Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Software Upgrades Apple

Is Final Cut Pro X Apple's Biggest Mistake In Years? 443

Posted by timothy
from the post-scully-era dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Final Cut Pro X Apple's Biggest Mistake In Years?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25, 2011 @05:58PM (#36571474)

    Everybody else seems to be holding it wrong.
    Video [teamcoco.com].

  • Worry not... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bazmail (764941) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @05:59PM (#36571488)
    Steve will send some shill journalist *cough*mossberg*cough* a short ambiguous email explaining why FCP X is actually a better product, then the fanboys will understand that they were wrong and Apple is right.
    • FCP users are used to doing things the 'Windows' way. When they learn why Apple removed all of those features, they'll realise that having to change their entire workflow and implement a bunch of clumsy workarounds will make them far more efficient than before. Besides, the features that have been dropped nobody ever uses anyway.
    • The same Mosseberg whom Steve Jobs called "our friends in media"?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25, 2011 @05:59PM (#36571492)

    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.

    • by AliasMarlowe (1042386) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @06:14PM (#36571658) Journal

      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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25, 2011 @06:46PM (#36571898)

      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.

      • by DrPizza (558687)

        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.

    • by iluvcapra (782887)

      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

  • by inpher (1788434) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @06:00PM (#36571496)

    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].

    • by goodmanj (234846) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @06:07PM (#36571576)

      So, loading a file you created last month using the previous version is a "high end feature"?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by GuldKalle (1065310)

        Ask the MS Word team

        • by lostmongoose (1094523) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @06:37PM (#36571836)

          Ask the MS Word team

          I can still load Word 95/97 docs in Word 2010. Try again.

          • by hey! (33014) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @08:12PM (#36572492) Homepage Journal

            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.

            • by dave420 (699308)
              Yes, it will render about as near as perfect as most people would want. Which is literally (used in the correct sense) infinitely better than this Apple bullshit.
              • by hey! (33014)

                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.

            • 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.

      • by shmlco (594907) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @06:32PM (#36571776) Homepage

        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.

        • by iluvcapra (782887)

          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

        • by goodmanj (234846) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @07:20PM (#36572154)

          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.

          • The bigger issue for Apple is that pros tend to be fiercely loyal to the product lines that they use. The only time they really switch is when the vendor massively screws up the product. After all, its how FCP got a foothold in the market to begin with. Adobe kept putting out crap releases of Premiere, while Avid was slow to update their software and hardware solutions for OS X. Apple through aggressive marketing and having a top notch product managed to firmly establish itself in a market that saw little c
          • by Cylix (55374) * on Saturday June 25, 2011 @09:02PM (#36572826) Homepage Journal

            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.

            • by Artifice_Eternity (306661) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @11:23PM (#36573560) Homepage

              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.

              • 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

              • by proxima (165692) on Sunday June 26, 2011 @12:08PM (#36576664)

                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.

                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.

        • FCPX is a clean break with the past.

          You say that like it's a *good* thing. Star Wars Galaxies NGE was "a clean break with the past."

        • Apple stopped updating FCP right before a MAJOR change in video production workflow. FCP7 was designed for tape workflows using MPEG2 or DV family codecs, now everything has moved onto the AVC/H.264/MPEG-4 family of codecs and tape-less work flows are common. Adobe managed to completely rewrite all their OS X apps in Cocoa, and support the newest codecs and technologies during that time frame, whats Apple's excuse?

          As for the missing features, Multicam support is a pretty big one. Being able to edit a prod
    • by postbigbang (761081) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @06:36PM (#36571818)

      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.

    • 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

  • by goodmanj (234846) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @06:01PM (#36571504)

    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?

    • by EdZ (755139) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @06:48PM (#36571908)
      I wonder how many Final Cut houses are thinking "FCP X is a new interface, a new format, and cannot work with our existing files. Why not just transition to another piece of software entirely?".
      • by hedwards (940851)

        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.

        • 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

      • Or how about just not upgrading and wait until Apple addresses their concerns? The old final cut pro is still better than most editors out there.
    • Almost as insane as a tablet computer that doesn't run desktop apps.

      WTF where they thinking, starting from a clean slate?

  • by juosukai (1714458) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @06:09PM (#36571610) Homepage

    ... 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...

    • by Kjella (173770)

      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...

    • 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...

  • 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

  • by Paska (801395) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @06:50PM (#36571926) Homepage

    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.

  • 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

  • ...pro machine at the instant FCPX was released?

    Damn Apple, that's some cold-ass shit.

  • Cause newton, killing licensed clone makers, and not having a x86 version of X available sooner pop to mind

  • It's missing essential features. I literally cannot do my job without MOF and EDL exports, something FCP X removed. I literally cannot do my job without video monitoring, something FCP X removed. These are basic things in an editing program, and it's totally baffling as to why they are gone.
  • by localman (111171) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @08:10PM (#36572480) Homepage

    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?

  • by lennier1 (264730)

    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)

    by cjcela (1539859) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @09:02PM (#36572824)
    IMHO, since OS X was introduced, with each new version Apple applications have been dumbed down in the name of streamlining them. Maybe they are trying to appeal to a broader but less savvy audience. In my mind, it is frustrating, and it is the same kind of thought that brought Microsoft to came up with Clippy... Whatever is the case, because of this (and the constant 100MB 'updates' for that repugnant abobination iTunes has become) , I am seriously considering going back to Linux for my next computer, after years of using OS X...
  • by whereiswaldo (459052) on Sunday June 26, 2011 @01:12AM (#36574066) Journal

    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.

I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.

Working...