FCPX, on set post, and studio level workflows

[M Most]

Well, I can think of a number of reasons, all related to low priced competition. First, their custom hardware (Adrenaline, Nitris, Mojo, DS, and the like), once a significant revenue generator, has largely disappeared (at least in the Media Composer market) in favor of cheap third party solutions. Second, they've been forced to cut the pricing of their basic software license by a huge margin over the last few years, and in a rather saturated marketplace for "high end" tools. Third, although they practically own the audio recording and rerecording market, it's also rather saturated, with a number of large players seeing little need to upgrade their hardware (hence why future versions of Protools will likely require such upgrades, especially on the ProTools HD side). Finally, the broadcast automation market is not growing, as broadcast itself is not growing. In short, I think it's a bit difficult to thrive in a business that is hell bent on getting things for free or as close as possible to that, and is not experiencing large growth, not to mention the difficulties of not being diversified enough to have other products and markets to mitigate the stagnant ones. Avid is not the only company facing those challenges. Just ask any owner of a post production business....

I would also point out that Apple has seen their stock price go down by over 40 points in two days, all because they are still living in the legendary shadow of a man who's been gone for almost 2 years, a legend that no company can possibly live up to. In an age of instant communication, no secrets, pop culture gone mad, and polarized politics, it's really tough to have things evaluated reasonably.

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Mike,

I really love reading your posts and arguments. I don't always agree with them, although I most often do, but I always enjoy reading them.
Just wanted to put that out there once.

Regards,

 

[Terry VerHaar]

I think Mike pretty much covered it. Although, I might have been less charitable :smiley: and suggested that part of the dilemma is due to their failure to innovate.

As far as Apple's stock price, let's not confuse stock market performance with financial results. Apple is generating billions of dollars in profits so I don't think I'd worry too much about their longevity. Avid is in a bit of a bind as they are heading toward a cliff.

and Apple's poor stock performance since their iPhone announcement seems to be about the pricing of the 5c being too rich for broad introduction into China. We'll see. Carl Icahn thinks the stock is a bargain and is loading up even more than he has. Stay tuned.

 

[Michael Cioni]

Sampling Technology

Sampling Technology

Lots of good points, and timely with a small project I've been working on...

Like many people, I know how to use the subway, the bus, a stick shift and an automatic transmission. Each of these methods of transportation is the best way to travel, oh, and sometimes the worst! Each of these ways to get around are totally desirable. Oh, and sometimes they are totally undesirable! In arguments like this, some people take the approach of "to each his own." Others take the approach of "you're not considering everything." And some take the more abrasive approach of "only experts need apply."
They are all good. And all bad. And all at the same time

So the approach I traditionally take is a sort-of combination of all three. While every person is entitled to their preferred method of working, I find I am able to affect change through education and demonstration. That technique has been more effective for me than any other...but again, I recognized I need to constantly continue to change my own techniques and comfortability in order to improve, and that's just what I tried to do here.

Below is a link to my latest blog entry and its accompanying case study entitled "Sampling Technology." I am a user of FCP-X, oh, and FCP7, oh and Premiere, oh and AVID Media Composer. I believe one has to be to do what I do! But my choices for techniques and tools run in parallel with the ways in which I used them. That, plus their unique relationship with an ever-changing media ecosystem.

Provided people find my "Sampling Technology" packaging effective, I might continue to do more.

http://michaelcioni.tumblr.com

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Even if Apple and AVID were equals financially, I would still see a lot more upside for FCP-X. As Terry and others have noted, AVID has chosen (or simply fell into) a strategy that posits their core market is happy enough with the product as is and has too much invested in it - Unity storage, asset tracking systems, trained operators, reliable links to other parts of the post ecosystem and a bunch of other stuff Mike laid out in his earlier post - to switch. This is exacerbated by industry financial conditions that make cap-ex for new editorial gear a serious hurdle.

It will be interesting to see how things go over the next few months as Apple gets their new hardware on the street and FCP-X continues to evolve. Many of the AVID systems out there are getting pretty long in the tooth which means greater upkeep costs. At some point, whether they want to or not, some folks are going to have to upgrade - that changes the calculus. If Apple gets this right - key improvements in FCP-X combined with high performance and stability on the new OS/MacPros - I think a lot of shops will take the plunge, in part because of the risk that AVID might exit a market they appear to be unable to make a profit in.

IMO, the onus is on Apple to deliver a reliable professional editorial tool that continues to have the engineering support needed to keep up with the industry. If they do that, with all their resources backing it up, who would you bet on?

Cheers - #19

 

[Neil W. Smith]

future of Avid

future of Avid

.... Although, I might have been less charitable :smiley: and suggested that part of the dilemma is due to their failure to innovate.....

Do you think that Avid's business model is sustainable or do you think they'll go the way of Kodak?

Neil

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I would also point out that Apple has seen their stock price go down by over 40 points in two days

A great time to buy.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Do you think that Avid's business model is sustainable or do you think they'll go the way of Kodak?

Neil

If I was forced to a black/white decision (no hedge) I'd say no, I think they are doomed. Of course, they could surprise us with innovation but I am not sure they can bear that risk either.

As usual, Michael Cioni is the voice of wisdom here.

I wouldn't be that inclined to predict FCPX to be the "winner" in all this except that it looks like others are well positioned to shoot themselves in both feet.

 

[M Most]

I don't think Avid is either sustainable or doomed. I think they are ripe for an acquisition by a company with complimentary software and hardware, and have been for quite some time. That would allow them to evolve the software using both their own and other technology, and target the proper hardware to harness what that produces. They already possess one very significant trait that Apple doesn't and won't - cross platform agnosticism. They also possess a lot of very useful patented tools that, frankly, actually go a bit beyond what Apple is doing in a way that is attractive to "traditional" editors - things like Script Sync, for one. What they lack, especially with the demise of DS, is q resolution independent product that can also be used for finishing, a very large Achilles heel going forward. However, Apple software requires Apple hardware, a very expensive dongle that not everyone wants. What hasn't been available for Avid is a buyer who offers both that synergy and the funds to complete the transaction. Yet.

 

[Paul Harb]

Media Composer isnt going anywhere....if Avid folds someone will swoop in and purchase Media Composer and Pro Tools. There are way too many users in the high end that live on those products and way to many movies and TV Shows that need those tools.

I would love to see Blackmagic acquire Media Composer's code. I think they would really do some great stuff and seem to have most of the pieces of the puzzle. Not sure if they want to get into the NLE software business but it would be fine by me.

I don't think Avid is either sustainable or doomed. I think they are ripe for an acquisition by a company with complimentary software and hardware, and have been for quite some time. That would allow them to evolve the software using both their own and other technology, and target the proper hardware to harness what that produces. They already possess one very significant trait that Apple doesn't and won't - cross platform agnosticism. They also possess a lot of very useful patented tools that, frankly, actually go a bit beyond what Apple is doing in a way that is attractive to "traditional" editors - things like Script Sync, for one. What they lack, especially with the demise of DS, is q resolution independent product that can also be used for finishing, a very large Achilles heel going forward. However, Apple software requires Apple hardware, a very expensive dongle that not everyone wants. What hasn't been available for Avid is a buyer who offers both that synergy and the funds to complete the transaction. Yet.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Lots of rumors about Adobe buying AVID around NAB time, but no announcement so far...

Makes sense in a lot of ways, though I don't have a proper understanding of how much effort it would take to make a shipping product that leveraged the key competencies of both. Premiere Media Composer Pro? Interesting to think about and if it could be done within 6 months without an army of coders it would make all kinds of sense - but I highly doubt it would be that easy.

Cheers - #19

 

[Corey_O]

IMOA The new generation like Michael, are the future.
Companies are trying to compete but the technology is moving so fast and they have such a legacy infrastructure its just a matter of time.
In this hyper environment companies will fall harder and faster than in the past.

Who knows Avid could evolve into some kind of Editdroid.

Thanks for the update Michael.

 

[Neil W. Smith]

future of NLEs ...

future of NLEs ...

The question of AVID going the Kodak route wasn't just about a major structural re-organization (long overdue) but the ability of the company to sell off its crown jewel IP ... however, therein lies the rub ... I think Kodak originally valued all their patents at around $2 billion but only ended up getting $500 million or so for them - I may be wrong on the exact numbers but I think it was that order of magnitude of difference between management expectation and market reality.

If AVID did go into Chapter 11 it'd be interesting to see who'd buy their IP ... not sure Apple or BMD or Adobe would touch it with a barge pole (too old school) ... might have to be some new player with oodles of cash who thought that Hollywood was an attractive proposition ... maybe a Google or Microsoft ... then god help editors throughout the land.

The fundamental problem is that Avid, like Kodak, built their business model in an analog world (film and tape) and didn't kill off their cash cows quickly enough to respond to the tectonic shifts in technology that ripped through the professional market place during the last decade... and now that Hollywood has finally joined the digital world (digital acquisition and file-based workflow) Moore's Law will continue to drive the price/performance curve and profitability model ... no more selling NLEs at $80k a pop! .... $299 seems like a more realistic number these days.

The good thing about FCP X is that Apple has a huge user base of enthusiastic editors/filmmakers around the globe and doesn't have to rely on the rather small niche that is Hollywood to grow a sustainable NLE business ... that and the fact they make damn cool technology

Neil

 

[M Most]

The question of AVID going the Kodak route wasn't just about a major structural re-organization (long overdue) but the ability of the company to sell off its crown jewel IP ... however, therein lies the rub ... I think Kodak originally valued all their patents at around $2 billion but only ended up getting $500 million or so for them - I may be wrong on the exact numbers but I think it was that order of magnitude of difference between management expectation and market reality.

If AVID did go into Chapter 11 it'd be interesting to see who'd buy their IP ... not sure Apple or BMD or Adobe would touch it with a barge pole (too old school) ... might have to be some new player with oodles of cash who thought that Hollywood was an attractive proposition ... maybe a Google or Microsoft ... then god help editors throughout the land.

The fundamental problem is that Avid, like Kodak, built their business model in an analog world (film and tape) and didn't kill off their cash cows quickly enough to respond to the tectonic shifts in technology that ripped through the professional market place during the last decade... and now that Hollywood has finally joined the digital world (digital acquisition and file-based workflow) Moore's Law will continue to drive the price/performance curve and profitability model ... no more selling NLEs at $80k a pop! .... $299 seems like a more realistic number these days.

You seem to be making the same mistaken assumption that many people on this forum seem to make, and that's the assumption that Avid is all about Media Composer and only Media Composer. That is not the case. ProTools dominates both the production audio and music industries in a way that Apple can only dream of, and broadcast automation products have been a major contributor to Avid's bottom line for a number of years now. And both of those product lines involve hardware as well as software. They might be known here as the Media Composer edit software company, but that is far from their sole focus, and far from their sole source of IP.

BTW, I think this is the first time you've used the term "Moore's Law" in at least 3 posts - a record! :sarcasm:

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I don't think Avid is either sustainable or doomed. I think they are ripe for an acquisition by a company with complimentary software and hardware, and have been for quite some time. That would allow them to evolve the software using both their own and other technology, and target the proper hardware to harness what that produces. They already possess one very significant trait that Apple doesn't and won't - cross platform agnosticism. They also possess a lot of very useful patented tools that, frankly, actually go a bit beyond what Apple is doing in a way that is attractive to "traditional" editors - things like Script Sync, for one. What they lack, especially with the demise of DS, is q resolution independent product that can also be used for finishing, a very large Achilles heel going forward. However, Apple software requires Apple hardware, a very expensive dongle that not everyone wants. What hasn't been available for Avid is a buyer who offers both that synergy and the funds to complete the transaction. Yet.

They should sell ProTools for a ton of money - cut overhead in half - and focus on being the AVID - the company the had a choke-hold on editing years ago. But they won't do it. Some very cool things in their product - but from a pure technology perspective - Apple and Adobe are running circles around them. I do not see them relevant in three years re: editing unless they radically change focus and that requires selling off ProTools IMO.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

things like Script Sync, for one.

Script Sync IMO is a pretty rough execution of concept that is clearly the future. Both Apple and Adobe have serious script based editing functionality in he works that that is so far beyond Script Sync. The ONLY reason Adobe wanted to develop STORY is because they understand in the future - we will edit leveraging meta-data - and all story based meta-data starts with .... the story.

Meanwhile ... while nobody payed serious attention - APPLE built a platform in an application that will lead to on-set auto rough cut assemblies in seconds - based on pre-production script based meta-data and on set tagging.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Let's not forget, Avid bought ProTools.

And it isn't selling enough to keep them from serious financial trouble. Being the market leader and still losing money hand over fist does not engender confidence. Their current business is not sustainable.

And-if Avid can't kick ass with this "dominant product" why will someone else. The market just isn't there.

 

[M Most]

Let's not forget, Avid bought ProTools.

I don't see your point. Apple bought Final Cut, Logic, Shake, Color, and lots of other things. So what? Companies buy a lot of things, then they develop and enhance them. That's what Apple did and that's what Avid did.

 

[M Most]

Script Sync IMO is a pretty rough execution of concept that is clearly the future. Both Apple and Adobe have serious script based editing functionality in he works that that is so far beyond Script Sync.

Avid has had script based editing since the mid 1990's, when they acquired that technology from Ediflex (how many people here have even heard of Ediflex?). And since its introduction, there are editors who really like it and use it, and many, many more who don't. The fact is that technology alone isn't what's useful, it's whether the implementation of particular features or paradigms is relevant to the task being done and the skill, talent, methodologies, and understanding required to do it well. The fact is that the last time I looked, neither you nor I edit professionally for a living. Neither do many, if not most of the people on this forum. Editors speak by their actions, and their choices are based on things non-editors don't always understand, just as cinematographers aren't always interested in things that non-cinematographers think they should be. The vast, vast majority of professional editors that I have dealt with and talked to over many years are quite happy with what Avid offers, and not really that interested in some of the things proffered here as being so compelling. Things that "sound good", but to a professional storyteller don't always bring useful things to the table. Time will tell how many of them are really interested in new paradigms and how many feel the existing one works just fine. Any prognostication, especially by anyone who doesn't edit full time as a career, is based more on the individual's own preferences than it is those who actually use these tools every day. In other words, it's a bit presumptuous to assume that editors are as fascinated by technology for technology's sake as those who spend a lot of time talking about technology on forums like Reduser. Some probably are, and a lot are not. As someone who spent a lot of years in a colorist's chair, I have a very good understanding of what colorists want and why. I don't have that understanding when it comes to editors. And neither does anyone else who hasn't spent their life doing it.

 

[Brian Merlen]

I have been editing full time a lot lately on Avid... We actually bought an SNS Evo and I just converted our studio to a Unity like system where we all will be in the same project using the same bins! We finalized the system today, and I am super stoked on it!

Our project currently has 40tb of data encompassing renders, media, bins, metadata, stuff like that. Its huge, and I can say fairly confidently I don't think any NLE but Avid could handle this. 200 clips a day, for like a few hundred days of shooting, all meticulous logged (by me argh) while tethered to a Scarlet. Its a huge project, and when we do a search of our stock evergreen reusable material it has to go through a lot of clips, but it all works and its all fluid.

As a professional editor/DIT I find I cannot just pick one tool, one program and say "its mine and to hell with all of you". I simply won't work enough if I do this. People want you to know a lot of programs these days, they want you to not only edit, but be a guru at motion graphic and update their website! Its a rough, tough, horrible, economy and you gotta do whatever it is you gotta do to work. So even I have picked up FCPX to teach someone it (turns out the free trial lapsed and I taught Imovie instead LOL, same program almost)...

But my point is, if you wanna pay your bills, and boy do I got a lot of em, you gotta know P pro, AE, PS, FCPX, FCP7, Color, Shake, Maya, Resolve, you friggin name it, and every FTP site ever made lol!

So as far as these "this program vs that program" debates go I would say to a lot of editors, unless your so big up there you can marry an app, your most likely going to need to know a lot of apps or at least be willing to pick new ones up on a regular basis, or relearn old ones...Its just the way it goes. Saying your Avid only is like saying your Alexa only, or Master Primes only, it just won't be a viable business strategy unless one is willing to adapt.

Boy was I mad when FCP7 got canned, same with Adobe CC wanting constant cash when I hardly edit on my home station at all, but I still needed to have all these tools. Lately I have kind of given up on kitting out my home workstation, I spent all my time at post houses on their gear almost always, what the heck do I need CC for at home I am saying?

So currently I run Avid MC7 and CS5.0 at home and am going to try to install resolve and use it more I keep telling myself. Simply because I feel like I should try to pick something up since I phased out FCP7. There are things I like about all the apps, and things I hate. But in the end its all just tools, and yes you can try to use different tools on the same job, but the producer probably already bought or rented a certain tool so you gotta play ball