Final Cut Pro X Released

[Chris Kenny]

You mean the same way as you predict fixes and how Apple will solve everything "very soon" and so on? You might have information directly from Apple that no one has? Or are you also saying stuff in the absence of actual information?

I have never claimed Apple would solve "everything", and I'm pretty sure "very soon" is also not a direct quote. I have pointed out that Apple has told various parties that solutions to certain problems are being worked on (which is a factual statement, unless you want to accuse Pogue, Studio Daily, etc. of lying), and I have pointed to features of the existing product which appear to contradict the "Apple doesn't care about pro users" argument.

My view of Apple's motivations has lead to two accurate predictions on the two big issues with respect to FCP X over the last year: a) that Apple would rewrite FCP (a position with which the "Apple doesn't care about pro users" crowd seriously contested at the time) and b) that the rewrite probably wouldn't have a strict superset of FCP 7 features and might very well have a significantly different UI (something which now appears to surprise many people).

But yes, I recognize that this is the Internet, where being right doesn't give you any sort of credibility, if people don't already want to agree with what you're saying.

The "imaginary" predictions comes from looking back at how Apple both treated the professional community and how their philosophy around communication is. It's predictions made out of how Apple has done stuff before. I don't see them changing over night. If I wake up and see them officially starting to talk about their development well, that's a paradigm shift which would be revolutionary to say the least.

They don't need to change overnight, because they don't, I don't think, have the priorities you think they do. People have been misreading Apple on this subject basically since the release of FCS3, where many people read a lack of interest in the pro market into the fact that the update wasn't as big as some had wanted. I pointed out long before FCP X was announced that this was probably in large part because Apple had already shifted its focus to a major rewrite, and others argued against this, claiming there would be no such rewrite.

Again, sharing work on Vimeo is not the same thing as final delivery to Vimeo. Apple changed their focus on delivery, it's about delivery to the net, not delivery through colorists, sound designers, telecine etc.

This is a seriously weak argument. The menu containing all the export-related functions in the app is called 'Share'. This is simply Apple's new standard top-level menu for exporting things to various formats. It's pretty clear the only reason FCP 7 had the redundancy between 'Export' and 'Share' in the first place is because it already had an export feature, and the share feature was grafted on later.

As said, you don't know Apples motivations. How can YOU say that what you think they will do is more likely then what I and others say?

Your theory is that FCP X is missing certain pro features because Apple doesn't care about the pro market. But this is inconsistent with the fact that FCP X has other pro features. In fact, it's inconsistent with the fact that FCP X exists at all, as demonstrated by the fact that a year ago, the "Apple doesn't care about pro users" crowd was predicting Apple wouldn't rewrite FCP at all.

Meanwhile, my theory is that FCP X is missing certain pro features because Apple shipped it as soon as it was a commercially viable app, rather than waiting around until it had every feature all existing FCP 7 users needed. This is consistent with the fact that it exists, consistent with the fact that it has some pro features, consistent with the fact that this product is called "Final Cut Pro" and was introduced at a pro event, and consistent with Apple's past behavior with respect to leaving major features out of initial releases.

So, in answer to your question, I think my predictions are more likely to be accurate because they're based on a theory more consistent with available data.

As I see it, the supporters of FCPX dismiss EVERYTHING that we say and hide behind "don't punch me and call me a fanboy". I'm not really doing that I'm answering what you said.

That is not a remotely accurate characterization of my position. I have acknowledged that there are major feature omissions I have said that I, myself, cannot use FCP X for most projects at this time as a consequence of those omissions. And in point of fact, I ignored about the first dozen "fanboy" claims; I only started calling people out on them when people started using them as an excuse not to engage with the substance of my arguments.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Elbert Hubbard


If pessimism is despair, optimism is cowardice and stupidity. Is there any need to choose between them?
Francis Parker Yockey

 

[Tim Morten]

Meanwhile, my theory is that FCP X is missing certain pro features because Apple shipped it as soon as it was a commercially viable app, rather than waiting around until it had every feature all existing FCP 7 users needed.
[SNIP]
So, in answer to your question, I think my predictions are more likely to be accurate because they're based on a theory more consistent with available data.

Yeah right, it's more likely Apple shipped just to get the software out there, than it is that they deliberately targeted consumers first to generate more revenue. (sarcasm, in case you missed it)

"Never tell them the odds"

 

[Chris Kenny]

So on the one hand you indulge in wild speculation (Apple is sending us a message with "X")

Um... you're really going to characterize it as "wild speculation" to say that Apple is attempting to draw a paraell between OS X and FCP X by using the 'X'?

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.

Perfect example of why I call you a fanboy. There is no point engaging with fanboys - they ignore evidence, and cling to their own specious opinions no matter what. Go ahead, tell us all how wrong we are again. Maybe if you keep repeating it, it will make it true!

Huh? I'm not sure why you'd think this little bit of information is remotely at odds with my position. My position is, in fact, that Apple shipped FCP X as soon as they believed they had something commercially viable, rather than waiting until it had implemented a bunch of pro features that most FCP X users don't need, but that this shouldn't be read as an indication that Apple didn't care about the pro market or had no intention of adding pro features in the future. Your quote is confirmation of that position.

Look, this isn't really that hard to understand. Consumers need a certain set of features. Pros need a superset of those features. As a consequence, if you want to get to market as soon as possible, it makes sense to develop an app that meets the needs of consumers, release it, and then continue developing it into an app that meets the needs of pros. Structuring things differently doesn't get pros an app that meets their needs any sooner, it just keeps an app useful to consumers off the market for longer. People seem to have wanted Apple to do that just to sort of signal that they believed pro users were important, but this is simply not reasonable.

 

[Scott Crawley]

If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?
Will Rogers

 

[Chris Kenny]

Yeah right, it's more likely Apple shipped just to get the software out there, than it is that they deliberately targeted consumers first to generate more revenue.

"Never tell them the odds"

They "deliberately targeted consumers first" in the sense that I'm sure they were aware that app would primarily appeal to that market until more pro features were added. I don't quite understand your point, unless it's "Wah!!! Apple's not paying enough attention to me!", even though the course of action you seem to be advocating (Apple holding FCP X off the market until more pro features were implemented) wouldn't really have gotten you what you wanted any sooner, it would just have made other people (for whom the current feature set is sufficient) wait longer.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.
Frank Zappa

 

[Tim Morten]

Huh? I'm not sure why you'd think this little bit of information is remotely at odds with my position. My position is, in fact, that Apple shipped FCP X as soon as they believed they had something commercially viable, rather than waiting until it had implemented a bunch of pro features that most FCP X users don't need, but that this shouldn't be read as an indication that Apple didn't care about the pro market or had no intention of adding pro features in the future. Your quote is confirmation of that position.

Look, this isn't really that hard to understand. Consumers need a certain set of features. Pros need a superset of those features. As a consequence, if you want to get to market as soon as possible, it makes sense to develop an app that meets the needs of consumers, release it, and then continue developing it into an app that meets the needs of pros. Structuring things differently doesn't get pros an app that meets their needs any sooner, it just keeps an app useful to consumers off the market for longer. People seem to have wanted Apple to do that just to sort of signal that they believed pro users were important, but this is simply not reasonable.

Chris, you've changed your tune:

Apple did not send such a message [that consumers are their first priority]. Some people have merely chosen to see such a message in actions that have alternative explanations.

So in fact you now agree that Apple deliberately chose to put consumers before pros. Good for you! That's a good sign!

Next up: Understanding that putting consumers before pros is undesirable to the pro market, and a motivation to look to other vendors. I know this one is REALLY hard for you to accept, so go ahead and argue with it some more.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein

 

[Christoffer Glans]

So on the one hand you indulge in wild speculation (Apple is sending us a message with "X"), and then on the other you criticize people for drawing conclusions based on information that was publicly reported as coming from Apple (Apple chose to focus on the consumer market first): http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/blog/2011/06/apples-final-cut-pro-draws-backlash.html


Perfect example of why I call you a fanboy. There is no point engaging with fanboys - they ignore evidence, and cling to their own specious opinions no matter what. Go ahead, tell us all how wrong we are again. Maybe if you keep repeating it, it will make it true!

- Tim

I'm with you on this. And I don't need to make another long post about how these fanboys are unable to see through their own opinions.

Ignorance is accidental while stupidity is deliberate.

"That's all I'm going to say about that."

If Thoreau were alive today he might have written: "Most men who are waiting for an Epic, or a fully functional copy of FCPX lead lives of quiet desperation..." and still others run their mouths like girls in the beauty parlor.

Tyler Durden on the naming of Final Cut Pro X: "Sticking a feather up your ass doesn't make you a chicken."

Yes...

I only started calling people out on them when people started using them as an excuse not to engage with the substance of my arguments.

Chris, seriously, the only substance you have for your arguments is assumptions you say are "likely" because you say so. We have just been talking about how FCPX has too many shortcomings and Apple not being professional enough to communicate to the community of professionals using their product and then made guesses based on how Apple has done things before.
What are your arguments so called "substance" really? You call any post that goes against yours to be "negative" and "fanboy haters". We don't argue with you because we think you are a fanboy, we argue with you because I and many others feel you are not using any facts or rationality behind what you say. When you then rant on without even listening to what people say, it's not easy not to say fanboy.

Back to some constructive talk, has Apple addressed or officially spoken about ANY of FCPX's shortcomings?

 

[Dave Blackham]

I haven't read all the 100 pages of this thread, if it's already discussed, sorry... ¿does anybody know if FCPX addresses the RGB 8-bit processing limit? ¿Does it handle file sequences? ¿How's the gamma and color management? I think if those things work fine (which are core technologies) there's some hope, I believe there will be some kind of plugin upgrade method, so you'll build your custom system from your requirements (if you have a kona card, Aja should develop the output module for it, like BMD that will make a communication plug for Resolve). Maybe the cost will be from the third party, maybe we'll have to pay for it.
BUT, if the core system is still depending on QT and can't handle high end image processing, the we're in problems...

Id like to know this too. I was going to say Im sure they would be so stupid to handicap it to 8 bit but then again...........

 

[Chris Kenny]

Chris, seriously, the only substance you have for your arguments is assumptions you say are "likely" because you say so.

You are entirely failing to engage with my actual arguments at this point.

Back to some constructive talk, has Apple addressed or officially spoken about ANY of FCPX's shortcomings?

Final Cut Pro product managers have told several media outlets that certain limitations are being addressed. And Hodgetts was told before release there was a replacement for XML exporting in the works, so no, you can't claim that Apple planned to never add these features and is only adding them because of the outcry.

Your side of this debate, as far as I can tell, wants to pretend there's a significant chance that Apple is lying to those media outlets or that those media outlets are lying or misrepresenting what Apple is saying. But this doesn't seem very plausible.

With respect to the "Why hasn't Apple made a formal statement?" argument, as I've noted probably a half dozen times now, based on Apple's prior behavior in similar situations, not enough time has elapsed for it to make sense to read anything whatsoever into the lack of such a statement at this time.

 

[András Puiz]

They "deliberately targeted consumers first" in the sense that I'm sure they were aware that app would primarily appeal to that market until more pro features were added. I don't quite understand your point, unless it's "Wah!!! Apple's not paying enough attention to me!", even though the course of action you seem to be advocating (Apple holding FCP X off the market until more pro features were implemented) wouldn't really have gotten you what you wanted any sooner, it would just have made other people (for whom the current feature set is sufficient) wait longer.

I almost literally agree with every word you've posted on this thread, and I'm amazed how some people just won't let a message get through their skulls.

 

[Chris Kenny]

Id like to know this too. I was going to say Im sure they would be so stupid to handicap it to 8 bit but then again...........

FCP X doesn't use QuickTime; it uses Apple's new AV Foundation framework. All processing is 32-bit float, like Resolve. AV Foundation and FCP X support ColorSync for color management, but of course inconsistencies will still be possible if you open exports in QuickTime apps that themselves have no color management.

 

[Dave Blackham]

FCP X doesn't use QuickTime; it uses Apple's new AV Foundation framework. All processing is 32-bit float, like Resolve. AV Foundation and FCP X support ColorSync for color management, but of course inconsistencies will still be possible if you open exports in QuickTime apps that themselves have no color management.

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 ?

 

[M Most]

Final Cut Pro product managers have told several media outlets that certain limitations are being addressed. And Hodgetts was told before release there was a replacement for XML exporting in the works

That's part of the problem, though. The industry doesn't need or want a "replacement" for XML exporting, they need and want XML exporting, in a form compatible with what currently exists. If all of the tags are changed and new values are used, it's useless to any program that can import the existing version. If it doesn't describe tracks in the same way as the existing version, or transforms, or keyframes, or anything else for that matter, the simple fact that it's an XML document doesn't mean squat. Avid has had XML output for several versions now, but nobody uses it - in part because users and vendors alike associate "XML" with the tags and values used in the FCP6/7 implementation.

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.

 

[Chris Kenny]

I almost literally agree with every word you've posted on this thread, and I'm amazed how some people just won't let a message get through their skulls.

Nice to know I'm not the only sane person in the world.

Heh. I'm also an XKCD fan, and I think about that particular cartoon on a daily basis at times like this. From that and from this New Yorker cartoon, one can derive essentially everything there is to know about Internet forum social dynamics.

By the way, I'd just like to go on record at this time predicting the next major FCP-related freakout: at some point in the future, Apple will offer a paid upgrade to FCP X. People will complain about the following:

- It will be $300. People will scream about this, despite it being fairly obvious that lower pricing and elimination of separate upgrade pricing is how Apple intends for the app store to work.
- Its version number will be 10.1, in keeping with Apple's versioning practices for OS X. People will play dumb about this and scream about having to pay for something that's "not a full version update".
- It will have some feature that FCP 7 has, but FCP X 10.0 doesn't have and won't get in a free update, and people will demand on this basis that Apple give it to them for free.

There will be waling, gnashing of teeth, angry declarations about abandoning the platform, and lots and lots of Internet petitions.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I almost literally agree with every word you've posted on this thread, and I'm amazed how some people just won't let a message get through their skulls.

Wow, what is your point? Seriously, read what we write instead.

You are entirely failing to engage with my actual arguments at this point.

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.

Final Cut Pro product managers have told several media outlets that certain limitations are being addressed. And Hodgetts was told before release there was a replacement for XML exporting in the works, so no, you can't claim that Apple planned to never add these features and is only adding them because of the outcry.

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.

Your side of this debate, as far as I can tell, wants to pretend there's a significant chance that Apple is lying to those media outlets or that those media outlets are lying or misrepresenting what Apple is saying. But this doesn't seem very plausible

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?

With respect to the "Why hasn't Apple made a formal statement?" argument, as I've noted probably a half dozen times now, based on Apple's prior behavior in similar situations, not enough time has elapsed for it to make sense to read anything whatsoever into the lack of such a statement at this time.

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.
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.

So pleeeeeease, if you find yourself reduced to arguments like "you do not fully answer the substance of my arguments", you don't really have much more to say other then empty assumptions.

 

[Paul Nordin]

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

 

[Elmer Tenkink]

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

Were setting a world wide record here!