Final Cut Pro X Released

[Gabe Conroy]

What you're saying has been true for the last decade. Meanwhile:

Those are percentages...so Avid could be increasing its sales but be heading downward on the chart because of all the consumer purchases of FCP.

I don't think Apple will be in trouble with FCPX...I mean the sales of a $300 app to the high-end professional market aren't going to be that significant. However, I do believe they are going to completely lose that market. Why would that market choose FCPX when both Adobe and Avid are ready to serve all their needs without the need to track down a bunch of third party accessories to make it function?

 

[Chris Kenny]

That image graph was presented before the release of FCPX, when people believed that FCPX was to be a huge and good upgrade to FCP7.

You're missing my point. My point is that you keep arguing that broadcast and post house purchasers should prefer a vendor that focuses primarily on customers like them... but this has always been Avid, never Apple, and look how well that's worked out for Avid historically.

I wouldn't be too surprised to see Premiere make more gains. Of course it's also significantly cheaper than Avid Media Composer, and targeted at a broader user base, so this doesn't really help the argument that high-end users should want to buy from a vendor primarily targeting them.

Buying from vendors that exclusively or primarily target the high-end tends to get you products that cost more, that have smaller ecosystems surrounding them, and that are going to require you to choose from a smaller pool of people if you need to hire folks familiar with them. In some cases high-end tools may simply be the only tools that meet your requirements at all, so you have no choice but to accept all of that. But in the NLE market, that has not been the case over the last decade, it's unlikely to be the case over the next decade (save for a short gap as Apple gets FCP X up to speed), and the consequences are not that hard to predict.

There's all but good reasons the market will be different. If Apple is taking huge steps backwards for professionals they will clearly fall behind. It might take a year before they have all the features we need.

I like how you managed to put "huge steps backwards" and "it might take a year" in the same sentence, without apparently noticing how silly that is.

Yes, it may take a year. Do you really believe, given that a lot of customers run a year or two behind on upgrades anyway, that Apple taking a year to get FCP X up to speed will allow some huge, dramatic shift? I think the drama of the last couple of weeks, unfolding on "Internet time", has given some people a rather distorted view of how fast things like this move.

Another couple of months of development prior to release most likely wouldn't have amounted to more than pennies in the scheme of things for them. But it might have led to a much brighter future and a much better relationship with a community they've always counted on to help spread their gospel.

I believe this position vastly underestimates a) the extent to which people would have freaked out anyway (mostly about the new user interface), and b) the phenomenon of temporal discounting. People simply won't, in general, care as much about any of this in 6-12 months as they think they will.

It is very, very clear by everything surrounding the release of this product that Apple has made a very conscious decision to focus on the much larger and potentially higher growth consumer and prosumer market, a business decision that one can't really argue with given the numbers involved.

Again, this thesis statement just keeps getting repeated as if nothing has been said in response to it.

1) Apple is not primarily targeting consumers or even prosumers, who effectively never buy $300 software.

2) Apple is primarily targeting the wider range of professional video editors (i.e. people who get paid to edit video), which is mostly event/web/corporate video guys.

3) These are the same folks Apple has always primarily targeted.

High-end features are not missing from FCP X and present in FCP 7 because Apple used to primarily target the high-end market, and has shifted its focus downmarket. High-end features were always second-teir features for Apple; they were in pre-X FCP because by version 7 Apple had gotten around to implementing second-teir features. They're not in FCP X yet because it's brand new, and Apple hasn't gotten around to doing that yet.

and you won't find FCPX on a network television series.

In the long run, I doubt that. Again, Apple is following the same model it followed with FCP. Go back and look at what happened last time.

Those are percentages...so Avid could be increasing its sales but be heading downward on the chart because of all the consumer purchases of FCP.

The graph is labeled "New B'Cast and Post NLE Purchases". It doesn't include "consumers", or even the wider world of pro video editors. It's looking specifically at Avid's core market.

Why would that market choose FCPX when both Adobe and Avid are ready to serve all their needs without the need to track down a bunch of third party accessories to make it function?

Why have they chosen Final Cut Pro over Avid Media Composer by a wide margin over the last decade? See my comments about about the downsides of buying from a vendor that focuses exclusively on small, high-end market.

Counterintuitively, Avid probably has the most to lose in all of this, not Apple. I don't think Apple will suffer huge losses to Adobe while getting FCP X up to speed, but I think they will suffer some losses... and the resulting high-end market share could put Premiere on the map in a way it hasn't been for broadcast work and post houses. If that happens, then once Apple does get FCP X up to speed (which is probably going to take them all of 12-18 months, i.e. less than one average-length upgrade cycle), Avid is going to be up against two cheaper NLE platforms, that both have the benefit of having a wider user base (which creates stronger third-party ecosystems around them), both have more advanced architectures and more accessible user interfaces, both are developed by much larger companies with much deeper pockets, and both have major distribution advantages (Premiere's being that a lot of people already own it via Creative Suite, FCP X's being one-click App Store purchasing).

 

[M Most]

Again, this thesis statement just keeps getting repeated as if nothing has been said in response to it.

It has. By you. Over and over and over and over and over again.

1) Apple is not primarily targeting consumers or even prosumers, who effectively never buy $300 software.

2) Apple is primarily targeting the wider range of professional video editors (i.e. people who get paid to edit video), which is mostly event/web/corporate video guys.

3) These are the same folks Apple has always primarily targeted.

High-end features are not missing from FCP X and present in FCP 7 because Apple used to primarily target the high-end market, and has shifted its focus downmarket. High-end features were always second-teir features for Apple; they were in pre-X FCP because by version 7 Apple had gotten around to implementing second-teir features. They're not in FCP X yet because it's brand new, and Apple hasn't gotten around to doing that yet.

Your opinion. Not fact.

I honestly don't know why you're continuing all of this, because you're not going to convince anyone of anything. Most of us see this the way we see it, regardless of your unending attempts at having a comeback for everything that everyone is saying. But I'm done, because this entire thread has become pretty pointless.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Chris,

While I'm faaaaaaar from the most experienced editor or analyst when it comes to all this, it sure feels like emotions (mostly anger) and desire to make Apple "wrong" -- are preventing some from seeing the logic and sense in what you're saying. It's too bad.

I personally don't feel as though you're defending Apple or being a "fanboy" -- just being rational about all this. Heck, even you admitted they were unwise and surprised to have include XML and other core features in this release.

In a way, they screwed up. We all can see that -- they would admit that as well. But anyone who thinks this is a final verdict (while it may be for some) is kidding themselves.

Also, I think your point about Internet time distortion is key here -- 6-12 months from now if FCPX is amazing, this screwup won't be such a big deal. Just like nobody cares about AntennaGate anymore or associates it with the iPhone 4. Yes, some will have migrated and may not come back -- or they will come back, but be proficient in another system as well ( which is awesome!) ... and of course many more new peeps will come in the door if everything is fixed and FCPX does everything a "pro" needs and better, at a far lower price.

Trust me, I LOVE Apple products but am not afraid to admit they drive me crazy and even piss me off at times (no lossless or 24/96 iTunes music downloads - WTF! ... hell they are not even up to 1080P on their movies/shows yet!) I mean, it's dumb, annoying, stupid, aggravating ... but it's Apple being Apple. I wish they were different at times, but I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater ... not even with FCPX.

Not yet, at least

 

[Philipe Ratton]

Chris, I understand what you're saying but they are not coming to the NLE market today, they built over the time an awesome professional tool and now they release something that misses all the nice features they took so long to recognize and implement.
Creating something new doesn't mean dishing out the past. Au contraire, you should learn from it and improve. More friendly interface, ok, something and iPad user could recognize, ok, not giving a shit to features that made sense to a great part of a gigantic industry is beyond my comprehension.
And I think what you really should put in perspective is why so many of us are pissed.
The market you say apple is targeting now, they have tons of apps that will work for then, us, not so much, I believe I have the right to be pissed. And mr. Most is right, pointless thread now, I'm done too.

 

[Peter Plevritis]

My apologizes if this has already been posted - I just saw it and it is excellent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXepNCs_iZo&feature=player_embedded

 

[Tim Morten]

FCPX is the one true god! The almighty Jobs would never abandon us to make more money from prosumers! All the people saying that must be wrong, even though Apple veterans are confirming it, attributed quotes from Apple are confirming it, the product itself practically screams it at the top of its lungs, and it makes obvious business sense! Sure, the FAQ was a useless pile, and the software itself has been mocked on national television, but that is inconsequential! We acolytes and our unending point-by-point responses that present our opinions as facts will soon right the universe! The Apple rapture is coming! Hallelujah brothers!!!!

 

[Peter Moretti]

Chris,

While I'm faaaaaaar from the most experienced editor or analyst when it comes to all this, it sure feels like emotions (mostly anger) and desire to make Apple "wrong" -- are preventing some from seeing the logic and sense in what you're saying. It's too bad.

I personally don't feel as though you're defending Apple or being a "fanboy" -- just being rational about all this. Heck, even you admitted they were unwise and surprised to have include XML and other core features in this release.

In a way, they screwed up. We all can see that -- they would admit that as well. But anyone who thinks this is a final verdict (while it may be for some) is kidding themselves.

Also, I think your point about Internet time distortion is key here -- 6-12 months from now if FCPX is amazing, this screwup won't be such a big deal. Just like nobody cares about AntennaGate anymore or associates it with the iPhone 4. Yes, some will have migrated and may not come back -- or they will come back, but be proficient in another system as well ( which is awesome!) ... and of course many more new peeps will come in the door if everything is fixed and FCPX does everything a "pro" needs and better, at a far lower price.

Trust me, I LOVE Apple products but am not afraid to admit they drive me crazy and even piss me off at times (no lossless or 24/96 iTunes music downloads - WTF! ... hell they are not even up to 1080P on their movies/shows yet!) I mean, it's dumb, annoying, stupid, aggravating ... but it's Apple being Apple. I wish they were different at times, but I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater ... not even with FCPX.

Not yet, at least

Anthony,

I think the most telling thing that can be added to this thread is why YOU chose FCP. I remember when you were pretty interested in going the Avid route and I believe downloaded the free trial. But you chose FCP.

I'm curious why. And don't worry about hurting my feelings, even though you know me as an Avid fan and frequent defender of the product.

I realize this would be you expressing your opinions on FCP (not FCPX) and Media Composer. But I think that FCPX is too new to fairly evaluate, as it's clearly a work in progress.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Chris and Michael,

It's funny, I read both your posts and generally agree w/ both of you, LOL, yet you're locked in heated battle. Do have to say that it's nice to see people care about things.

IMHO, and I have no idea who this supports more, there is an area in the market that Avid still has a good grip on and that Apples doesn't want. It's the facility that wants full service. That means customer reps, brick and mortar retailers, service contracts w/ 24/7 support for large unique configurations. These are things that Apple and Adobe can't offer. They are the old way of doing business, the antithesis of an app store. But for a certain clientèle, they are still deemed essential. Now if that market is big enough to for Avid to survive on, IDK. But I can see why Apple has chosen to ignore, even shun, it.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

I've been revisiting the FCPx threads hoping to actually see something interesting to read. IS THERE actually someone who has TRULY tried it out and therefor have anything to say about the new ways of working? I'm interested in seeing if fcpx ACTUALLY is the wrong way of moving forward. Or if it all is just silly reactions to features not yet implemented/ or possibly disregarded to future ways of working etc (as Apple is claiming - who knows). Has anyone sat down and tried editing - really tried - someone who actually have become accustomed to the new fcp? That person is then welcome to give a review in what they think of the new ways of working. Is it faster? Is it easier? Or is it just plain annoying. All I've read so far is just reactions.

EDIT - And I don't mean necessarily migrating to do a professional PAID job - I mean more "played around", but in a serious, trying to learn and feel the software properly - kind of way.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

I've been revisiting the FCPx threads hoping to actually see something interesting to read. IS THERE actually someone who has TRULY tried it out and therefor have anything to say about the new ways of working? I'm interested in seeing if fcpx ACTUALLY is the wrong way of moving forward. Or if it all is just silly reactions to features not yet implemented/ or possibly disregarded to future ways of working etc (as Apple is claiming - who knows). Has anyone sat down and tried editing - really tried - someone who actually have become accustomed to the new fcp? That person is then welcome to give a review in what they think of the new ways of working. Is it faster? Is it easier? Or is it just plain annoying. All I've read so far is just reactions.

EDIT - And I don't mean necessarily migrating to do a professional PAID job - I mean more "played around", but in a serious, trying to learn and feel the software properly - kind of way.

There's some discussion over at REDUser's sister site, DVXUser - http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?232-FCP-X by people who are actively using it. While 90% of the threads are just complaints/bug reports/crash reports, there is some positive feedback, such as this thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?254059-A-POSITIVE-take-on-FCP-X.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

There's some discussion over at REDUser's sister site, DVXUser - http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?232-FCP-X by people who are actively using it. While 90% of the threads are just complaints/bug reports/crash reports, there is some positive feedback, such as this thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?254059-A-POSITIVE-take-on-FCP-X.

Thanks. I don't really visit dvxuser so nice read. I'm not necessarily looking for positive feedback (although I have a feeling it will be more if people actually try it), but more honest feedback and not just emotions to something they haven't tried yet. I remember when OSX.0 came out and the reactions to that. It was a long process to win people and companies over but in the end they did. The ones who didn't follow got left behind - so I'm interested in seeing if, as in the second thread, it actually is interesting features that they've come up with. After all the creators of fcpx can't be that stupid and Apple is not completely stupid either. Yes they're a company run by the possibilities of profit, but Steve Jobs has said it many times - they do things they want to have, not want the public believes right now they want.

 

[Willy Faes]

Frederik, I agree with you that people should try it out before judging. Actually I did. I downloaded the tutorial (99$) from Larry Jordan's site and I was pleasantly surprised about the capabilities. It is a whole new way of thinking but I am convinced that you can work a lot faster. I agree that for professional use you have to wait until xml support, EDL, ...etc is available. Time will tell.

Willy Faes

 

[Chris Kenny]

Creating something new doesn't mean dishing out the past. Au contraire, you should learn from it and improve. More friendly interface, ok, something and iPad user could recognize, ok, not giving a shit to features that made sense to a great part of a gigantic industry is beyond my comprehension.

Again, Apple has been talking about things like XML support to the likes of Philip Hodgetts since before FCP X was release. This stuff is on their radar, and not just because the Internet has been yelling at them.

But these features are not really necessary for probably 80 or 90% of the installed base -- the guys doing event/corporate/web video.

Folks like us, who deliver for broadcast, or do feature film work, are a niche. Why not release a product the bulk of the Final Cut Pro user base can use, while you're still working on implementing the high-end workflow the remaining 10 or 20% need? This is entirely consistent with Apple's development practices. Take a look at this article that John Gruber (of Daring Fireball) wrote for Macworld. It's from May of last year, and it's about the iPad, but it could just as easily be about FCP X:

This is how the designers and engineers at Apple roll: They roll.

They take something small, simple, and painstakingly well considered. They ruthlessly cut features to derive the absolute minimum core product they can start with. They polish those features to a shiny intensity. At an anticipated media event, Apple reveals this core product as its Next Big Thing, and explains—no, wait, it simply shows—how painstakingly thoughtful and well designed this core product is. The company releases the product for sale.

Then everyone goes back to Cupertino and rolls. As in, they start with a few tightly packed snowballs and then roll them in more snow to pick up mass until they’ve got a snowman. That’s how Apple builds its platforms. It’s a slow and steady process of continuous iterative improvement—so slow, in fact, that the process is easy to overlook if you’re observing it in real time. Only in hindsight is it obvious just how remarkable Apple’s platform development process is.

[...]

Apple has released many new products over the last decade. Only a handful have been the start of a new platform. The rest were iterations. The designers and engineers at Apple aren’t magicians; they’re artisans. They achieve spectacular results one year at a time. Rather than expanding the scope of a new product, hoping to impress, they pare it back, leaving a solid foundation upon which to build.

Apple understands the launch of FCP X as the launch of a new platform. This is why it got the "X" naming -- it's an analogy to the radical transition from OS 9 to OS X. The initial release of FCP X is an example of a new product where Apple has "ruthlessly cut features to derive the absolute minimum core product they can start with". Not because they're not interested in ever adding features for our high-end niche. Not because they're oblivious to what we need. Simply because this is Apple's process. This is what Apple does with initial releases. The above article has many examples.

But while we're arguing, Apple is already rolling.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Chris and Michael,

It's funny, I read both your posts and generally agree w/ both of you, LOL, yet you're locked in heated battle. Do have to say that it's nice to see people care about things.

IMHO, and I have no idea who this supports more, there is an area in the market that Avid still has a good grip on and that Apples doesn't want. It's the facility that wants full service. That means customer reps, brick and mortar retailers, service contracts w/ 24/7 support for large unique configurations. These are things that Apple and Adobe can't offer. They are the old way of doing business, the antithesis of an app store. But for a certain clientèle, they are still deemed essential. Now if that market is big enough to for Avid to survive on, IDK. But I can see why Apple has chosen to ignore it.

Im not so sure I agree with the full service issue. Historically Avid have has been a premium product but there was a change some years back from offering great service to truly dreadful service. If the product was less expensive at the time then I think this may have been a fair offering but not at the price it once was. So you got the worst of both worlds. Alternatively, Resellers (not Apple) have provided good support for product such as FCP systems, Adobe systems and so on plus some do support via specialism such as Audio or Graphics, so in may ways so long as you know what you were investing in then its been perfectly OK. The jury is out though with the app store sales which I don't like as it cuts the reseller out of the loop so there is no reseller support now for the product, may have said there is no incentive to support it which I can understand their point of view.

 

[András Puiz]

First, the opinions of Apple's former employees should always be taken with a grain of salt. I agree with Chris here concerning the big picture and Apple's true focus; however, I'm more surprised than him about how Apple doesn't seem to mind the bad press and especially negative reviews at the App Store. If 90% of users don't mind the missing features, then why is over 50% of the reviews negative? And why does Apple feel that posting a FAQ is enough?

In similar past situations which threatened Apple with the alienation of part of its user base, their response was more aggressive, and they seemed to correct their course, whereas now all they do is to reveal a subset of their future plans.

To me, it means that Apple is ready to face the (at least temporary) exodus of broadcast professionals, rather than falling over themselves to please that group.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

BTW I downloaded my firsts apps from the app store (FCPx suite) and I realised that it's the way of the future. Especially when it comes to people actually paying for the apps. It's easy, quick and installs immediately. There will, of course, always be pirated software, but this is definitely a way forward when it comes to preventing that. Of course Apple benefits from it, but I also think developers will as well. I saw that as a big break through for developers, but then again, maybe I'm wrong?

 

[Chris Kenny]

First, the opinions of Apple's former employees should always be taken with a grain of salt. I agree with Chris here concerning the big picture and Apple's true focus; however, I'm more surprised than him about how Apple doesn't seem to mind the bad press and especially negative reviews at the App Store. If 90% of users don't mind the missing features, then why is over 50% of the reviews negative?

It's a fairly well-known phenomenon that users who dislike a product are more likely to make themselves heard.

Edit: One other thing to notice here is how polarized the reviews are:

This can easily be explained by Apple having designed a really nice app... with missing features. If you don't need those features, you give it five stars. If it's useless to you without those features, you give it one star.

And why does Apple feel that posting a FAQ is enough?

In similar past situations which threatened Apple with the alienation of part of its user base, their response was more aggressive, and they seemed to correct their course, whereas now all they do is to reveal a subset of their future plans.

To me, it means that Apple is ready to face the (at least temporary) exodus of broadcast professionals, rather than falling over themselves to please that group.

Apple never falls over itself to please anyone except Steve Jobs. I think what's going on here, frankly, is that Apple has a more realistic understanding of how time-sensitive all of this is (or isn't) than a lot of folks posting in Internet forums do. NLE platform transitions aren't trivial, and many shops run a year or more behind on updates anyway. This makes the idea that there will be a mass exodus over the next six months rather hard to believe. Things just don't move that fast.

And six months from now -- maybe three months from now -- there will be XML export, the ability to map tagged audio to tracks on export, and (Apple has been a little vague on this, but I'm nearly certain) 'real' video output. There will be reasonably-priced third-party solutions for things like OMF and EDL exporting, probably with more feature-rich implementations than FCP 7 offered (which wouldn't be that hard). And multicam has been announced for the next major release, which is probably more like 12 months away than 24.

Competitors will make some gains (Adobe much more than Avid, probably), but nothing especially earth-shaking will happen very quickly, and before too long we'll have moved past "I can't use FCP X because I absolutely need feature Y, which it doesn't have", and we'll be back to people selecting NLEs on the basis of things like price, performance, user interface, ecosystem strength, etc. I think FCP X will compete well on those factors.

 

[Tim Morten]

Breaking news: Chris Kenny thinks FCPX will be great someday! Holy cow! No one saw that coming! Alert the Internets everyone!

 

[Liam Hall]

Hey Tim, have you actually used FCPX yet? Just wondering, because you sure do have a lot to say about it...

If anyone is interested Larry Jordan has a fair-minded blog on all this:

http://www.larryjordan.biz/goodies/blog.html