Apple push to win back pro editors

[Sergio Perez]

Just to say I got contacted by the Apple Final Cut Pro X team. They are monitoring this site and listening. Quite reassuring and a big step on the right direction in my opinion.What happened to me hurt but knowing they are "here" and are listening was really important for me as a red owner, and as someone that is transitioning to a new NLE. I think its safe to say that any issues and suggestions like the ones from Bruce were heard, and my issues will be somehow addressed. A long reshoot day ahead but this was great news- means the Pro market, and specially the Red owner/user market, is of concern to Apple.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Just to say I got contacted by the Apple Final Cut Pro X team. They are monitoring this site and listening. Quite reassuring and a big step on the right direction in my opinion.What happened to me hurt but knowing they are "here" and are listening was really important for me as a red owner, and as someone that is transitioning to a new NLE. I think its safe to say that any issues and suggestions like the ones from Bruce were heard, and my issues will be somehow addressed. A long reshoot day ahead but this was great news- means the Pro market, and specially the Red owner/user market, is of concern to Apple.

That's good to know - that's why I "whine" here and in similar places.

just give me the cool new tech and toys but wrapped in something familiar that thinks the way I do about editing (i.e. the same as FCP7, or Avid, or Premiere) and I will be happy. I don;t want to think in new ways about editing, because the old way just works, just fine. I do want cool new tools (like nice color grading/matching tools, especially if they connect to control surfaces). I also want NOTHING to be automatic - I can make things work on my own, I don't want the software to do it for me.

 

[Luis Otero]

... I also want NOTHING to be automatic - I can make things work on my won, I don;t want the software to do it for me.

AMEN

BTW, to whom Apple asked for about what the users wanted to be, or not to be automatic? It seems/feels that it was re-designed in a vacuum...! If they would have only moved FCP 7 GUI to a 64 bit architecture, that would have been the best starting point for the X.

My 2 cents...

 

[Sergio Perez]

I think they know they messed up. The fact is that they want to do something about it. That was something I wasn't sure about, but now feel more confident. However, this doesn't mean that i will close my eyes to CS7 and even Smoke 2013. Smoke is still a bit slow and a bit cumbersome on the editing side of things, and Adobe Premiere I just don't like the interface and have had bad luck with their reliability throughout the years. Final Cut Pro X is still in my list- even with this bad experience. As long as there is commitment to improve and they are listening, I am a firm believer that having the hardware maker and the software maker under the same roof produces a superior product that maximises the ressources of the hardware. Security and peace of mind comes through this- since FCP 4.5 that I didn't have to think about reliability and crashes. FCPX has been a similar experience. Just the editing in itself has been a much less intuitive experience than before. Glad things are changing!

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

I think they know they messed up. The fact is that they want to do something about it. That was something I wasn't sure about, but now feel more confident. However, this doesn't mean that i will close my eyes to CS7 and even Smoke 2013. Smoke is still a bit slow and a bit cumbersome on the editing side of things, and Adobe Premiere I just don't like the interface and have had bad luck with their reliability throughout the years. Final Cut Pro X is still in my list- even with this bad experience. As long as there is commitment to improve and they are listening, I am a firm believer that having the hardware maker and the software maker under the same roof produces a superior product that maximises the ressources of the hardware. Security and peace of mind comes through this- since FCP 4.5 that I didn't have to think about reliability and crashes. FCPX has been a similar experience. Just the editing in itself has been a much less intuitive experience than before. Glad things are changing!

Interface is subjective, I don't adore Premiere on that front, but I do personally like it, although I can see how others may not and I can't really argue with something so subjective. However, in terms of stabiility I used to feel PPro 4 was simply unusable, but the latest build of CS6 never seems to crash. You can run it for a week without restarting.

 

[Sergio Perez]

Yeah Rob, I also hear many here having very pleasant experiences with Adobe. Again, maybe I just have bad luck with them. With CS6.5 in a macbook Pro retina I had a crash that corrupted a Lacie drive I had- saved by diskwarrior. Then it just wouldn't work properly with my Rocket and the Sonnet- it would make the program slower than without Rocket. These could well have been driver incompatibilities, or my plugins crashing Premiere. The fact is this happened and it is just hard to commit and go seriously into a software where one gets repeatedly "hit" by it. I actually learned non linear editing in Premiere 4.0 (non pro!). Was in Premiere until 6.0 with a jump to Media 100. After years of experiencing ghost frames and other crashes in long form premiere projects, i was suggested a switch to macs and Final Cut Pro- version 4.0, I think. Never left the software and the platform until the FCPX debacle made me a bit lost and looking at the other options...

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

just give me the cool new tech and toys but wrapped in something familiar that thinks the way I do about editing (i.e. the same as FCP7, or Avid, or Premiere) and I will be happy. I don;t want to think in new ways about editing, because the old way just works, just fine. I do want cool new tools (like nice color grading/matching tools, especially if they connect to control surfaces). I also want NOTHING to be automatic - I can make things work on my own, I don't want the software to do it for me.

Let me be clear: I think FCPX can improve in a LOT of ways. But I love that Apple had the courage to think in new ways about editing, and it's because of that, that FCPX is a lot faster than other NLE's in some areas. They just have to improve some things. When FCPX was released, I also just wanted they had made FCP7 in a 64bit architecture. After now doing a lot of projects in X, more and more I don't *want* to go back to the way of working like in Premiere and 7 etc. But I *do* think Apple needs to improve the software *a lot*. But they are.
And even at this stage, FCPX is faster for me in *most* cases, then other NLE's. So I will stick with it for the time being.

 

[Scott Crawley]

AMEN

BTW, to whom Apple asked for about what the users wanted to be, or not to be automatic? It seems/feels that it was re-designed in a vacuum...! If they would have only moved FCP 7 GUI to a 64 bit architecture, that would have been the best starting point for the X.

My 2 cents...

But FCP7 on 64-bit would still be FCP7... Not 8 or 9 or... You get the point; when all you do is re-write your old stuff you are not really making progress, are you?

 

[Eric Santiago]

Let me be clear: I think FCPX can improve in a LOT of ways...

So true. Ive been using Premiere Pro, Avid and all FCP variants for many years.

I find that when an software dev decides to change things, the NLE becomes bloat-ware.

I am finding After Effects is starting to get heavy on the GUI side of things due to my theory.

FCPX IMHO has a lot of room for improvements and also a few things to possibly get rid of all together.

 

[Luis Otero]

But FCP7 on 64-bit would still be FCP7... Not 8 or 9 or... You get the point; when all you do is re-write your old stuff you are not really making progress, are you?

If you read my entire post I suggested 64 bit as a STARTING POINT, not as a finish line. Then, ask users about what really benefited them, the day-by-day operators, during the development process. This is called customer driven changes, not marketing driven changes just to have a new GUI that was initially worthless for the pro users.

 

[Scott Crawley]

If you read my entire post I suggested 64 bit as a STARTING POINT, not as a finish line. Then, ask users about what really benefited them, the day-by-day operators, during the development process. This is called customer driven changes, not marketing driven changes just to have a new GUI that was initially worthless for the pro users.

I read it and I understand it I think. Apple expressed that moving FCP7 to 64 bit entailed a complete overhaul so they decided it was a good time for major changes. The house building analogy applies.

Consider your own house, not a metaphorical house but your actual house. If you had outgrown your house; it was too small, old and in disrepair would your next step be to re-build your same small house anew and then add on to it, or would it be more efficient to just go ahead and build a larger house? You are suggesting that the former is a better choice and I am siding with Apple's descision to just start over now and go bigger right out of the gate. They rushed through the building plans, and could definitely have made some better design and decorating choices, but speaking strictly of the timing, I agree with them. That is all.

If I understand you correctly, you would have been happier with a shiny new well appointed (and eventually bigger) retro house, rather than a big, unfurnished contemporary. That's cool.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Apple expressed that moving FCP7 to 64 bit entailed a complete overhaul so they decided it was a good time for major changes.

Yes, that has been mentioned a couple of times.
"A couple of times" = in every introductory statement about the product and every time anyone had anything critical to say about the FCPx.
It is usually accompanied with "but it very fast".

Possible translation from PR English:

"Our internal analysis showed that it would take us much more investments, in team and finances, for a complete overhaul of FCP7 so we just decided to use the iMovie as a basis to build on. This decision was backed with our market analysis, which showed that our new expanded target group does not necessitate a typical NLE approach, or tends to get intimidated with it, so we chose sticking with rudimentary one from iMovie, which doesn't require that much additional programming, and we expanded it with attractive tricks, new features and format support."

Consider your own house, not a metaphorical house but your actual house. If you had outgrown your house; it was too small, old and in disrepair would your next step be to re-build your same small house anew and then add on to it, or would it be more efficient to just go ahead and build a larger house?

a) If FCPx is a larger house, it has a smaller living room.

I.e. timeline.

b) Every house requires rooms, walls, windows, sockets, logical and functional arrangement, living space...and ability to walk freely.

If that is missing, robots vacuuming carpets do not make it better.

shiny new well appointed (and eventually bigger) retro house, rather than a big, unfurnished contemporary.

FCPx UI and approach is based on consumer editing apps from decade ago, with additional "contemporary" tools glued on that basis, which were required for the software to differentiate enough from lighter grey iMovie and competition, and to justify the higher price while using the same platform.


"This is car A, This is car A-Turbo+. Same chassis. We don't make car B any more.
Turbo+ model has alloy wheels and led lighting in the dashboard. And a turbo.
Both models more affordable than car B. Both automatic only.
Drive a rally ? Well it has a great turbo. And automated parking.
Drive a rally ? Well it is cheaper.
Drive a rally ? Well it's contemporary.
You cannot have a car B any more. We don't feel like making it. 137 Billion is not even 140 Billion.
Drive a rally ? Well it has a turbo/Click/rewind/repeat

Also, we'd appreciate you showing us (for free) how to make car A-Turbo+ behave like a car B,
and we will be happy to charge you for incorporated changes. It's just a small fee, so it's cool".

 

[Scott Crawley]

Yes, that has been mentioned a couple of times.
"A couple of times" = every time anyone had anything critical to say about the FCPx.

I don't know about everybody, but it is MY standard response when people say They changed too much or I would be happier just to have FCP7 on a newer architecture. It's a valid desire, of course. I frequently feel that way myself, but I accept that innovation is good and innovation=change and change can be uncomfortable.

Possible translation from PR English:

"Our internal analysis showed that it would take us much more investments, in team and finances, for a complete overhaul of FCP7 so we just decided to use the iMovie as a basis to build on, and left the rest on marketing. This decision was backed with our market analysis, which showed that our new expanded target group does not necessitate a typical NLE approach, or tends to get intimidated with it, so we chose sticking with rudimentary one from iMovie, which doesn't require that much additional programming, expanded with few attractive tricks and enhancements in speed and format support".

Using Apple Marketing as a basis for an argument against the software is a straw man. It's a very boring straw man.

a) If FCPx is a larger house, it has a smaller living room. I.e. timeline

b) Every house needs rooms, walls, sinks, wall plugs, logical arrangement, living space, windows...and ability to walk freely.
If that is missing, robots vacuuming carpets do not make it better.

Oh it is a big new modern house for certain. If you can't find your way around I suggest it is because you need a map. Apple should have provided a better map... Definitely. On the plus side, you won't be tripping over any of that pesky furniture as you stumble around. ;-)

Edit: Apple should do their own multimedia training (Or license it from someone else like Ripple) and make it freely avilable to everyone. That might help a great deal.

FCPx UI and approach is based on consumer editing apps from decade ago, with additional "contemporary" tools glued on that basis, which were required for the software to differentiate enough from lighter grey iMovie and competition, and to justify the larger price while using the same platform.

"This is car A, This is car A-Turbo+. Same chassis. We don't make car B any more.
Turbo+ model has alloy wheels and led lighting in the dashboard. And a turbo.
Both models more affordable than car B. Both automatic only.
Drive a rally ? Well it has a great turbo. And automated parking.

Oh...can you tell us how to make car A-Turbo+ behave like a car B ?"

There is some funny truth in your post as a whole I think. I tend to believe that it was easier for them to put iMovie on steroids than it would have been to overhaul 7. OTOH I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. When I'm cursing @X I often feel that it WAS a bad thing, but I eventually figure out the new way of working and re-evaluate.

If Apple is really asking people how to make "A-Turbo+ behave like a car B" it is not likely because they are interested in the direct response. I think they are looking for answers between the lines. To clarify; I don't think they want to make FCPX operate more like FCP7. They know how to do that. What they really want to understand is why editors are resisting their new approach, and how can they make the transition easier and more appealing.

I honestly think they expected us all to fall in love with it, and they are trying to thoroughly understand what their mistakes were. They don't want to rebuild it or go back in time, they are interested in building bridges. That is my own interpretation of things, anyway.

 

[Paul Harb]

You pretty much nailed it

Yes, that has been mentioned a couple of times.
"A couple of times" = in every introductory statement about the product and every time anyone had anything critical to say about the FCPx.
It is usually accompanied with "but it very fast".

Possible translation from PR English:

"Our internal analysis showed that it would take us much more investments, in team and finances, for a complete overhaul of FCP7 so we just decided to use the iMovie as a basis to build on. This decision was backed with our market analysis, which showed that our new expanded target group does not necessitate a typical NLE approach, or tends to get intimidated with it, so we chose sticking with rudimentary one from iMovie, which doesn't require that much additional programming, and we expanded it with attractive tricks, new features and format support."



a) If FCPx is a larger house, it has a smaller living room.

I.e. timeline.

b) Every house requires rooms, walls, windows, sockets, logical and functional arrangement, living space...and ability to walk freely.

If that is missing, robots vacuuming carpets do not make it better.




FCPx UI and approach is based on consumer editing apps from decade ago, with additional "contemporary" tools glued on that basis, which were required for the software to differentiate enough from lighter grey iMovie and competition, and to justify the higher price while using the same platform.


"This is car A, This is car A-Turbo+. Same chassis. We don't make car B any more.
Turbo+ model has alloy wheels and led lighting in the dashboard. And a turbo.
Both models more affordable than car B. Both automatic only.
Drive a rally ? Well it has a great turbo. And automated parking.
Drive a rally ? Well it is cheaper.
Drive a rally ? Well it's contemporary.
You cannot have a car B any more. We don't feel like making it. 137 Billion is not even 140 Billion.
Drive a rally ? Well it has a turbo/Click/rewind/repeat

Also, we'd appreciate you showing us (for free) how to make car A-Turbo+ behave like a car B,
and we will be happy to charge you for incorporated changes. It's just a small fee, so it's cool".

 

[Luis Otero]

+ 1

 

[David Battistella]

This thread has officially been thread jacked again.
How incredibly boring.

David

 

[Mike Garrick]

Yep Thread jacked again.

Though Hrjove response had me LMAO.! Where's the menu for the robotic vacuum cleaner in FCPX ?.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I don't know about everybody, but it is MY standard response when people say They changed too much or I would be happier just to have FCP7 on a newer architecture. It's a valid desire, of course. I frequently feel that way myself, but I accept that innovation is good and innovation=change and change can be uncomfortable.

Agreed with the premise and respecting the standpoint. Innovations are welcome, and uncomfortable changes often carry a worthy effort for adaptation.

In cases where innovation is pushed just for innovation's sake and changes just for change's sake, and if that brings tons of drawbacks or limitations, it makes sense to point out the drawbacks in those innovations or changes in order to avoid loosing time and energy on redundant things for all included.

Using Apple Marketing as a basis for an argument against the software is a straw man. It's a very boring straw man.

Even mentioning Apple marketing is boring. No argument there. And yup, using that for this purpose would be a straw.

However, this was not used in direct relation to software flaws (some of those were pointed out few pages back in a longer post), but in relation to tool maker PR addressing those software flaws.

Oh it is a big new modern house for certain. If you can't find your way around I suggest it is because you need a map. Apple should have provided a better map... Definitely. On the plus side, you won't be tripping over any of that pesky furniture as you stumble around. ;-)

Edit: Apple should do their own multimedia training (Or license it from someone else like Ripple) and make it freely avilable to everyone. That might help a great deal.

Good analogy with "tripping over furniture" IMO. Bunch of things could have been improved in FCP7...but still a great waste of a very good tool by burning the whole house down. Looking from strictly business perspective and sales numbers of the tool maker it may seem founded, but from a software user perspective giving up on that potential seems borderline irrational. That difference in perspectives between a tool user and a tool maker may present a proper time for alarm.

The issue...is in why would someone have to have a special map for that new house. In my experience, most power users with longer experience in professional content production and multiple tools used in it, really have no real trouble adapting to a new tool. As far as the individual is concerned, all it takes is time to reach the optimal working speed.

But in this case...why would anyone with a serious background in editing have to have a new, special training - to be able to edit properly ?
It is not a new revolutionary 3D modelling/texturing/animation software with tons of settings, windows, viewports, tool types, etc.
It is not a new revolutionary audio mixing/mastering tool with tons of plugins, routing, settings, diagnostics, effects tuning and programming, etc...

It is a tool for arranging visual clips into a functional linear sequence. It requires a functional media bin, import export options, tools to check video and audio signals, and a large customizable working space to move the content around intuitively and freely, all while navigated through in the clearest way possible.
Its main purpose is editing, everything else is secondary. All the other tools, functionalities, media management or tricks only revolve around and aid - a main purpose of - editing. Why over-complicating the editing part, the part which can and should be the least technically complex with today's technology, then learning to adapt to needlessly overcomplicated activity ?

Every little additional step is being multiplied in clicks, in one of highest click count activities done on a computer, besides gaming.
Every little annoyance affecting every mouse click or any intuitive mental action, acts like a little annoying dog pulling one's leg while one is trying to run. Magnets are that little annoying dog. Timeline is a working desk and time a temporal canvas. And that little dog is messing with both.
Cute little dog, but the leg will jerk.

This is just one thing. Why would anyone with proper experience and skill in editing have to learn to adapt to a completely new style of cutting ? Visual order, memory adaptation, navigation, clip management & navigation on a timeline, new editing methods, besides all the current most logical ones ? It is all doable but - why ? Now that we've reached the point where directors cannot follow the cursor on the screen or have a chance to notice when we've already reduced those few frames even before they said it ? Now back to basics and cutting like intellectually disabled for some period of time ?

Turning off own logic and re-program own brain over a tool which is programmable ?
Who serves who here ? Machines humans or the other way around ?
Because a tool maker didn't feel like investing in supporting what was already a great tool and porting it to 64 bits - and first assumed - then stated this way is better ?
And all this...for the irony to the maximum..... - for a professional tool based on a rudimentary consumer video editing app ?

/Calculating..../.../....

No.

There is some funny truth in your post as a whole I think. I tend to believe that it was easier for them to put iMovie on steroids than it would have been to overhaul 7. OTOH I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. When I'm cursing @X I often feel that it WAS a bad thing, but I eventually figure out the new way of working and re-evaluate.

Understandable. We can adapt to quite a few things. We can also adapt to hanging off the ceiling and editing if the floor is burning and deadline is ending, but in this case we (bunch of colleague editors included) decide that someone else has to re-evaluate their choices.

If Apple is really asking people how to make "A-Turbo+ behave like a car B" it is not likely because they are interested in the direct response. I think they are looking for answers between the lines. To clarify; I don't think they want to make FCPX operate more like FCP7. They know how to do that. What they really want to understand is why editors are resisting their new approach, and how can they make the transition easier and more appealing.

Editors are resisting their new approach because this approach is not thought through for a lot of factors, and tested in complex projects with clients, changes, variants, deadlines and fast paced work, and because it is limiting editing in multiple ways. They can patch a things and fix issues, but without "accepting a change in their thinking" in some examples, like they are suggesting thousands of working professionals to do, it will stay fundamentally flawed.

First thing - magnets must go. Bye bye little cute puppy.
Either that or additional customization options for it (further complication with repercussions), or the option to be turned off completely somewhere in preferences like never existed. As any automation in which the pre-programmed algorithm gets to decide anything over a creative human focused on the specific context.

Second - timeline has to have fully customizable, independent tracks - if this is to be a real "Non-Linear-Editor".
These two are non-negotiable. At least from our side.

 

[Mike Garrick]

I gotta say even with my very limited experience............ Im not a fan of that "cute little puppy"

But I think you can turn it off ? I seem to remember reading somewhere.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Here we go again... :emote_hanged: