Is Final Cut Pro X Apple's Biggest Mistake In Years? 443
Hugh Pickens writes "The latest version of Final Cut Pro, the widely used tool in the professional video editing world, was getting a reputation as the app that launched a thousand complaints, as the 955 reviewers and raters on iTunes collectively rated FCP as, 'Two and a half stars.' 45% of reviewers gave the software one star, the lowest rating possible, bestowing on the program the dubious honor of being the lowest-rated Apple software hosted by the company's digital store. Many complaints center around lost features. We used to be able to do this, and now we can't. You can't work with existing FCP Suite projects. There's no external video monitoring, no EDL imports, no backup application disk so good luck re-installing the software on the road without a good internet connection, and lots of unanswered questions about site licensing."
Pickens continues: "'This was the product that completely built my company starting in 2000 / 2001 and now it's time for me to say goodbye,' writes Walter Biscardi. 'As I tell everyone else, if the tool isn't working for you, then find a tool that does.' But is this negative response just a very short-term response from editors who have gotten used to doing things the old way and don't want to change? Clearly, there are some amazing new features in FCP X. The 64-bit architecture means much better performance. The new tools such as the magnetic timeline, clip connections, compound clips, and audition seem like intuitive, great features. 'Great design, like great music, is almost always foreign at first, if not disturbingly strange,' writes David Leitner. 'You have to spend time with it. But if it is great, and if you invest your attention, it will change the way you look at the world.'"
Conan's editors seem to love it (Score:5, Funny)
Everybody else seems to be holding it wrong.
Video [teamcoco.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points....that video is hilarious.
Worry not... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The same Mosseberg whom Steve Jobs called "our friends in media"?
Software developers are all losing touch. (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple now. Mozilla recently. Canonical a few months ago. Facebook... well, forever.
Hiding behind "you're doing it wrong; the software is right, change your habits" may work sometimes; just because everyone else got away with it doesn't mean you're in the same boat.
There's certainly a lot of niches out there for software done right, if anyone wants to jump into them.
Touched by SAP. Brutally. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hiding behind "you're doing it wrong; the software is right, change your habits" may work sometimes
It works for SAP. To our present horror and eternal damnation.
"Designers" are taking over. That's the problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
The main problem these days is that so-called "designers" are calling many of the shots, rather than actual software developers.
This is a pretty radical departure from the past few decades, where we've seen it mostly be the opposite situation. Software developers would make the decisions, but would occasionally enlist the help of graphics and UI designers to tweak the UI's appearance or for suggestions about improving the UI's usability.
These days, however, we're seeing the "designers" deciding how UIs, and even the software as a whole, are to behave, from beginning to end. The software developer is there to merely implement whatever the "designer" wants, without any ability or power to make decisions themselves.
The problem arises because software developers and "designers" have very different focuses. Software developers want to create applications that work well, and are effective to use, even if they might not be very pretty. "Designers" tend to only care about appearances, even if the application isn't very usable. And they only keep themselves relevant by changing, often needlessly, the appearance of the application or web site on a frequent basis.
This is exactly what we've seen from each organization and group that you mentioned. Apple, for example, was originally founded by software and hardware developers. The UI didn't look horrible, but it was usable and that's why Apple systems became popular initially. After their rough patch, and the acquisition of NeXT's technology and talent, we saw them focused on providing high-end, high-quality software and hardware where usability was key. Then the iPod/iPhone/iPad situation arose, and the emphasis shifted more towards "design". Now more emphasis seems to be on making the software look "trendy" and "hip", rather than working well.
The same goes for Mozilla. We've seen nothing but one pathetic Firefox UI redesign after another from them lately. These unnecessary redesigns are only disruptive, and haven't been beneficial. Now the developers have been distracted for a long time making these changes, rather than fixing the performance problems or memory leaks that plague Firefox. Users suffer not only from the bad UI changes, but they also suffer from the lack of real progress when it comes to fixing these serious problems.
It's time for software developers to make the decisions, rather than "designers". The priorities and concerns of the software developers are much better aligned with those of the actual users. The applications may not look as pretty, but that's easily ignored if they work well.
Re: (Score:3)
Programmers are responsible for the GIMP GUI. Fuck programmer-designed user interfaces.
Programmers designed the pre-Office 2007 GUI. Result? Microsoft fielded a hojilliion support calls with people making feature requests for features that were _already implemented_. But nobody could figure out where they were or how to work them!
Functionality that people can't use and can't discover is absolutely useless. Let's hope for more designers and less developers.
Re: (Score:3)
Um, no, the iPhone lacked those features in order to get to market in a competitive fashion. Most the imitators also lacked copy and paste in v1.0. This is not a design priority, this is a business priority.
Re: (Score:2)
Hiding behind "you're doing it wrong; the software is right, change your habits" may work sometimes; just because everyone else got away with it doesn't mean you're in the same boat.
Users, particularly professional users over the age of 40, ask for stupid things and complain mightily about everything. When the Montage editing system came out, it used a computer and a dozen videotape machines to edit film, and the editors would complain about the slowness of work, and they'd demand a system that supported TWO dozen videotape decks. So, when the first Media 100 and Lightworks machines came out, editing was MUCH faster, but the editors complained and managed to force the original softwa
Leaving the top 10% behind in the initial release (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple essentially merged FCP and FCE. While leaving the extremely advanced users behind with EOL software. Some numbers say that Apple sold about 2 million copies [creativecow.net] of the last version of Final Cut Pro, if we assume that Final Cut Express sold less, at perhaps one million copies (this is a bit low, part of me thinks there are actually more FCE users). This is the market for the new Final Cut [any version] that Apple is targeting. However, was their mistake in alienating the top 50 000 - 100 000 or so users in the initial release enough to kill their whole market? No, most users are not affected by the high end limitations in the initial release.
Most importantly though is that almost all of the complaints have already been acknowledged by Apple and the product manager has promised that they will return to the suite in coming updates [nytimes.com].
Re:Leaving the top 10% behind in the initial relea (Score:5, Funny)
So, loading a file you created last month using the previous version is a "high end feature"?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ask the MS Word team
Re:Leaving the top 10% behind in the initial relea (Score:4, Informative)
Ask the MS Word team
I can still load Word 95/97 docs in Word 2010. Try again.
Re:Leaving the top 10% behind in the initial relea (Score:5, Informative)
I can still load Word 95/97 docs in Word 2010. Try again.
Sure, you can *open* it. But will it *render* the same. It *might* open all your old files and render them just the way you intended, in which case you'd be perfectly justified in being satisfied with Word's backward capability. Just like somebody who found his files hopelessly screwed up would be perfectly justified in being unsatisfied.
Nobody ever claimed that Word wouldn't go through the motions of opening old Word files and produce *some* kind of output, but my own experience with older versions of Word is that they couldn't be relied upon to render large, complex documents consistently, even if the documents were created in the same versions of Word. Granted, such documents should be produced in something like page layout software, but Word was what we had to produce proposals with and we didn't have time to teach everyone a totally different kind of software.
Setting the compatibility bar at simply *acting* like "everything was hunky dory what's your problem you moron" would make most open source word processing programs "compatible" with MS Office. In fact I'd say they were *more* compatible in that when something goes wrong they tend to hash up formatting, not lose text. That's probably the result of defensive parsing of an undocumented format. In fact, I've found that open source implementations of ".doc" are considerably better at recovering the content of corrupted files than Word, probably for that reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it worked for *you*, and that's great.
As I say you're completely justified in feeling 100% satisfied with Word's backward compatibility. But other people have clearly experienced compatibility issues with Word, and they're equally justified in being unsatisfied. That makes this a YMMV situation, which is *not* good enough for backward compatibility in something like a word processor, even though I don't dispute that you, and many like you, and probably even *most* people have never had a problem.
Re:Leaving the top 10% behind in the initial relea (Score:5, Insightful)
You are not comparing like-for-like. Word can open a file made with a version issued 16 years ago and 90% of it will be right. If you open a Word 2007 document it will be 100% right, or with 2003 file it will be 99.9% right.
In the new Final Cut you can't open files from the 2009 version. Not a 16 year old version, the last one from a couple of years ago. The one that everyone is using, that they have vast amounts of current and valuable work in.
Nice attempt at a straw man.
Re:Leaving the top 10% behind in the initial relea (Score:5, Insightful)
The 30-year old Avid timeline interface and the new FCPX magnetic storyline (coupled with some of the missing features) are probably different enough that, no, you can't just read in a previous project. Without a half-zillion available tracks, you won't get an exact one-to-one conversion.
FCPX is a clean break with the past. Some will deal with it. Others will cry and complain about how things aren't the way they used to be and that they need to learn something new. Some will run to other platforms, each with their own problems and issues. (And cause equal chaos and disruption to their precious workflows in the process.)
Some will do the sensible thing and stick with their current toolset until FCPX has what they need. After all, FCP7 works just as well today as it did last week. No one is forcing Walter or any of the other guys to convert today. Their "tool" is still working. All Apple needs to do is maintain FCP7 until FCPX gets up to speed and third-parties get drivers and codecs available for video cards and cameras like the RED.
And some will dive in and create some amazing video with it. Personally, I can't wait.
Re: (Score:2)
The 30-year old Avid timeline interface and the new FCPX magnetic storyline (coupled with some of the missing features) are probably different enough that, no, you can't just read in a previous project. Without a half-zillion available tracks, you won't get an exact one-to-one conversion. FCPX is a clean break with the past.
My concern is that this experience is going to give the dynamic timeline a bad name, even though I'd been wanting one for years. Having to manually manage a one-to-one relationship between media and a statically-allocated player object, which is what tracks on an Avid are, is very old-fashioned compared to what the hardware can do now -- I really shouldn't have to worry about wether or not a sound is playing on A1 or A2, I just wanna hear them both, please let the computer figure it out for me. But now pe
Re:Leaving the top 10% behind in the initial relea (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is not whether you can create good new video with it, or whether you have to learn something new. It's the fact that the existing FCP data files out there are worth millions -- or more likely billions -- of dollars, and unless backward compatibility is maintained, those files are *worthless*.
You do video editing for a local advertiser. Your client wants to rebroadcast last year's Memorial Day sale ad with this year's dates and times. You're screwed.
You're the editor/director for a small but successful art film that showed at Cannes last year. A studio asks you to make a few changes so they can show it in theaters worldwide. You're screwed.
You did a TV biography of a famous person three years ago. That person has just died, and your channel wants to do a retrospective using your footage. You're screwed.
You're a senior film major applying for work at a major studio. They ask you to send them a sample of your most recent work so they can look at your technical skills. You're screwed.
I can't think of another major piece of software that broke backward compatibility with data files from the previous version. When OS X came out, they had Classic Environment so you could run OS 9 apps, and they supported that for about a decade. When Intel macs arrived, they provided Rosetta so PowerPC apps would still work, and they supported that for six years. Word 2010 will still read Word '97 documents. I'm not sure, but I think Adobe Illustrator CS5 can open Illustrator '86 documents.
This is not a case of stick-in-the-mud thinking. It's simply the case that for every experienced professional user of a piece of software, the value of the software is insignificant compared to the value of the files they've created using it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Leaving the top 10% behind in the initial relea (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you were contractually required to keep the raw there is no screwing. You won't get some free cash just by tweaking, but it rather might just be time to create a new spot.
When I worked in the broadcast industry we typically kept the raw footage, a backup of the project file and components and the final work. The final work would be in numerous locations beyond the production environment if it was a current production spot. In that case it would be loaded in playout systems and stored in the backup systems as well.
While we did try to keep some older NLEs kicking around in case we wanted to quickly revamp a spot it wasn't unheard of to ingest the raw footage or pull the clips from the project file backup. There was an instance where someone wanted their REALLLY old spot brought back to life and there was only one extremely long raw beta tape sitting around. I kid you not... when the material was shot it was on BETA. Someone actually found the old finished spot on beta in storage and there was much rejoicing.
In summary, if you are reasonably prepared and work in a commercial environment it isn't difficult to not be bitten by the upgrade bug. In our case, upgrades were the least of our worries most of the time. Really, the people this impacts are those who are utilizing poor recovery strategies.
When Apple screws you, it's always your fault (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how Apple cultists ritually denounce anyone who dares to want to do something that Apple doesn't allow them to do.
When I bought my MacBook Pro a couple years ago, only a few weeks after Apple stopped shipping them with S-video ports, I was surprised, to say the least. The new video-out port was something I'd never heard of (MiniDisplayPort), that only Apple was using. I bought a $30 MiniDisplayPort-to-VGA adapter (from Apple, of course)... but it turned out that this wouldn't work with most VGA devices, because it wasn't actually converting the digital signal to analog. So I had to buy an actual powered converter box to get my video output into a format I could use with any monitor, TV, or projector that I had access to.
The attitude of the "Geniuses" at the Apple Store was completely arrogant. "No one uses S-video any more -- it's out of date. Why would you want to use an obsolete standard?" It wasn't obsolete a few weeks earlier, apparently -- but when Apple declares it so, it instantly becomes so.
Anyone who is surprised is ignorant of history (Score:3)
This has been Apple's MO for a long time. They decide something should happen, and they do it, who cares what the users thing.
The one I remember well was the discontinuation of ADB and floppies. I worked at a newspaper at the time which was all Macs in the newsroom and production (just us web guys used PCs). It was a major problem when this happened. USB flash sticks didn't exist as a normal item. CD-Rs were way too expensive, never mind write once and not something the cheap iMacs shipped with. So what hap
Re:When Apple screws you, it's always your fault (Score:4, Informative)
Wow, this is just false. On any modern Mac with a mini-DP (a format I dislike, but not for your reasons), the miniDP->VGA adapter works. I don't know exactly what your issue was, but it is not common to every Macbook Pro I've seen.
If what you said is true, and there was a digital signal on the VGA port, it wouldn't work with any VGA device, because VGA is an analog-only standard. The port is capable of outputting an analog signal over the same connector, though, so it could have been a software issue with the video card. It's also possible that it was outputting an analog signal with a refresh rate your devices were incapable of handling (also a software fix).
VGA will be with us for years because it is still the projector standard in conference rooms, classrooms, and such everywhere. Apple and everyone else knows this. What sucks about mini displayport is 1.) It's not like actual displayport was a big connector, introducing another is just a ploy to make more money on adapters until 3rd parties catch up 2.) The adapters have an unbelievable markup.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that like it's a *good* thing. Star Wars Galaxies NGE was "a clean break with the past."
Re: (Score:3)
As for the missing features, Multicam support is a pretty big one. Being able to edit a prod
Re: (Score:2)
I said, "All Apple needs to do..." As in something they NEED TO DO. Try reading for comprehension before jumping down someone's throat...
Re:Leaving the top 10% behind in the initial relea (Score:4, Interesting)
They should have forked the product. The old branch is clearly different than the new branch, but they're said to be the same product, and while close, there are lot of people making money with FCP that are really disturbed.
Were Apple to have forked the product, none of the difference in expectations would have happened. Altering expectations isn't what Apple normally does, so this is quizzical. It's strange behavior for Apple, and I think they realize this now.
This is so much different than a death-grip antenna issue, that Apple should have been wayyyyy on top of this long ago. Not like them.
Those top 10 percent give apple users credibility. (Score:3)
Having hight end graphics development being done on apple helps counter the image that apple owners are just stupid content consumers with more money than sense or in the very least allows those apple users to ignore rational arguments and say 'but high end video editing is done on apple computers'.
If all the professionals left apple, i think that the fan-boys might find themselves loosing arguments (rather than the other side giving up try to convince him he's wrong) and think twice before shamelessly poin
Lack of backward compatibility WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see Apple trimming features and re-thinking the UI in ways that people aren't used to: they do that constantly.
But making a new version of a software that can't load files created by last month's version? That's insane. These are professional quality video files: advertisements, short films, TV shows, movies ... these things have far more value to their creators than any features the new version might have.
Ensuring backward compatibility with existing data files for at least a couple of years, or at the bare minimum providing a translator, is probably the first rule of software design. What were they thinking?
Re:Lack of backward compatibility WTF? (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly, but that sort of thinking doesn't seem to do much to hurt MS, so I'm wondering what about this would lead people to view it differently.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, and what part is supposed to correlate to Microsoft? Office still has backwards compatibility, Win7 has XP mode, and they supported XP right up until then. The only time compatibility's really broken is with Vista. And even then, you still had XP available. FCP7 is not available, and has no support, and by reports, hasn't for a while. So I'm sorry, but I don't see a situation on MS's side that's analogous to this. Unless you're referring to something like 2007's switch to the ribbon. Which isn't even cl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Almost as insane as a tablet computer that doesn't run desktop apps.
WTF where they thinking, starting from a clean slate?
Professional FCP users a a small group... (Score:5, Insightful)
... but apparently a lot more vocal than anyone thought.
Apples decision to go the prosumer-route makes perfect business sense, developing a tool for professionals in this market probably offers a dismal ROI, as compared to a tool that anyones mother buys for editing a wedding. They just had no inclination how attached and vocal the FCP users are, and the amount of backlash is staggering to them. The professional market (that needs OMF, XML EDL etc.) is probably a negligible speck in their turnover, but then again, they are people who are professionals in communicating, so this is turning into a PR disaster.
And the sad part it, most of this could have been avoided by two things: communication and not EOL:ing FCS3.
They should have come out saying that the product is not yet ready for professional use, and they are hoping to add the missing features in a certain timeframe. No, Apple hardly ever comes out and says this, but in this case I see no downside. The software seems brilliant for most users, and the Apple MO is to make big changes in the playing field, and giving people no choice except to embrace it or to fuck right off. But right now it is not a question of doing things differently, there are huge and gaping issues that render the software unusable for use in many environments.
And they should not have pulled FCS3 from the shelves. I mean, how stupid was that. Now bigger facilities are fucked if they need to add another seat, or someone loses his/her disks etc. They gain nothing but killing the product right away, but lose a lot of good will. They should have waited until _most_ of the professional features were there, giving people the option of staying with FCP instead of jumping ship to Avid or Premiere....
I guess that this debacle, along with eoling the xserve and adding os x server as standard to Lion is just to show that Apple is in no way interested in the business market. And that is perfectly ok, well within their rights. I am already migrating my clients from OS X Server based solutions to Linux and BSD (and AD, of all things). I just hope that others see the writing on the wall as well...
Re: (Score:2)
The professional market (that needs OMF, XML EDL etc.) is probably a negligible speck in their turnover, but then again, they are people who are professionals in communicating, so this is turning into a PR disaster.
And perhaps even more so when they're not being all that professional - it looks like a Really Big Deal(tm) to them so they'll run stories that it is so, throw up some extra dark clouds on the future for people using Apple in a business setting and so on. Don't piss off the media who'll present your products to the general public seems to be public relations 101. To me this sounds more like the successor to Final Cut Express than Final Cut Pro...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it does have that X in the title. X for Xpress...?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, who would have guessed that professional editors have an outsized ability to make their complaints heard. It's like they have direct access to the media or something...
Final Cut Pro is huge (Score:2)
AS a former user, I can say that it is a truly massive software suite. It is well made and addresses so many niches in the field that they are bound to upset people different amounts in each niche. Apple has also been working on a complete rewrite of the massive quicktime library that does much of the heavy lifting; probably to make it do more of it and doing this while porting the whole app over and redesigning it as well. Some features are bound to get put off until later and they likely wanted to make
Apple dropped the ball hard on this one! (Score:5, Interesting)
Mistake would be the understatement of the year. Apple f*%ked up royally on this one.
We manage two prestige advertising firms, one in Canberra and another down in Melbourne and the complaints are flowing, loud, and spitting from the mouth. But what's worse is, our customers are 100% right and they ain't shit all we can do.
The balls is deep in Apple's court on this one, and unlike the failed Xserve. The high-end video market is an area they do not want to drop the ball on, this industry laps up Apple hardware, is glued to the Apple suite and these guys pay up *big* bucks for managed services from Apple directly, the resellers and support vendors.
Conan O'Brien rips Apple's Final Cut Pro X on show (Score:2)
The video says it all:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20074064-248/conan-obrien-rips-apples-final-cut-pro-x-on-show/ [cnet.com]
Hard to find the wheat among all the chaff (Score:2)
The Conan O'Brien show's take on it [youtube.com] is pretty hilarious.
The problem I have anymore - whenever a "pro" product is discussed - is it's very hard to get at the reviews from the small group of people I actually am interested to hear from. For example with photo workflow software, such as Lightroom or Aperture, I really only care about what serious, experienced photographers have to say regarding most of the feature sets - yet the loudest screaming is coming from fanbois on one side or the other. And now, with F
Re:Hard to find the wheat among all the chaff (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't they be saying: "I'm going to use the old FCP until all of these specific issues are resolved to my satisfaction.If that never happens I will have to look at other options."
No. Because professional users shouldn't expect to ever see those updates--especially since there is no official promise on Apple's part to introduce them... ever.
People are *ASSUMING* that Apple will re-introduce these missing features. But Apple hasn't said that. And before FCP-X was announced people *ASSUMED* that it would be a professional app that reaffirmed Apple's commitment to its professional users. Instead they got iMoviePro.
That destroys people's trust in a company when you wait patiently for years holding onto increasingly outdated tech only to have the replacement end up being even less impressive.
There are excellent and superior alternatives...and there have been for some time. It was only loyalty to Apple that kept a lot of these people around. Loyalty and the *assumption* that Apple wouldn't let them down when they finally delivered.
Apple finally showed its hand and it had evidently been bluffing for the last 2 years. When you're betrayed like that your reaction shouldn't be to keep using the old junker--hoping you don't get screwed again, you should switch at the earliest convenience.
So FCP 7 magically uninstalled itself from every.. (Score:2)
...pro machine at the instant FCPX was released?
Damn Apple, that's some cold-ass shit.
Re: (Score:2)
No but you can't get licenses for the previous version anymore...
Define years (Score:2)
Cause newton, killing licensed clone makers, and not having a x86 version of X available sooner pop to mind
It's not just compatibility and interface changes (Score:2)
No surprise... (Score:3)
Anyone who hasn't noticed that Apple has been dropping the ball on professional users and generally releasing slightly lower quality software the past couple years is simply not paying attention, is not a professional user, or is hopelessly goggle-eyed over slick looking features instead of practical application.
And it's no surprise: there's far more money to be made in mass market products. It's sort of an inevitable thing that those who need the most from their hardware and software will be least served by the market - they're at the end of a diminishing returns curve.
I'm still fairly happy using their stuff - everything is better than what I had five years ago, so what do I really have to complain about? Still, I expect as computers become more a part of everyday life for all people, features will move closer and closer to the mean. I don't really expect Apple to focus on my needs any more. Who has the money to drive the market against a 100 x larger pool of users?
Meh. (Score:2)
It's their own damn fault for doing it so sudden.
Can't they ruin their cash cows more gradually? Just look at Autodesk!
Not only FCP X (Score:4, Insightful)
Dumbing down of interfaces (Score:4, Insightful)
I think (hope!) dumbing down of interfaces is a fad. For all the simplicity of interfaces these days (let's take OS X as an example), I hate to think about all the times I had to search the net about how to do something from the command-line because the UI didn't allow it, or to look up some magic keypress that isn't discoverable. Or that simple functionality like Refresh isn't available in Finder. A lot of Apple products are like that. Browsers are starting to go that way, too. Seems the ultimate state might be to leave the computer turned off - doesn't accomplish what I want but is very simple.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple TV is actually pretty good.
If they open it up to App development, then it is going to rock the crap out of any of the devices in that space.
Oh... and .mac/Mobile Me are the same product and have morphed into the iCloud services which, according to everyone who has looked at them... are pretty damn good.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was wrong before when I said the poster told us everything we need to know about iCloud.
Now, I believe we know everything we need to know about iCloud.
Re:I thought that was the iPhone (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, if you look at it from the point of view of stock price. If you own shares (which I do), you see that Apple has had a phenomenal decade.
If you care about the future of personal computing, and the use of computers to make things, to create (which I do), then Apple has gone straight into the shitter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But there is a difference between calling a brand new product a potential failure, and an update on established software getting slammed by people that use the previous versions and loved it.
Sounds like a lot of issues are related to licenses, go figure. licensing is the bane of our world.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the majority of issues centers around the fact that existing FC7 stuff simply can't be used by FCX.
It's forcing us to redo all of our work.
Well, not me. I don't use Apple software or hardware (for this very reason.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why not just keep using the old version?
I mean, if New Version B can't do stuff that Old Version A does... why the hell would you upgrade to New Version B? On a personal level, Windows Vista was crap, so I stayed with XP. I know that a lot of the time you have to upgrade (i.e. a client will send you files in a 2011 format which you can't read with 2010 software), but since the new version seems so universally hated this seems to be a practically nonexistant problem.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The old version is no longer available. They've also taken that down. So you better make sure you still have copies of the old one. It's also 32 bits, which FCP X is supposed to solve (and it is 64 bits). But due to the shocking lack of backward compatibility and the plain missing feature, most of the old users simply cannot go to the new version. At least, not if they actually want to get things done.
Re: (Score:2)
It's forcing us to redo all of our work.
no, it's not. It's forcing you to continue using a familiar product instead of buying a newer, cheaper product with a similar name that doesn't have the same capabilities. FCP7 still works. Nobody is being forced to "upgrade". Especially not you, because you don't use Apple products.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When version 1.0 of your product has no "Cut & Paste", you can only go up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When version 1.0 of your product has no "Cut & Paste", you can only go up.
But they have it now... and isn't that all that matters?
=)
-AI
Re:I thought that was the iPhone (Score:4, Insightful)
What I find amazing is the number of people here who will rip into companies for never spending time improving the quality of their software rather than adding features, turning great products into bloat, etc.
Here we have a company taking a product that was getting on the bloat side, and completely rewriting from stage 1. Making something much more efficient and easy to work with (though admittedly lacking some features), and saying "hey, we'll add the crucial features in the next few months as we figure out what you guys are really missing", and suddenly everyone goes "oh my god, biggest mistake ever".
I'm sorry, but what... Good on apple for taking the brave move and de-bloating their app.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then it should have been released 6 months from now. I'm not blaming Apple on this one (for once), but the entire goddamned industry. Stop releasing your Beta as a consumer-ready product. RIM's Playbook, Apple's FCPX, and well, most tablets barring the iPad, really. Every single one wasn't completely ready for launch, either missing crucial features or getting tons of stability fixes within the first weeks of release. I know it's not a new phenomenon, but it seems to have gotten worse recently.
Re: (Score:3)
I read the article someone put together which was supposed to be based on a conversation with FCPX managers. Most of the issues were stated to either be non-issues or can be addressed via software/hardware add-ons or will be addressed in a future FCPX update. Great.
But they also stated they have no plans to allow for importing of old FCP projects.
That's not de-bloating. That's hosing over your clients. Yes, of course the old software still works (bugs aside) so yes you can still open those projects. But you
Caved on what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or how about we talk about how they caved in on the 30% cut for inapp purchases? Nobody talks about that?
Confusion - what is there to talk about besides Apple getting 30% on in-app purchases? That remains the case today. How did Apple "cave" there?
Are you thinking subscriptions? They did dial back a little. But lots of people talked about that...
Or how about how that Swiss newspapers are shifting away from iPad apps to HTML 5 apps
OMG, where the Swiss go the world follows!
Re: (Score:2)
As an Apple bitch, Final cut isn't even NEAR their biggest mistake. That would be the full screen modal "mode" in Lion. Easily the Dumbest Move Ever by Apple. Doesn't even work with multiple monitor setups. Unbelievably stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering it makes sense for a newspaper to use a development model that does not support Push Notification and deep integration with the OS... how is moving from apps to HTML 5 a ding on the Apple development system?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For example the iPhone 4 antenna problems.
The truth wasn't "buried." The antenna problem was simply so blown out of proportion to begin with, mostly by anti-Apple zealots. People stopped talking about it because most realized realized it was a non-issue that didn't affect their day-to-day usage of the phone.
how about how that Swiss newspapers are shifting away from iPad apps to HTML 5 apps... No that you don't hear about.
Seriously? Now you're really reaching...
Re: (Score:2)
I have to go back a ways but I can point to Apple mistakes that they didn't even acknowledge quick:
One button mouse. Cooperative multitasking. Emulated 68K code in the network stack and file systems. Gil Amelio. Frog boy the manager (whatever the fuck his name was). System 7. System 8 (not the failed project, what they shipped as 8). etc etc etc
Remember the phrase 'not invented here'? Says volumes.
Re: (Score:2)
One button mouse.
ugh. Can we please stop with the one button mouse thing? That wasn't a mistake. It was a conscious design decision that you disagreed with. Macintosh users were perfectly happy with it. You might as well say that the 2 button mouse was a mistake because it didn't have a scroll wheel. Now, the hockey puck mouse... That was a mistake (which Apple acknowledged, none-too-quickly, with the famous "apology mouse")
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed that for you
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike your examples, you're not dealing with mindless fanboys that will buy anything with an Apple sticker on it, you're dealing with professionals that need to get their work done.
Which is why they should deploy FCPX on one or two workstations, and let their editors play with it for awhile before deciding if it is a good thing for them.
But, if they are just going to nuke their FCP7 install and install FCPX on every machine, then they are hardly professionals. I isn't like people in that trade haven't been talking about it for a long time. Apple said it was going to be brand new. Surprise! They were telling the truth!
Just like with QuickTime X, there are some missing features; but
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
especially Linux netbooks - no consumers will want windows once they've seen ubuntu...
Yeah, but then you get into things like... Crysis 2 doesn't play on Linux...
and that makes me have to dual boot. And if I don't feel like shutting the
game down, to run another app... then I have to stay in Windows. Then
the whole thing kinda breaks down after that. Why dual boot at all,
since I'll hit another wall with another program I want to run soon enough.
My time is valuable and even at a super fast boot... I really don't want
to wait that long plus the time to launch the app and then back again.
Which lea
Re:"Apple's Vista" (Score:5, Insightful)
You could continue using FCP 7 but...
- You'll be stuck with an application which hasn't seen serious updates in over 2 years, it won't continue to support the latest codec updates for things like Red footage and get the features.
- You won't be able to open your projects in FCP-X once it does reach feature maturity.
- You can't buy copies of FCP 7 so if you need another license you're SOL.
- You could be using an application *now* which has everything that FCP-X promises in the future.
- You may never see some features return and Apple isn't providing any roadmaps like other companies on what and when they intend to release.
- You are now waiting on a company which has made through action and lack of communication perfectly clear that they aren't targeting your market sector anymore. Motion is evidently a perfectly reasonable replacement for Shake according to Apple. If you disagree with Apple on that point... I wouldn't stick around waiting for pro features to find their way back into FCP-X... ever.
It would have been like if Vista had been released and Microsoft had stopped supporting XP that same day.
Re: (Score:2)
You could continue using FCP 7 but...
So maybe it's time to switch to Avid or Sony Vegas?
Me, I use Womble, but neither my hardware nor my needs are what you'd call "professional level".
Unfortunately, I don't think any other program is going to be compatible with those old FCP7 files.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Apple's Vista" (Score:5, Insightful)
And somehow this situation is tremendously different from a week or so ago before the release of Final Cut X?
I'm actually not a FCP user, I switched years ago when it started stagnating and everyone else continued to innovate but I have many professional FCP editors for friends and I think I can repeat pretty well why they've stuck around until now unlike me.
1) Last week you could buy more seats of your software as you hire more freelancers, staff up or buy more workstations.
2) Last week you could hold out hope that FCP-X was going to "Revolutionize Editing" for the better.
3) They are Apple fans, they love Apple's products and they believe Apple it committed to the professional market and hold some sort of 'loyalty' to the professional industry which kept Apple afloat in the 'dark times' when everyone else switched to PC.
Essentially last week you could hold out hope that you were a week away from a FCP Renaissance that would reaffirm Apple's commitment to its pro-user customer base and make up for the years of neglect. This week you know exactly what you're getting and you now know it's incompatible with the previous version.
For years people have been saying.
"You just have to give Apple time, the reason the pro-apps division has been so slow and inattentive isn't because of a shift in focus to consumers instead of professionals. It's the calm before the storm, soon you'll see that Apple has been working secretly behind the scenes to rebuild FCP from the ground up. And then all you doubters will see the error in your ways."
2 years later...
"Introducing iMoviePro!"
Apple is getting slapped by the "I told you so." crowd and all of the loyal followers who had been defending Apple for years insisting that Apple was still serious about its professional software division.
I certainly fall into the 'I told you so' crowd. Why? Because I was a Shake user. Apple buys shake. Apple stops supporting Shake but all of the murmurs are "oh but just you wait for Phenomenon. They're rewriting shake from the ground up to blow your socks off." We got a few updates to Motion.
Apple isn't interested in serving the high-end market. There is nothing wrong with that. But the sooner people accept that, the sooner they'll stop being continually disappointed by Apple not serving their needs.
Last week people thought Apple was still serious about the pro-division. This week everyone is pretty much on the same page that Apple is sending not-so-subtle hints that they would rather add Facebook Integration than add the features that Pro users are wanting.
Also Apple's secrecy is killing their good will with the industry. They evidently never brought in 3rd party developers during development to start writing their tools. None of the developers who have to fill in the holes were given a chance start working with FCP-X months ago to have their solutions ready for release. Again, that kind of thing just doesn't fly in the professional industry. You provide roadmaps, you bring in your partners early and on your ship date everybody is ready. We don't like to be surprised be when we're surprised we can't prepare.
They've brought this upon themselves and a vocal official commitment to professional users is what's needed. This won't happen though since that would be antithetical to Apple's culture of secrecy and surprise announcements. Professional users need to not just be told through a NYT blogger that XYZ feature is coming. They need estimates of when and in what form it'll be delivered.
Re: (Score:3)
Name the alternatives that don't cost ten times as much?
That's why Final Cut took off, it replaced edit suits costing ten times the price.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, how so? I've been on the dev release for dev 3 and 4 now. It's got some bugs still, but it's probably the biggest OS X upgrade in the lifecycle of the product.
Re:Half full, half empty (Score:5, Interesting)
I use everything under the sun. But professionals would be foolish *TO* use this one in their toolbox. Why? Because you can't use it WITH ANY OTHER TOOL.
I've bent over backwards before to integrate some nifty little tool into my kit. But FCP X is overtly attempting to be incompatible with everything else. It isn't even compatible with FCP.
Stand alone, walled gardens are great if you can do everything in the garden. But professionals have to collaborate with lots of other tools, workflows, clients, hardware and applications. If you're editing in FCP 7 and the color or sound tools are insufficient you can just export your project and finish in another app. If you get stuck and FCP-X doesn't cut it-- you're stuck with data you can't get out and finish on something else.
Add to that its new media management system which is antagonistic to the standard SAN/Shared Drive workflow and you're left with an application which doesn't want to play nice with other computers or even copies of itself.
When there are other superior and ready competitors who don't make you guess when and if they'll support your work available TODAY you would be a fool to not switch to the ready and willing competitors.
Re:This is exactly like Apple (and Intuit?) (Score:2)
They did the exact same thing with iMovie a couple of years ago. They built a completely new product, and let it take over the name of a popular and established but long in the tooth product. People screamed bloody murder about the lost features (and to some extent because there were any radical changes, regardless of what they were). And then Apple re-added the lost functionality in the next couple of releases....
I sincerely hope this is what Intuit plans to do with Quicken for Mac. They haven't gotten to the "re-added the lost functionality in the next couple of releases" stage yet, alas....
Re: (Score:2)
They did the exact same thing with iMovie a couple of years ago. They built a completely new product, and let it take over the name of a popular and established but long in the tooth product.
Yes, but they left iMovie HD 6 available for download - for free, if I remember correctly - until the new version of iMovie reached feature parity. The problem here isn't really that FCPX removed features, but that FCP7 is no longer available at all.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, Apple is treating professionals who live and die by their product as if they were kids doing throw-away projects on a free web-based ap. Um... not a very smart way to treat professionals -- and, BTW, not the best way to treat the customers that buy your most expensive software and most expensive hardware.
The support lifetime for a software product is directly related to *who* uses it, *how* they use it, and the value of *their* end product. At least, when I was in the business of creating
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I could go tapeless, but I can shoot an hour or more of HDV on a tape that costs a buck or two, and keep the tape forever. No backup needed.
If I shot that on a flash card, it would cost ten or twenty bucks for that much flash, and suddenly I'm forced to copy it to a hard drive not just while working with it, but also for permanent storage, which means two permanent hard drive copies of the content.
That's not a small amo
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is consistently brave for throwing in the towel and starting froms scratch when it is necessary.
It's only brave if Apple is facing unpleasant consequences. If its customers simply grouse then eat the cost and buy more Apple product, Apple isn't being brave. It's being indifferent to customer pain.
I haven't dealt with Apple hardware and software professionally in many years, but this kind of thing is an old, old story with Apple and customers for high end products. Apple makes some change that is in many ways wonderful and visionary, but leaves a bunch of people who invested at ton of money into high e
Re: (Score:2)
90% of people DONT need multicam, DONT need XML, and DONT even need tape any more.
Another way to look at it is 100% of professional post houses need Multicam, XML and tape.
If Apple doesn't want to be a pro-tools vendor anymore, that's fine. They just need to stop stringing people along.
Re: (Score:2)
Just buy premiere. It's pretty much exactly the same as the old FCP but better.