Final Cut Pro X Released

[M Most]

But with respect to EDL/OMF/etc. it seems like Apple's approach is just going to be to release an API, and let third parties handle specific formats.

Chris, you're a smart guy, but your fanboy-like devotion to Apple and its product is a bit incomprehensible. EDL's, OMF, and other lists are a basic part of the professional editing world and have been for many, many years. They are the only way to have collaborative workflows, and one of the primary differences between the professional world and the individual users is collaboration, the ability to have the best talent performing the various steps involved in finishing - a colorist, sound editors, sound mixers, visual effects artists, etc., etc. These things are so basic that it's laughable that they were left out, and it's even more laughable that they might be left to third parties. That's analogous to Ford building a car, but leaving it up to the buyer to find a third party to supply the engine.

I agree that they probably will try to save face after what has to be considered their most disastrous product introduction since, well, maybe the Cube or the Newton. Except that those things actually worked and did what they were expected to do. But your unbending support of them seems to be blinding you to the simple fact that they fucked up. Royally.

I wouldn't want to be one of the FCPX team sitting in Steve Jobs' office at the moment. That can't be fun.

 

[Chris Kenny]

FACT: Support for iMovie and iPhone exist in FCPX on day 1
FACT: These are consumer features

FACT: Support for XML/EDL, OMF, Multicam, Tape, broadcast monitoring, do not exist in FCPX on day 1
FACT: These are professional features

FACT: Apple chose to implement the above referenced consumer features before the above referenced professional features

Clear, obvious, inarguable conclusion: Apple put consumers before professionals with the first release of FCPX.

You're exploiting the ambiguity of the phrase "put before". There is no dispute over the fact that Apple implemented some consumer features temporally prior to some pro features. This does not necessarily imply that Apple considers consumers more important than pros. They may have have implemented those features sooner because they were easier to implement, for instance, or because the pro features you'd have liked them to have implemented instead had dependancies that weren't satisfied until later in the development cycle, leaving insufficient time for implementation prior to initial release.

Moreover, all you're actually doing here is arbitrarily picking features that support your point. There are desirable consumer features that the initial release of FCP X lacks, and pro features of little relevance to consumers that it has. A consumer editor of a mind to do so could do the same kind of arbitrary analysis you're doing, and conclude that FCP X is a pro app that disregarded consumer needs in order to implement pro features like video scopes, 4K, and DPX image sequence exporting.

Apple, as a general rule, doesn't bother with markets it isn't serious about. FCP X seems like major overkill for consumer editors, and Apple has already conveyed an intention to implement additional pro features. If Apple weren't serious about the pro market, FCP X probably wouldn't exist at all, and certainly wouldn't have some of the features it already has, or that Apple has said are coming.

 

[András Puiz]

FACT: Support for iMovie, Facebook, and iPhone exist in FCPX on day 1
FACT: These are consumer features

FACT: Support for XML/EDL, OMF, Multicam, Tape, broadcast monitoring, FCP7 import do not exist in FCPX on day 1
FACT: These are professional features

FACT: Apple chose to implement the above referenced consumer features before the above referenced professional features

Clear, obvious, inarguable conclusion: Apple put consumers before professionals with the first release of FCPX.

You're taking the fanboyism beyond credible in trying to contradict this. But best of luck to you.

Cheers,
Tim

OK. So Apple included three consumer features in a new app... which also included a hundred pro features.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Gods, this thread is stupid.

I've posted here time and again with a moderate view. I've seen others do the same.

The overwhelming reaction here is to hate without reasoning.

I'm tired of trying to be moderate, and of asking you to reason about FCP X. Honestly if you are too obstinate to see the potential in FCP X, too revanchist to understand that despite the "marketing version number 10.0" that FCP X is really a 1.0 application ... well I can't help you.

Those of you who are decrying the end of FCP, that Apple is abandoning professionals and all the other more dire predictions - you are going to look like the "Red is a SCAM!!!" crowd pretty quick.

For those of you who have seen and understood the nature of FCP X kudos.

Even greater kudos to those who have tried the application and have useful comments about how it works. "I hate the new timeline" isn't useful by the way ... "the new timeline stops me from assigning certain types of tracks to certain outputs" is a useful commentary.

FCP X has a lot of things that other NLE's will be copying ... sooner rather than later.

FCP X has a lot it needs to fix to be my primary NLE ... and I'm buying Premiere Pro to tide me over. I'm also buying FCP X. I'll use it for projects where it works, and I'll need it shortly for compatibility.

Addressing MY concerns:

I know for a fact that Apple already has a tool for XML import/export in FCP X. Its buggy as hell. It looks like it would work on a lot of my timelines ... but a lot of the timelines I have received from other editors would trash it. (I'd say the editors in question have a very bad technical style) I'm very confident it could import anything iMovie can export via XML, and probably 90% of timelines from professional editors in FCP 6/7 or Premiere Pro.

XML import/export is the gateway to all the other interchange. Worst case scenario, you could export XML from FCP X and open it in FCP 7 or Premiere Pro to conform, or send EDL or any number of other interchange options.

Multicam support is actually not a huge deal. FCP X already has a lot of the technology required. You can use its "audition" feature to swap clips pretty quickly ... this is technologically virtually identical to Multicam as it appeared in FCP 6 ... but the UI is very different. The current UI is really meant to let you slip between Take 1 and take 3 of scene/shot 10B as you work through the edit. Make a new 64 bit version of the Multicam UI, and you are in business.

The only place they really slipped in supporting users is not getting the API out to 3rd party developers faster ... right? FCP X should have had i/o support from AJA, Black Magic and Matrox at least at a developmental stage before release, and possibly ready for beta on day one. Well, as it turns out BlackMagic has shown FCP X with the Thunderbolt Ultrastudio 3D (which is basically a DeckLink Extreme 3D+ in a Thunderbolt PCI Extender case.) So, Apple probably didn't slip here as much as we might think.

Looking at that, the near term future for FCP X is actually pretty bright - especially for a new code base.

Aside from those issues above, my real complaint is about the color correction UI. As I tested FCP X ... there was no color correction technology that jumped out at me as necessary. Its better technology than FCP 6/7 in every way ... what it does it does at least as well as Color. I just hate the UI. You know ... the easiest thing to fix. If Apple doesn't provide a more professional UI, I know someone else will. Maybe Graeme Nattress, or maybe Baselight or Red Giant, but it will get done.

My secondary issue is the limited configurability of the window arrangements and other UI stuff. That will come. Its actually a trivial thing to implement, but being Apple they tried to make it VERY simple. A little too simple for working pros in my opinion ... but as a teacher, I like having a rigid default UI so that all students get the same environment. That bears thinking on.

There is a lot to work on, and I applaud the people who are working with FCP X and making real commentary about it.

To those of you who really hate it, and don't want to "waste" your time, well you've made your point. Now get your refunds if you want them, and write an email to sjobs@apple.com letting Apple know why you are spending your money on another product. Be as cordial and genial as you can.

To those of you who believe that FCP 6/7 was in dire need of a rewrite, you got it. FCP X is a good foundation, but the house is still being built. Keep working with it, and you'll get the house you want.

I'm done with this thread ... and being a guy that LIKES arguing about tech that should tell you all something.

Warm regards to everyone that has thoughtfully contributed! I wish all of you great success with whatever NLE you use!

 

[Eric Santiago]

Gods, this thread is stupid.

I've posted here time and again with a moderate view. I've seen others do the same.

The overwhelming reaction here is to hate without reasoning.....I'm done with this thread ... and being a guy that LIKES arguing about tech that should tell you all something.

Warm regards to everyone that has thoughtfully contributed! I wish all of you great success with whatever NLE you use!

Man I wish I was smart enough to write that Your words have been useful Alexander. I didnt feel the sky falling so Ive replied here with positives. Great post my friend, great post

 

[Christoffer Glans]

FACT: Support for iMovie, Facebook, and iPhone exist in FCPX on day 1
FACT: These are consumer features

FACT: Support for XML/EDL, OMF, Multicam, Tape, broadcast monitoring, FCP7 import do not exist in FCPX on day 1
FACT: These are professional features

FACT: Apple chose to implement the above referenced consumer features before the above referenced professional features

Clear, obvious, inarguable conclusion: Apple put consumers before professionals with the first release of FCPX.

You're taking the fanboyism beyond credible in trying to contradict this. But best of luck to you.

Cheers,
Tim

Let me put a signature on this post as well.

Chris, you might be very happy with your FCPX, but you state opinions about what professional needs without any real world facts as a foundation. I worked with feature films, short films, music videos, commercials, TV, you name it and every one of those professional workflows has at some time been in need of the professional features that are now missing. To have like Tim said, support for IMovie, Facebook, Iphone etc. in the first release but not ONE of the professional features thats a freakin basic for professional work is such a screw up of magnitude it makes the whole world of professionals who invested in earlier FCP to grab their pitchforks.

One thing I see that is common among most of the people defending FCPX and who has questionable opinions about "what professionals need" is that they do not seem to have been working with a large feature film project, TV, commercials or any other type of work involving professional grading, sound design, tape workflow, telecine or whatever. They speak out their shit about how all those features we need are so "past" and that FCPX is the future. I'm tired of hearing those people rant their apple fanboyism all over the net...

...and it tells us something. Those people are the people Apple aimed for, so good for them, they are gonna love it... until they try and get some real work done. So to all those who think these professional features are trivial, don't complain when clients question why you can't collaborate in post, try instead and force upon them, the sound designers, colorists and additional editors that they need to do everything within FCPX and probably need to do it on your computer as well.


---

And, jumping ahead ten years. If this release is like the first release of Final Cut Pro, then ten years from now, this might be the Final Cut Pro 7 of today. But think for a second about how things have been.
Final Cut Pro took other companies like Avid by surprise. Avid wasn't ready, they were slow and stuck in the old ways. It took a long way until they made something good. But now, they are on the roll with some very good stuff and if that continue, they will not be the same Avid ten years from now. How would Final Cut Pro X of the future hold up against that? I'm not so sure it will like Final Cut Pro 7 did.
So either you lock yourself in your room and pray to your Ialtar that steve will fix your life, or you try and choose carefully about your professional choice of equipment. Which company will probably keep working for you as a professional? And what company is going to be a bit unreliable?

For me, even if they fix stuff with FCPX, Apple is still a shit company who make nice looking products. They do not communicate, they do not listen, they do what they want and that is not what I like to have as my technology supplier of tools.

The overwhelming reaction here is to hate without reasoning.

Alexander,
It is not, I can't use this piece of junk in any type of editorial work I do, so I think I'm being quite reasonable.
And multicam and such stuff might not be important to YOU, but you do not speak for every professional now do you?

 

[Chris Kenny]

Chris, you're a smart guy, but your fanboy-like devotion to Apple and its product is a bit incomprehensible. EDL's, OMF, and other lists are a basic part of the professional editing world and have been for many, many years. They are the only way to have collaborative workflows, and one of the primary differences between the professional world and the individual users is collaboration, the ability to have the best talent performing the various steps involved in finishing - a colorist, sound editors, sound mixers, visual effects artists, etc., etc. These things are so basic that it's laughable that they were left out, and it's even more laughable that they might be left to third parties. That's analogous to Ford building a car, but leaving it up to the buyer to find a third party to supply the engine.

I entirely disagree with this. If it is Apple's intent to produce an API that third parties can use to implement these features (which seems to be what they've been saying), this will result in better implementations for common formats, implementations of less common formats that Apple never would have bothered to implement, and much more flexibility for custom in-house workflows.

Of course it would be even better if Apple provided such an API and also provided first-party exporting of OMF/EDL, etc. But given a choice between one and the other, I'll take the API.

As for the lack of such a (public) API in the initial release, see the first version of iOS. The release of an API is the last you want to rush, because because mistakes may be impossible to fix without breaking lots of other people's code.

I agree that they probably will try to save face after what has to be considered their most disastrous product introduction since, well, maybe the Cube or the Newton. Except that those things actually worked and did what they were expected to do. But your unbending support of of them seems to be blinding you to the simple fact that they fucked up. Royally.

This is nothing to do with loyalty, and everything to do with having watched Apple rather closely for a long time, and having, frankly, a much better than average grasp of how Apple works. To back up this claim, I'd point out that I predicted Apple's basic approach to FCP X (the significantly different UI and the lack of a strict superset of FCP 7's feature set) and the resulting freak-out over a year ago.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

To those of you who believe that FCP 6/7 was in dire need of a rewrite, you got it.

They did a rewrite of the wrong software, they meant to rewrite FCP7, they seem to have rewritten Imovie instead.
A rewrite that's not based on what is being rewritten is like building a boat as a rebuilt of a car saying: everything about transportation just changed.

 

[Chris Kenny]

Let me put a signature on this post as well.

Chris, you might be very happy with your FCPX, but you state opinions about what professional needs without any real world facts as a foundation. I worked with feature films, short films, music videos, commercials, TV, you name it and every one of those professional workflows has at some time been in need of the professional features that are now missing.

It is not my claim that FCP X in its current form is suitable for professional use. We primarily do work on indie feature films. With no support for video output and no way for third-party tools to access sequence data, FCP X is presently not useful to us. And I'm aware that there are other missing features that other workflows require. So please, cut it out with the condescending "You don't understand what professionals need" nonsense.

My argument here basically boils down to this: people writing off Apple in the pro video editing market are doing so extremely prematurely. They are making statements about the app without having used it enough to fairly evaluate it and/or inferring things about Apple's intentions (and consequent future actions) that cannot be reliably inferred from available information.

 

[Tim Morten]

All the fanboy hope in the world doesn't change the fact that FCPX is useless for the professional community today.

If some want to cling to the hope that Apple will reprioritize professional apps over consumer features, that's their prerogative.

Many of us see the writing on the wall.

Either way, it's not at all useful to waste time speculating on when (if) Apple will fix this mess. When (if) it actually gets fixed, I'm sure folks will take another look. Meanwhile, there's work to be done, and FCPX is NOT the place to do it.

Don't take it personally, fanboys.

- Tim

 

[Christoffer Glans]

people writing off Apple in the pro video editing market are doing so extremely prematurely

Ok, let's rephrase myself: I do not think Apple is a supplier I want as a professional. They change too radically and you don't know if you are gonna get a cookie or slap in the face.
That is not a very good technical deal to base your company on. The truth, the fact and everything is that we do not know if or when Apple is going to fix this and even if they do we don't know if it's going to be stable for all the work we do. It's too unreliable and it's going to be that for a long time. I have seen post production houses based on FCP7 who now are in deep shit when they know they need to change their foundation of workflow. It takes time, education of the staff and it costs money to change to another platform. They might not be able to wait for these "fixes" and even if they do, they don't know what Apple is going to do next.

People aren't migrating from FCPX because they hate something prematurely, they do it because they cannot keep to a software that might kill their company. I think the "defenders" of FCPX misunderstand why people criticize FCPX and Apple because most of them don't know anything about the professional workflows that isn't possible in FCPX.

I looked at your website and I understand you have the nobel opinion to change the industry. Thing is that I don't know what we must change. It sounds like anarchy without a goal. Why is FCPX so much "the future"? Because it is sooooo different from the old NLE's? Is everything that is different "the future"? I do not understand that.

Technology is all about evolution. Revolution can sometime be like a mutation in evolution, some times it change stuff radically, but some times it just kills that life form. I think FCPX is the latter, it's revolution for revolutions sake. Avid and Premiere is still perfect for todays editorial work, what is there to change in them other then improve what's already there? More supported formats, more resolution options, more third party hardware, more easy ways to interact with other softwares, they are all going that way. FCPX went totally in the other direction.

So what exactly is so revolutionary about FCPX? I really like to know... I just see another NLE that's a bit closed off from the reality of professional work.

A question for you, have you worked with Premiere, Avid or Lightworks? Or are you just assuming that FCPX is revolutionary compared to them?
Isn't "revolutionary" a marketing thing that comes from apple?

If you are on a crusade to change how people work in post, then ok, I was wrong that you don't know what professionals need, you just doesn't seem to respect that we might not need that type of change or crusade. It's not that we want everything exactly like it was, but we don't want to change what is now working. Before cutting of stuff like OMF, AAF, EDL and XML, wait until another type of format that is better comes along. Then everyone has a reason not to use those old things and go forward. But to have nothing and say those are "old and not the future" before cutting them off... that's just stupid.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Apple did not send such a message. Some people have merely chosen to see such a message in actions that have alternative explanations.

Well said, Chris.

It is really irritating that people ascribe an intent due to their own subjective perspective and filters and then claim it as fact. Please people, even if your voice seems seems like it's in the majority, it doesn't prove you are right. And you can't KNOW someone's intentions any more than you can read minds. You're making this up. To be sure, you are entitled to say what you think ,but don't pretend you are speaking truths when you do.

 

[Chris Kenny]

All the fanboy hope in the world doesn't change the fact that FCPX is useless for the professional community today.

All the "FCPX is useless for the professional community today" rhetoric doesn't change the fact that what's true today (given the whole surrounding context) says little about the future.

If some want to cling to the hope that Apple will reprioritize professional apps over consumer features, that's their prerogative.

Your statement assumes facts not in evidence.

Don't take it personally, fanboys.

You're the one who keeps trying to make this personal, by dismissing people as 'fanboys' instead of engaging with their arguments.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Gods, this thread is stupid.
...


I'm done with this thread ... and being a guy that LIKES arguing about tech that should tell you all something.

Warm regards to everyone that has thoughtfully contributed! I wish all of you great success with whatever NLE you use!

Alexander, before you go.... THANKS! Well said. :thumbup1:

 

[Christoffer Glans]

All the "FCPX is useless for the professional community today" rhetoric doesn't change the fact that what's true today (given the whole surrounding context) says little about the future.

We do not live or work in the future. I consider myself to be futurist, but I haven't lost touch with reality because of it. What is true today is the reality we live in, I cannot base my work on what might happen.
In that way I would like to say that film as we see it will probably be dead in 20 years, there's a lot of technological advancements which points to this... should I stop working with film because of this? No.

 

[Johnny Friday]

i just want all my old FCP 7 projects to open in FCX...that's not much to ask i think. Also, i have a plethora of third party plugins....that won't work.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Let me put a signature on this post as well.

Chris, you might be very happy with your FCPX, but you state opinions about what professional needs without any real world facts as a foundation. I worked with feature films, short films, music videos, commercials, TV, you name it and every one of those professional workflows has at some time been in need of the professional features that are now missing. To have like Tim said, support for IMovie, Facebook, Iphone etc. in the first release but not ONE of the professional features thats a freakin basic for professional work is such a screw up of magnitude it makes the whole world of professionals who invested in earlier FCP to grab their pitchforks.

One thing I see that is common among most of the people defending FCPX and who has questionable opinions about "what professionals need" is that they do not seem to have been working with a large feature film project, TV, commercials or any other type of work involving professional grading, sound design, tape workflow, telecine or whatever. They speak out their shit about how all those features we need are so "past" and that FCPX is the future. I'm tired of hearing those people rant their apple fanboyism all over the net...

...and it tells us something. Those people are the people Apple aimed for, so good for them, they are gonna love it... until they try and get some real work done. So to all those who think these professional features are trivial, don't complain when clients question why you can't collaborate in post, try instead and force upon them, the sound designers, colorists and additional editors that they need to do everything within FCPX and probably need to do it on your computer as well.


---

And, jumping ahead ten years. If this release is like the first release of Final Cut Pro, then ten years from now, this might be the Final Cut Pro 7 of today. But think for a second about how things have been.
Final Cut Pro took other companies like Avid by surprise. Avid wasn't ready, they were slow and stuck in the old ways. It took a long way until they made something good. But now, they are on the roll with some very good stuff and if that continue, they will not be the same Avid ten years from now. How would Final Cut Pro X of the future hold up against that? I'm not so sure it will like Final Cut Pro 7 did.
So either you lock yourself in your room and pray to your Ialtar that steve will fix your life, or you try and choose carefully about your professional choice of equipment. Which company will probably keep working for you as a professional? And what company is going to be a bit unreliable?

For me, even if they fix stuff with FCPX, Apple is still a shit company who make nice looking products. They do not communicate, they do not listen, they do what they want and that is not what I like to have as my technology supplier of tools.



Alexander,
It is not, I can't use this piece of junk in any type of editorial work I do, so I think I'm being quite reasonable.
And multicam and such stuff might not be important to YOU, but you do not speak for every professional now do you?

These are the posts I just don't get. Why so angry at people who are optimistic that FCPX is going to eventually be great? No one says you have to feel that way. No one is really even suggesting that it is really ready for "prime time." No one is pressing you to to by it. You accuse people of "speak(ing) out their shit..." and decry their opinions about what features might prove to be valuable. You seem to be saying that anything different is bad. You insult them, implicitly at least, for "rant(ing) their Apple fanboyism all over he net." You claim it can't (ever?) do "real work" - is your "professional" work the only "real" work?

You don't have to like it. That's perfectly OK. Premiere and Avid are fine products. Hey, try Edius or Vegas for all I care. But why all the anger and insults? Are others not entitled to their own opinions that are different from yours? And, can we cut the crap about who is a professional. Every single person on this forum is at a different level and they are all over the place. In the end, acting in a professional manner is about having respect. I don't think you are going to see David Mullen on this forum telling people they are full of crap and "not professional" because they have a different perspective than his. He is a professional.

 

[Chris Kenny]

Ok, let's rephrase myself: I do not think Apple is a supplier I want as a professional. They change too radically and you don't know if you are gonna get a cookie or slap in the face.
That is not a very good technical deal to base your company on. The truth, the fact and everything is that we do not know if or when Apple is going to fix this and even if they do we don't know if it's going to be stable for all the work we do. It's too unreliable and it's going to be that for a long time.

This is true. But none of this has anything to do with the details of the FCP X release; at this level, it's all a consequence of the fact that FCP X is a new app. Which is what people asked Apple for, and what, given the technical realities of the old codebase, was Apple's only choice if they wanted to be competitive in the NLE market for the next decade.

I have seen post production houses based on FCP7 who now are in deep shit when they know they need to change their foundation of workflow.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but no, you haven't. The fact that FCP X is not yet suitable for some pro workflows does not require anyone to begin an immediate transition from FCP 7 to an alternative editing platform. There is no logical connection between those things, and I'm a little baffled at the number of people who seem to think starting a transition immediately is the most reasonable course of action.

The most reasonable course of action for existing FCP 7 users is to sit tight and see what happens.

Technology is all about evolution. Revolution can sometime be like a mutation in evolution, some times it change stuff radically, but some times it just kills that life form. I think FCPX is the latter, it's revolution for revolutions sake.

I'll say it again: the rhetoric around FCP X is eerily similar to the rhetoric around the first version of Mac OS X. The questions some people asked then were almost precisely analogous. "Why couldn't we just have gotten OS 9, but with preemptive multitasking and protected memory?" People claimed the new OS was designed for consumers (or even for children) rather than for serious work, because there was, they claimed, too much eye candy, and that it was dumbed down because the Dock replaced the Applications menu and the (customizable) Apple menu, Apple had gotten rid of pop-up windows, the file system was organized too rigidly, etc. People loudly declared they were abandoning the platform for Windows, because Apple had ruined the Mac.

A decade later, things look rather different. OS X's early problems were solved, one by one. Most people got over their objections to the new user interface. Apple is selling ~5x as many Macs.

It is not an accident that Apple borrowed OS X's naming/versioning scheme for FCP X, despite this requiring them to skip a couple of version numbers. Apple is signaling that this transition should be viewed very much in the same way.

So what exactly is so revolutionary about FCPX? I really like to know... I just see another NLE that's a bit closed off from the reality of professional work.

Its orientation around metadata and clip relationships makes it quite different from systems that organize footage via bins and use a traditional multitrack timeline. If Apple does create a real API for it instead of just having it ingest/export different static representations of event/sequence data, that will also be a significant difference.

But to have nothing and say those are "old and not the future" before cutting them off... that's just stupid.

If I'm reading between the lines correctly with respect to what Apple is telling various parties, I think the plan may be to move from interaction between apps based on static data to interaction between apps based on APIs. An API-based approach would also, conveniently, allow third parties to implement importing/exporting of static data in whatever formats they believed the market wanted.

 

[Eric Santiago]

...You don't have to like it. That's perfectly OK. Premiere and Avid are fine products. Hey, try Edius or Vegas for all I care. But why all the anger and insults? Are others not entitled to their own opinions that are different from yours? And, can we cut the crap about who is a professional. Every single person on this forum is at a different level and they are all over the place. In the end, acting in a professional manner is about having respect. I don't think you are going to see David Mullen on this forum telling people they are full of crap and "not professional" because they have a different perspective than his. He is a professional.

I havent said this but the chatter here is no different than the ones in the real FANBOY sites (such as MacRumors). It goes to show you that whether your a pro or not, the internet lets you lash and trash anything and everything with no respect for others. I expected more from the users on this site. I guess I was wrong.
Anyhoo for others out there that care, there is now a specific learning forum at creativecow.net.
Come in the waters fine...no FUD sharks allowed please

P.s. good post Terry

 

[Scott M]

All the "FCPX is useless for the professional community today" rhetoric doesn't change the fact that what's true today (given the whole surrounding context) says little about the future.

Why so angry at people who are optimistic that FCPX is going to eventually be great?

Ok, I'll bite:

FCPX/Apple Apologists/optimists, you are painting targets of frustration on yourselves. What do you feel you are gaining by defending:

• Lack of Core FCP Features
• Lack of Communication from Apple
• Apple programmers?

When at best all that's being defended is the "wait and see" approach which is what everyone is essentially venting against after many years already? You seem to be missing the point and painting that target of further annoyance inexplicably.

The "upgrade/rewrite" DOES NOT DO what a lot of people have been doing, and continue to NEED it to do now. Why defend that with no stake in the outcome? Do you honestly believe that asking people to wait and see some more on Apple's behalf is in either party's best interest?

Now obviously something will happen in the future positive or negative, and whether or not you predict that correctly has no bearing on the scenario now that is actively ignored by those who created the fiasco, while others who DO communicate are offering their services. Better to leave the arguments over future/faith to spirituality vs. productivity, this isn't a rapture we're discussing, but standard operating features. Corporations and products require official communication now here in the present if they truly want to keep people from migrating/jumping ship, whether you have faith that Apple will develop appropriately or not. See RED, when something is not on time or as planned/expected, they are the first to let us know.

If FCPX works for you, yay for you, but it is bizarre to eleveate one's opinion/experience above so many who've placed already squandered faith where it was not returned as promised with no immediate and official explanation. At this point Apple doesn't need proselytizing if they don't want mass exodus, Apple simply needs to communicate.