greatest thing ever, and we just need to wait for Apple (and 3rd parties) to finish it

The middle road seems to be:
1. At some undetermined time in the future, Apple and 3rd parties will address many (but perhaps not all) of the complaints about FCPX
2. If you like FCPX, you could wait for that time and use something else in the meantime.
3. If you don't like FCPX, or you no longer trust that Apple appropriately prioritizes the professional market, you have many other good options from Adobe, Avid, Autodesk, Assimilate, etc.

Done?

 

[Robert Frank]

This thread is getting crazy circular and 100% noise. All part of the grieving process I guess.

I find the responses to the FCPX debut fascinating. In some ways it is a study in human belief systems, conflict, and resolution through problem solving. Also of great interest to me is Apple's approach to the marketing and release of FCPX.

 

[Steve Cee]

Follow a FCP user as he switches to PPRO CS5

http://chrisfenwick.com/

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I have a homework assignment for everyone. Read up on AV Foundation. Despite the obvious mistakes Apple has made here in communicating with their user base, getting a better understanding of AV Foundation is probably the first step in seeing where Apple is heading with this. I'm still trying to wrap my head around it entirely, but it's very interesting. Not sure how much info is available publicly, and due to certain agreements, I can't point to certain resources, but if you can find them I recommend spending some time with it. I think it's probably a bit more useful use of time than this thread is turning into.

 

[Brian Boyer]

Good grief! You guys are still at it.

It appears that Apple not only broke interoperability and workflows with the release of FCPX, they also broke a lot of hearts.

I've never seen a more sensitive bunch of professionals in my life. And many people's behavior on this thread has been anything but professional. There's absolutely NO IMPERATIVE WHATSOEVER for switching to FCPX at this point. I'd hate to see you under REAL pressure. Many of you seem to have some serious abandonment issues.

It's a good thing we're all separated by distance from Apple and each other because all the makings of an angry mob are here. Some of you probably don't even realize how you're coming across to the neutral reader. You strike me as the guys who would either throw the first punch/rock/bottle or incite someone else to do it. This is borderline mob mentality thinly disguised as civil discourse. When someone calls you on your particularly nasty tone or comment, you try to pull back and claim you were mostly joking, except that we can tell you weren't and you do it again, and again, and again.

You criticize people for being Apple fanboys and apologists and claim they're merely speculating on what Apple is up to. The admittedly vague word from Apple is they fully intended to re-implement these features over time (if you think they're only saying that because of your bitching and moaning, you're fooling yourself). However, you have no proof, vague or otherwise, that they're not going to do it. You want us to believe they're not because you say so? What's missing is missing. You've got that right. They could have communicated they're intentions. You've got that right. No one here disagrees with you on those things. But, it's the MEANING you're assigning to these things that people have a problem with. You're just as guilty, if not more, of the speculation.

Many of you are so angry over what Apple left out you're totally ignoring what they put in. The ground-up rebuild is overkill for the hobbyist or prosumer market. Apple already had a program for that bunch called Final Cut Express. I don't know the numbers but I'd be willing to bet that Apple sold more seats of Final Cut Pro than Express. Even if that's not true, why would they invest all that time, money and energy solely on the Express level buyer? They don't need 64-bit architecture. Even if you argue that 64-bits is merely keeping in line with all of Apple's future products, they're probably never going to load their machines up with 16GB of memory. They don't need super robust file organization methods. They don't have nearly as much footage coming from nearly as many sources as you do. They don't need 4K. They don't need a color-synced managed pipeline. They don't need secondary color correction tools. "Color critical" is not in their vocabulary.

There are many indications that Apple plans to keep building upon this first release and adding features that CERTAIN pros need to do their work. I could be wrong, but my common sense tells me this is the case. Why aren't they making an official announcement? I don't know. Maybe they're waiting to see if your heads will actually explode.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Good thoughts, Brian. :thumbup1:

 

[Tim Morten]

There are many indications that Apple plans to keep building upon this first release and adding features that CERTAIN pros need to do their work. I could be wrong, but my common sense tells me this is the case. Why aren't they making an official announcement? I don't know. Maybe they're waiting to see if your heads will actually explode.

Once again, the issue is not whether FCPX can be fixed at some undetermined time in the future. The issue is that it is broken today, and that Apple has blatantly focused on consumers before professionals.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/blog/2011/06/apples-final-cut-pro-draws-backlash.html:

Apple says that it is targeting the "prosumer" with Final Cut Pro X, people who want more video editing capabilities than the company offers on its iMovie software. It says features aimed at higher-end users will be added in the future.

For some of us, prioritizing consumers over professionals is not an acceptable behavior. There are other companies whose sole focus is the professional market, and we expect that they will not leave us stranded as Apple has (FCPX unusable, FCP7 discontinued). It is not unreasonable for us to be considering Adobe, Avid, Autodesk, etc. at this point.

- Tim

 

[Brian Boyer]

SUMMARY

These points seem to have broad consensus:
1. FCPX is missing features that most professional editors need
2. FCP7 is no longer available, but works if you already own it
3. Apple screwed up and has not communicated well

This point seemed to get grudging agreement:
1. Apple intentionally put consumers before pros with the first FCPX release

Both these perspectives were controversial, and might be considered extreme:
1. Some feel that FCPX is fundamentally a bad platform and won't ever be a contender
2. Others feel that FCPX will be the greatest thing ever, and we just need to wait for Apple (and 3rd parties) to finish it

The middle road seems to be:
1. At some undetermined time in the future, Apple and 3rd parties will address many (but perhaps not all) of the complaints about FCPX
2. If you like FCPX, you could wait for that time and use something else in the meantime.
3. If you don't like FCPX, or you no longer trust that Apple appropriately prioritizes the professional market, you have many other good options from Adobe, Avid, Autodesk, Assimilate, etc.

Done?

Tim, I admit that I overlooked this comment when I posted mine, despite it staring me right in the face. I wish you had this outlook about 90 pages ago instead of going on for as long as you did with as much anger as you seemed to have. At any rate, it really says all there is to say at this point.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Good grief! You guys are still at it.
....Why aren't they making an official announcement? I don't know. Maybe they're waiting to see if your heads will actually explode.

 

[Paul Lee]

...I still use all APPLE hardware though.. that will never change unless they take the towers away....

Jarred, do you know something we don't know? I got this really bad feeling about the MacPro line.

 

[Paul Nordin]

This thread is evidence that 7-days straight posting on Reduser with little to no sleep, may lead to psycotic, manic, and or paranoid behavior. Consider yourselves warned.

 

[Brian Boyer]

The issue is that it is broken today, and that Apple has blatantly focused on consumers before professionals.

That's where I think you're getting hung up. FCPX is NOT broken (not counting software bugs). It just doesn't meet the needs of CERTAIN professionals. Certain OTHER PROFESSIONALS can use it just fine in its current configuration. It's fairly presumptuous of someone to say whether a piece of gear is going to meet the needs of someone else who doesn't share the same workflow. If you, Tim, edit a music video for a band, shot on DSLRs, that's destined for YouTube, FCPX will serve that purpose. Justin Bieber is a product of YouTube videos. OK Go made a huge splash on YouTube with their video for "Here It Goes Again". You can already upload at the original resolution of your video. Don't front on the power of YouTube.

Assume every project you work on from this point forward is going to end up on the internet.

Think, for a second, what forum you're on. RED thrust us all into a 4K future. Sony would've eventually gotten around to it and previewed a 4K camera at NAB 2013 if RED hadn't come along. Anyway, Jim swears 4K is the future. Not only that, but the not-too-distant future. He also asserts 4K in the home is closer than we think and RED showed their own product for that eventuality. Now, a 4K tv or projector is higher resolution than the highest resolution computer monitors on the market today. It's conceivable that by the time 4K in the home becomes common, the way we interact with our computers will have drastically changed. Apple and others are already thinking about this. Most of us sit at a desk, staring into a monitor when using a desktop computer. This is not ideal for watching long-form content. Higher internet bandwidth, 4K resolution and other technological and conceptual convergences will probably mean that we use one monitor for entertainment, working, browsing the internet, etc., often simultaneously. YouTube, Vimeo and others like them will simply be channels like any other. Don't front on the power of YouTube.

I digress. My point is, once again, the "My needs are more pro than yours" sentiment is what you seem to keep coming back to and what I think most people here are quarreling with.

 

[Bruce Buck]

:emote_popcorn:

 

[Tim Morten]

That's where I think you're getting hung up. FCPX is NOT broken (not counting software bugs).

Fair point - substitute the word "unsuitable" (ie - broken for my needs).

I stand by my basic point that Apple targeted consumers or "prosumers" first -- the article I referenced attributes Apple with saying just that. However you want to define professional, prosumer does not equal professional -- it makes sense that many of us will now consider other vendors as a result.

Cheers,
Tim

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Think, for a second, what forum you're on. RED thrust us all into a 4K future. Sony would've eventually gotten around to it and previewed a 4K camera at NAB 2013 if RED hadn't come along. Anyway, Jim swears 4K is the future. Not only that, but the not-too-distant future. He also asserts 4K in the home is closer than we think and RED showed their own product for that eventuality. Now, a 4K tv or projector is higher resolution than the highest resolution computer monitors on the market today. It's conceivable that by the time 4K in the home becomes common, the way we interact with our computers will have drastically changed. Apple and others are already thinking about this. Most of us sit at a desk, staring into a monitor when using a desktop computer. This is not ideal for watching long-form content. Higher internet bandwidth, 4K resolution and other technological and conceptual convergences will probably mean that we use one monitor for entertainment, working, browsing the internet, etc., often simultaneously. YouTube, Vimeo and others like them will simply be channels like any other. Don't front on the power of YouTube.

Seem to forget that the 4K monitor is $30 000, 1080p isn't even a standard for TV yet and a lots of people doesn't see or care about the difference between 480p, 720p or 1080p. We are not talking about ourselves here, we who love the 4K future, we are talking about consumers and bringing it into people's homes. If 1080p has such a hard time, are you so sure about 4K? Even if Jim says so?

Assume every project you work on from this point forward is going to end up on the internet.

My point is, once again, the "My needs are more pro than yours" sentiment is what you seem to keep coming back to and what I think most people here are quarreling with.

I have never talked about my needs. My needs of today is very specific, but I have worked with TV, feature films, commercials, music videos and so on under different areas around the camera and in post production/editing. I know that even though things end up on the net, it's no way near a world where it's the primary delivery. Again, we do not live in the future, we live and work today.
The dreamers who speaks only in terms of what's to come doesn't seem to be faced by the daily work that others do. Professionals deal with workflows every day and I can say, without a doubt that TV, feature films, commercials and music videos need those things that's missing right now from FCPX. And because we work daily we don't have time to wait for them to come to FCPX.

I would like to know what type of professional work that is possible with FCPX today. What type of jobs are you referring to? I'm not so sure it's a big group and FCPX isn't focusing on a small number of people.
Who then are the big crowd they aimed for if not the professionals who work with TV, feature films, commercials and music videos? The consumers? Anybody?

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Richard Harrington: The Final Straw that was FCPX.

 

[Brian Boyer]

it makes sense that many of us will now consider other vendors as a result.

Exactly right. But that has and will always be true for any number of reasons for any piece of gear and why I can't understand why you and others were SO angry. Your decision to switch stems from your displeasure with FCPX and Apple seeming to put non-professionals before professionals (as it turns out, you guys are a LOT harder to please). For others, like Jarred, it may have been something like tighter integration with other Adobe products and he switched to Premiere way before FCPX appeared (if I remember correctly, Premiere was a joke on the Mac right before they killed it with no indication that they were going to bring it back). For others, it's tighter integration with Autodesk software so they go with Smoke on Mac. For some insane reason, maybe someone even left FCP for Media 100. You're free to jump ship at any time for any reason. I don't think anyone was trying to convince you not to switch. By all means, switch away...and tell Apple why. That will actually make FCPX a better product for those who decide to stay on or switch from whatever you decide to switch to.

I still maintain that someone is going to make something in the current version of FCPX or using the current feature set, regardless if they add what's currently missing, that's going to wipe the floor with everybody else's "pro" work.

 

[Chris Kenny]

I stand by my basic point that Apple targeted consumers or "prosumers" first -- the article I referenced attributes Apple with saying just that.

But this is trivially explained without resort to the "Apple doesn't care about pro users" meme. Apple was working on this shiny new media architecture and editing paradigm. They wanted to get an app based on it to market as soon as possible. Well, prosumers need X + Y. Pros need X + Y + Z. So, how do you get an app to market as soon as possible? Implement X + Y and ship. Then work on Z for a while. The full set of X + Y + Z will arrive for pros at essentially the same time, but you get to sell a bunch of copies of your app to prosumers in the meantime.

The counter to this is to point to consumer-only features in FCP X and say "They spent time on this instead of that pro feature I wanted". That could demonstrate that Apple has actually made decisions that require pros to wait longer, so consumers can get functionality sooner. Several people have made this argument. But the features they can point to, as far as I've seen, are either trivial, not as exclusively consumer-oriented as they're claiming, or both.

So even though a lot of people are treating it as an established fact, nothing about what we've seen so far solidly establishes that Apple doesn't care about professionals. And as Brian points out, and I've pointed out previously, the foundations of FCP X are serious overkill for the prosumer market. People are showing up and looking at 5 story building Apple has built and saying "We wanted a skyscraper!" But the construction crews are working even as they speak, and the foundation has been driven way too deeply into the bedrock for such a small building. (Where this analogy breaks down is that as far as I know, with buildings the foundation isn't most of the hard work, whereas with FCP X most of the hard work -- the new media framework, the new rendering engine, the new UI, etc. is complete; it just needs a bit of finishing work, and some additional plumbing has to be installed.)