Apple Issuing Refunds for Final Cut Pro X Upon Request

[hugothomsen]

Hmmm indeed

I think they are missing Steve ... isn't it fairly obvious that as soon as the captain is on shore leave, the ship springs a leak ?

hmmm..

I wonder if Apple is heading downhill with their software now?

 

[Hikkadwa]

Latest thoughts on FCPx

I gave a poor review on FCPx initially. Now watched and studied a free training video at izzyvideo and its a lot clearer for me now. FCP is a lot better than I first thought. I think it will be good enough for me. Lots of good shortcuts.

 

[Skoal]

300 bucks of fail! WOW I didn't expect to hear such poor reviews. I was excited about it coming out but I'm glad I waited!

 

[iSee]

Go buy an Adobe suite and see how far you get in returning it.

Of course, they do offer demos. Which the App Store should have.

Well, of course a free trial is even better.

 

[Noctilux.95]

They should have done the same with Aperture 1. It really sucked ass considering it was launched at $500.

 

[DanteMann]

Hmmm...so I guess it "just didn't work."

 

[Skoal]

Yup. All of a sudden. Just like that. For no apparent reason.

Hardly all of a sudden, as has been mentioned earlier!

Actually I wouldn't say 'all of a sudden' but more of the norm. Apple has a history of releasing things that aren't ready for prime time (iphoto deleting entire libraries, etc.) but I think this has raised so many eyebrows due to the cost of the software and the expectations so many folks had.

 

[captain kaos]

562 1 star ratings!

I think this (and other issues) shows that apple can be either stretched with numbers of people available to work on any given product, or they keep dropping the ball.


To be honest im very surprised that apple didn't at least bring in editors to test out the design of FCPX before it got anywhere near release. In fact i'd go as far as to say why didn't they have editors involved in the design process from the start. Because im afraid where I've worked in television and film post production (UK and Australia) iMovie or Adobe Premiere are not what you'd call post production level editing tools, so to have the designer of those in charge of your new supposed post editing pro package is a bit strange to say the least!

 

[captain kaos]

I think they are missing Steve ... isn't it fairly obvious that as soon as the captain is on shore leave, the ship springs a leak ?

I hope its not signs of whats to come. I would hate to get this involved with a company (which is what they want!) and to find there software and hardware starts to go downhill.

 

[Skoal]

LOL.

Very few "average consumers" will be purchasing $300 video editors.

VERY few. Can promise you that much.

Hmm, just like very few "average consumers" will be buying a $300-$600 phone.....or tablet, huh?

 

[robeddie]

Oddly. On Apple's website they still list FCP-X under 'professional' applications.

I know FCPX is great for easily and quickly slapping together home movies and youtube posts, but how many of you who are defending this software actually make MONEY off Final Cut PRO?

After all, the definition of 'PRO" is someone who makes money off what they do, and it's Apple themselves who have classified this as a 'PRO' application.

 

[captain kaos]

Why not? FCP and Avid have been going to head-to-head in a lot of markets for years. AFAIK Apple has not said they are leaving the professional space so why should version 10 of FCP get a free pass?


The only way currently to get a old FCP project into FCP X is to use a $500 plugin. Now that's ridiculous.



Minor pet peeve here but digital has been a routine part of post and production for the last 10-15 years. Tapless is a different story and version 10 of FCP unfortunately has lost compatibility w/some professional tapeless cameras. And tape, while past it's heyday, is still relevant and will be for years.


PluralEyes will do it for half the price.


Lethal

It is true, post production has been tapeless for a few years, but even today, importing such formats as XDCAM, EXCAM, (even down to go pro's) which are tapeless, once cut you still have to deliver on tape (digibeta, HDCAM, SR etc)

 

[THX1139]

There are a lot of people posting on this thread who don't know what they are talking about. Especially those who think the problem is not that big of an issue and that since FCX works for them they don't get why the professionals are upset. Those are the people who don't understand how the industry works and probably have little to zero editing experience outside of iMovie. They should spend more time reading, and less time making posts to defend Apple and FCX. It makes them look like idiots.

I especially cringe when I read posts that go something like.. "I don't understand why professionals bought the program and now expect a refund. Didn't they do research before hand?" or "How can they fairly rate the program when they have had it for only a couple of days?"

Or this gem of wisdom.. "I don't see what the big deal is, it's not like you can't continue to use Final Cut 7 while you wait for Apple to update FCX."

And then there are posts like this... "What's the big deal? Sure, it's missing some features but Apple will eventually fix them. FCX works great for ME editing my DSLR footage. Professionals are such whiners, they should give the program a chance!"

Now that I think about it, the reason that newbies, wannabes, and non-professional editors are posting inane comments is because they see the big controversy and don't want to be left out of the discussion - even though they have nothing important to add.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

If Apple had made a demo, the pros who are lamenting missing features simply would not have bought it.

As it stands, I know multiple people who do basic video editing and love it. They say FCX lets them get their (admittedly simple) work done many times faster because of the CPU/GPU acceleration and magnetic timeline.

I have yet to try it.

 

[robeddie]

If Apple had made a demo, the pros who are lamenting missing features simply would not have bought it.

As it stands, I know multiple people who do basic video editing and love it. They say FCX lets them get their (admittedly simple) work done many times faster because of the CPU/GPU acceleration and magnetic timeline.

I have yet to try it.

It's still on the Apple website under 'PRO' applications.

By definition, PROs are people who make money using the tool. So Apple should re-classify this Software.

 

[Leddy]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

I think a lot of people are missing the point here. Apple is not a stupid company. They know what it takes to make a professional video-editing program. They chose not to. This indicates a change in direction and target market.

Pros are no longer the target audience for FCP X.

Apple was disingenuous in the way they put this forward for a reason. They neglected to point out the features that were dropped so as not to undermine sales.

Then they used the pro crowd at NAB to generate buzz for the product which they knew would translate into lots of sales amongst the iMovie/ Final Cut Express crowd, excited at getting a “Pro” editor for $299.

They used us and they traded on the "Pro" reputation of Final Cut to appeal to a whole new group of users. It pains me to say it, but there it is. The consumer market is much more lucrative than the pro market.

Apple have moved on - in time we will do the same.

 

[mentholiptus]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Professionals used to splice film with a razor and tape. Quit pouting. Buy it, or don't. Nobody owes you anything. No one is forcing your hand.

Change is good. This is a change for the better, whether people are willing to accept it or not.

 

[tbrinkma]

...so why should version 10 of FCP get a free pass?

Ok, I've seen a *lot* of comments to this effect in the multitude of threads retreading this topic, and I've finally reached the point where I feel the need to comment. You, and the others who talk about 'dropped features', are completely ignorant of the software development process, and apparently feel absolutely no qualms about demonstrating that fact at the top of your online 'lungs'.

FCPX is not 'version 10 of FCP'. It is version 1.0 of FCPX. No, it doesn't have all the features of the last version of FCP. Nobody ever claimed it did or would.

Every so often with a large, long-lived software project, you've got to scrap it and rebuild from the ground up. That's a fact of life. In the process, you get to do all sorts of new things that make the core of the application better for what it needs to do, that you couldn't before, either because the technology didn't exist yet, or wouldn't have performed well enough when it was coded originally.

However, this means you don't get to keep all that 10+ year-old code, because it doesn't interface with the new core. This means that you have to recode all the features from scratch. Unless you want to do 5 years of development without any income from the project, this means you prioritize the features you develop, and release early versions without the entire feature set of the old product. This isn't 'dropping' features any more than a Formula One race car 'dropped' the ability to hook up to a semi-trailer and haul it cross country.

The sheer magnitude of the whining by so-called 'professionals' on this board is absolutely mind boggling. If you call your self a professional *behave* like one! Yes, you're allowed to voice your displeasure, but for the love of :deity:, be mature. Would you talk like this in front of a client? (Guess what, even if you don't realize it, you probably *are*, and you're not as anonymous as you think on the internet.)

Sure, if you need multi-cam or one of the other features that FCPX doesn't have *yet*, don't start using it. Instead, let Apple know how important those features are to you. The more professional you are in your communication, the more likely Apple is to believe you're actually a professional. (Very little of this thread would convince *anyone* that the people complaining are professionals worth listening to on *any* topic, much less this one.)

And with that, I'm done. Have fun.

 

[C. Alan]

I don't do video editing, but I have lots of exerience with bad production software (im looking at you Autod*sk). The one rule of thumb I carried out of those exereinece is to never buy version 1.0 if you are in a production environment. Apple should have released this as a demo until the bugs were worked out of it, and most of all, not pulled FCP from the market.

 

[faustfire]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Professionals used to splice film with a razor and tape. Quit pouting. Buy it, or don't. Nobody owes you anything. No one is forcing your hand.

Change is good. This is a change for the better, whether people are willing to accept it or not.

See THX1139's last post.

 

[winston1236]

I find it interesting that anyone with an Apple account can post a software review rating without owning or ever seeing a copy of the software. This means that any nay-sayer can post a single star review without ever seeing the product. That's crazy Apple, get a clue and demand ownership and proof of extensive use before accepting reviews.

Um yea to leave a review you have to have bought it. You obviously dont have the mac app store or you would know this. you cannot leave a review without buying it (apple keeps the record). so all those one stars are real, apple failed

 

[moldor]

Refund for FCPX

Under Australian Fair Trading laws - laws which Apple isn't over fond of but can do nothing about - if the software is so buggy or otherwise "not fit for the purpose for which it was intended", then legally they MUST allow you a refund.

Same goes with Apple hardware - the old dead pixel scam used to be rife here with companies refusing to do anything unless you had more than a certain number of dead pixels which they considered "acceptable to the technology employed" - again, one dead pixel entitles you to a replacement, repair or refund and THE CHOICE IS YOURS, not the supplier's.

 

[captain kaos]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Professionals used to splice film with a razor and tape. Quit pouting. Buy it, or don't. Nobody owes you anything. No one is forcing your hand.

Change is good. This is a change for the better, whether people are willing to accept it or not.

And do you earn money from editing? If not im afraid you shouldn't be commenting. There is so much wrong with your comment i don't know where to start!

 

[captain kaos]

Ok, I've seen a *lot* of comments to this effect in the multitude of threads retreading this topic, and I've finally reached the point where I feel the need to comment. You, and the others who talk about 'dropped features', are completely ignorant of the software development process, and apparently feel absolutely no qualms about demonstrating that fact at the top of your online 'lungs'.

FCPX is not 'version 10 of FCP'. It is version 1.0 of FCPX. No, it doesn't have all the features of the last version of FCP. Nobody ever claimed it did or would.

Every so often with a large, long-lived software project, you've got to scrap it and rebuild from the ground up. That's a fact of life. In the process, you get to do all sorts of new things that make the core of the application better for what it needs to do, that you couldn't before, either because the technology didn't exist yet, or wouldn't have performed well enough when it was coded originally.

However, this means you don't get to keep all that 10+ year-old code, because it doesn't interface with the new core. This means that you have to recode all the features from scratch. Unless you want to do 5 years of development without any income from the project, this means you prioritize the features you develop, and release early versions without the entire feature set of the old product. This isn't 'dropping' features any more than a Formula One race car 'dropped' the ability to hook up to a semi-trailer and haul it cross country.

The sheer magnitude of the whining by so-called 'professionals' on this board is absolutely mind boggling. If you call your self a professional *behave* like one! Yes, you're allowed to voice your displeasure, but for the love of :deity:, be mature. Would you talk like this in front of a client? (Guess what, even if you don't realize it, you probably *are*, and you're not as anonymous as you think on the internet.)

Sure, if you need multi-cam or one of the other features that FCPX doesn't have *yet*, don't start using it. Instead, let Apple know how important those features are to you. The more professional you are in your communication, the more likely Apple is to believe you're actually a professional. (Very little of this thread would convince *anyone* that the people complaining are professionals worth listening to on *any* topic, much less this one.)

And with that, I'm done. Have fun.

Well, thats fine. If it is a "different" package and not as you say a new version of FCP, then A) they should still be supporting FCP7. B) They should still be selling the "pro" FCP7, and C) if they didnt want to keep selling FCP7 side by side with X then they should've made X at least do all the thing 7 did, ie to open legacy (7) projects.

They didn't . So to me that says, "here is the new FCP app", which it isn't.

 

[W1MRK]

I think they are missing Steve ... isn't it fairly obvious that as soon as the captain is on shore leave, the ship springs a leak ?

Possibly, but how much of FCP or any other software made for the OS does he have time to pick apart? Its really the Leads that have that responsibility right?

How I think Apple works But I may be way off.