I meant that Apple was forced to release FCP X too soon, when it was an unfinished product. I think it had to do with FPC compatibility when Lion was released.
No. There are three parts. Apple's policy on discussing future products, Software continuity versus posturing, and expectation management.
1. Apple as standard corporate policy doesn't widely talk about future products. There are a select few that get to see what is being worked in in advance but this is more laying the lanes of communication process and some alpha/beta feedback.
So to talk about next gen FCP or Mac Pro they largely need to release to talk about with a wide group of folks.
Whether it is unfinished or not is a matter of perspective. Software development is a iterative process. No moderately complex system is ever completely done. So the debate is what is the minimal core set of features and when is the transition point.
Releasing a core of FCPX allows Apple to talk about it and gather better feedback as to what are the next pieces to fill in. It is a more incremental development methodology with more smaller focused releases than "big bang, this is it; everything for everybody" releases.
If Apple had squatted on FCP 7 for another 2 years things would be equally bad going forward. ( e.g., the Mac Pro market. There is particularly good sitting sitting comatose on a product for 3 years. )
2. Apple routinely terminates product versions, flushes the remaining software out of the market , and then quietly sells/provides copies to those who need it on a business continuity basis a month or so later who either has continuity agreements with them or establish paid/commercial contracts.
Yeah the standard corporate marketing is "this is best XXX ever. drop everything and buy it now before everyone does".... but frankly that is just standard hyperbole. It is almost comical folks who label themselves professionals take that stuff seriously. Instead usually treated in open forums to rounds of "apple needs to tell me about future products", "it doesn't have feature 546 so it is a FAIL" , etc. In short, an equally unproductive round of hyperbole from the other side.
Apple should improve transparency about the end of lifecycle process but most of the smoke and fire about these new product announcements focus on the wrong issues so the process doesn't improve.
3. What was really poor was Apple's expectation management. Switching to a new development methodology of smaller incremental releases and more of a 3rd and 2nd parties fill-in-the-integrations between FCPX and niche hardware.
Apple was expecting mainly to pick up early adopters. That means cutting loose some folks who mainly have a backwards looking viewpoint. Staunch maintainers of the status quo are never happen with new product versions unless they are simply purely focused on bug fixes. That "fix only" stance makes another subset unhappy. Nobody is going to be 100% happy.
From the customers side some folks seem to be laboring under the misconception that Apple is some sort of software development for hire company. That they feed in wish lists and Apple does exactly what you tell them to on demand. It really doesn't work that way.