Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Posts Final Cut Pro X FAQ, Promises Updates
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Funny? Yes, kind of, but it doesn't really address any real issues.
I've played with it a bit now, and I manage to get the cuts where I want them, I manage to sync audio with video, I get the titles exactly where I want them etc. etc. So, funny, but says nothng about FCPX - could equally well have been made to make fun of any other app.
This is one is better, as it at first addresses all the real issues via the help-thing.
Then it just gets stupid as the guy can't even be bothered to learn how clips are selected or to turn snapping on (with the "n", as it has been for as long as I can remember btw).
Then it ends with a "to hell with this if I'm too stupid to get it to work exactly as I want in two seconds"-feeling imo. Would have been better without the silly attempt at showing flaws in how the app actually works.
"it just works" ??
Is Apple having a "Vista moment" here?
How could Apple not have predicted (and tested) that users would want to run both FCP7 and FCPX?
By the way - for those insisting that it's not a big deal to keep both FCP 7 and also have FCPX on your system and just switch between based on the project you're doing should read this...
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4722
Quite simply put - the programs aren't playing nicely together people are finding out and now Apple recommends partitioning your hard drive with fresh OSX installs on both.
Oh yeah - and reboot every time you want to switch which app you're going to use....
Simple!
Is Apple having a "Vista moment" here?
How could Apple not have predicted (and tested) that users would want to run both FCP7 and FCPX?
So if the 1.0 were completely reversed that would be better. The external interfaces worked perfectly but the core editing basics were screwed or non existant that would be a product in a better position to take over the FCP mantle than this one.
I doubt you would actually put the priorities in that order. I fully realize some folks are frustrated because they want all the features yesterday. I also suspect as editors you have directors/clients who want everything cut yesterday also. You get done what you can get done. You also probably don't wait until the *whole* show/movie is completely cut/polished before showing it to the client either do you? Especially if it is a long/large project.
It is a 1.0 product which means it pragmatically has to launch with a subset of features. Apple put the priority on the foundational features inside the product. Sitting on it till it was a 1.2-1.5 product has downsides too.
Some people can make money with and and some people can't. That really doesn't say something about being committed to the pro market. Perhaps a subset of the market, but not the overall market.
No, it just means that they are not the top priority initial targets for the software. Seriously, some folks sound like 4 year olds complaining how the parent gave their younger sibling a larger piece of pie and which means they don't love them anymore.
There are a fixed number of features that go into a 1.0 release. Some stuff is going to get left out. Not being there means it is not part of the initial release. Not that it isn't coming.
These days who is shooting film in film schools? I understand you can't use it to teach the students tracked into the skill silos, but at the generalist stage where teaching something about each of the skillsets FCPX is a more natural fit. It is only when the skill sets get siloed that the interfaces need to get taught.
Plus at this point do the instructors really know much about the product? Unless they have been in the beta program, it is going to be while before there is material with a track record to put into a curriculum. There is a window where Apple can flush out the functionality to cover an incrementally broader set of utility.
Again if FCPX stays frozen at this initial feature set for an extended period of time it probably will fade from schools who focus on training siloed skill sets. However, that is not going to happen overnight. The installed base that was there on June 1st is just as large now as it was. In 6 months, it will still roughly be the same size.
I'm just glad Apple is taking note and I'm glad people are making so much noise and rattling Apple's cage. Otherwise, maybe they'd settle on catering only to the casual users.
So this is encouraging, then. I want FCP X to become an amazing tool. An application aimed at creativity shouldn't be limited and require workarounds. I don't get this whole refund thing, though. The best thing to do is buy the damn thing, learn it and give useful feedback.
Supply and demand, my friend. If you want more quality on tv and in the theaters, money talks. Stop paying to see crap or start paying for the stuff you like. Otherwise, send your whining to the broadcasters/studios who dictate what gets made. Then there's the whole cable subscription model which needs an axe in the head, but that's a different thread.
So this is encouraging, then. I want FCP X to become an amazing tool. An application aimed at creativity shouldn't be limited and require workarounds. I don't get this whole refund thing, though. The best thing to do is buy the damn thing, learn it and give useful feedback.
Supply and demand, my friend. If you want more quality on tv and in the theaters, money talks. Stop paying to see crap or start paying for the stuff you like. Otherwise, send your whining to the broadcasters/studios who dictate what gets made. Then there's the whole cable subscription model which needs an axe in the head, but that's a different thread.
Pros have been waiting almost 4 years for this release only to get essentially slapped in the face.
Why do people insist on grading this on a curve? It's not a "1.0 release." It's a new version of Final Cut that replaced the older version so the logical conclusion is it should include all the old major features. Every other software works this way. I understand getting a clean break from old code but you need at least a transition period. Not even opening old projects is inexcusable.
Nobody on these forums is cutting Android or RIM slack because their tablets are "1.0 releases". Or cutting Intuit slack for botching Quicken on the Mac, yet Apple gets a pass here.
With Apple releasing the FAQ and after watching Larry Jordan's presentation at the London Supermeet, I'm feeling a little bit better about FCX. It's not perfect by a long shot, and I'm still a little miffed at Apple's arrogance.. but I'm going to relax and give X a try just to start learning. I'll play around with it here and there, but I'm giving Apple an arbitrary 3 month deadline to prove they are listening. If not, then goodbye Apple... hello Windows and Adobe.
If Apple can turn this around (and I believe that they can), this is a great opportunity to be on the ground floor of a brand new editing system. Think about that. How often are you having to play catch up when first learning software? These days it is very rare to find a relatively new program that has so much potential and you can start learning it on day one. In a couple of years (if Apple doesn't manage to blow this with the professional community), you could be on the top level of understanding of a leading editing program. That translates to getting hired by studios or getting new job leads. But Apple has to first appease the professional community... and fast.
If Apple can turn this around (and I believe that they can), this is a great opportunity to be on the ground floor of a brand new editing system. Think about that. How often are you having to play catch up when first learning software? These days it is very rare to find a relatively new program that has so much potential and you can start learning it on day one. In a couple of years (if Apple doesn't manage to blow this with the professional community), you could be on the top level of understanding of a leading editing program. That translates to getting hired by studios or getting new job leads. But Apple has to first appease the professional community... and fast.
Over-Analyze much? The first video is a Conan SKETCH. It's not meant to solve and issue or address them. It's called mocking. Wow.
Are your skills your livelihood or is Final Cut Pro your livelihood? FCP is just a tool to me. I love it (despite its flakiness in recent years) but clients don't care what software I'm using.
It's possible he/she freelances and works on other people's systems. That's not to say they can't learn other software. But they may be referring to jobs that he or she seeks out...
The only valid complaint is that FCP 7 and FCP X don't play nice on the same computer. That's the only pain in the ass in this whole thing.
All 1.0 software and hardware takes time to grow. Anyone who buys 1.0 software and hardware knows you're a beta tester. It is the curse to being an early adopter.
Someone brought up Android tablets. Like all 1.0 hardware or software, it takes time to mature. No one let them off the hook for their issues but EVERYONE also gave them the benefit of the doubt that, in time, they'll definitely get better.
This isn't a slap in the face to anyone. Apple isn't forcing you to buy this software and help work out the kinks. If you want to help and be one of the first people to learn and master it, go for it. If not, then continue using FCP 7. No one said you have to dismantle your whole office because FCP X came out.
The changes will come. The software is definitely not perfect. This FAQ touches on a lot of this and even Larry Jordan had a great Q&A at a recent event that went over some of this as well. I don't have a roadmap, but I also have some common sense. The changes will come.
Stop acting like Apple hurt you. They didn't. FCP 7 will continue to work just fine for your needs until FCP X catches up.
Being an early adopter myself, I've already sent Apple quite a few feedback forms with a good chunk of feedback. That's the only way they'll make the changes we need.
So chill the eff out.
All 1.0 software and hardware takes time to grow. Anyone who buys 1.0 software and hardware knows you're a beta tester. It is the curse to being an early adopter.
Someone brought up Android tablets. Like all 1.0 hardware or software, it takes time to mature. No one let them off the hook for their issues but EVERYONE also gave them the benefit of the doubt that, in time, they'll definitely get better.
This isn't a slap in the face to anyone. Apple isn't forcing you to buy this software and help work out the kinks. If you want to help and be one of the first people to learn and master it, go for it. If not, then continue using FCP 7. No one said you have to dismantle your whole office because FCP X came out.
The changes will come. The software is definitely not perfect. This FAQ touches on a lot of this and even Larry Jordan had a great Q&A at a recent event that went over some of this as well. I don't have a roadmap, but I also have some common sense. The changes will come.
Stop acting like Apple hurt you. They didn't. FCP 7 will continue to work just fine for your needs until FCP X catches up.
Being an early adopter myself, I've already sent Apple quite a few feedback forms with a good chunk of feedback. That's the only way they'll make the changes we need.
So chill the eff out.
What is really amazing about the video is that the misrelease of a niche high end software package for a small professional market even warranted a parody on mainstream TV such as the Conan O'Brian show. That in and of itself tells droves about Apple and where they are at.
So essentially, we have a bunch of whiny people who are either near retirement or are pretending to be in the industry complaining about nothing.
Any actual users of FCP 7 can continue to use that version either until FCP X adds features like multi-cam and XML export support or until their existing project no longer require tweaks. Assets from the FCP 7 projects can always be exported for use in future projects using FCP X.
Many people seem to have assumed that FCP was simply an upgrade when it was actually not just a rewrite but a re-factor of the entire architecture. It is essentially a reboot so you cannot expect backward compatibility.
I applaud Apple for having the guts to take the risk to do the right thing. MSFT is too chicken to ever risk breaking backward compatibility and that fear will always hold them back from innovating.
Any actual users of FCP 7 can continue to use that version either until FCP X adds features like multi-cam and XML export support or until their existing project no longer require tweaks. Assets from the FCP 7 projects can always be exported for use in future projects using FCP X.
Many people seem to have assumed that FCP was simply an upgrade when it was actually not just a rewrite but a re-factor of the entire architecture. It is essentially a reboot so you cannot expect backward compatibility.
I applaud Apple for having the guts to take the risk to do the right thing. MSFT is too chicken to ever risk breaking backward compatibility and that fear will always hold them back from innovating.
Ok. I am going to try to be as diplomatic as possible since it appears that you are not a developer. Version numbers can be completely arbitrary but here is the general rule of thumb.
Where the version major version number does not change, you can expect the software to be highly backward compatible. An example of this would be OS X 10.1 to 10.7. Barring PPC specific code, you should be able to at least recompile the code from software written for previous versions of OS X and have it run on Lion (10.7).
When the major version number changes, there is no guarantee that there will be any binary or source code compatibility with the new version but some of it might work and you can usually expect import of previous versions of projects/files. Examples of this would be FCP 6.x to 7.x.
When a version number changes to a new tenth, there is absolutely no guarantee of source or binary compatibility. An example of this would be Mac OS 9 to OS X.
If the software is going from a single digit major version number to 10 and skipping several version numbers in between, don't expect import support of previous versions. It means that it is basically a new product. They started from scratch. FCP 7 to FCP X would be an example of this.
This means that FCP X is essentially FCP X Version 1.0. It is a new animal.
PS. I have been a software developer for approximately 15 years. I am involved in versioning decisions for the project my team works on. I'm not affiliated with Apple and the software I write runs on windows platforms but the versioning principles are pretty much universal.
Logical. Except as a program (not OS) - FCPX pretty much stands alone in its inability to import prior files created by its most recent version.
That's pretty much it. The transition for many really started about 2 years ago when FCP 7 shipped with minor features. The rumor mills all assumed Apple must be hard at work crafting a modern FCP that would be "awesome" (or that Apple was abandoning the pro market) so the most reasonable thing to do was wait until NAB and subsequently when FCP finally shipped. So really pros have been waiting 4 years (since FCP 6) for a modern version of FCP and what they got instead was this neutered version. So why would pros want to wait an indefinite amount of time for FCP X to "catch up" when modern solutions already exist?
Last edited:
You can be as polite as you want, I have been a developer for more than 20 years.
And yes, saying FCPX is a version 1.0 so it normal that it doesn't have a lot of things FCP7 had is only a excuse. Apple says it's the succesor of FCP7 not a new paradigm or new program.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; 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 thought they were pretty clear about it being a brand new thing.
You say successor, and that I'll agree with. Just as I am my dad's successor - not the same, but probably somewhat similar.
FCP X is not the older version of FCP, it is the brand spanking new successor. And yes, still quite wet behind it's ears. Here's hoping it'll grow up to make old man FCP7 and the rest of it's forefathers proud!
Oletros said:
I thought they were pretty clear about it being a brand new thing.
You say successor, and that I'll agree with. Just as I am my dad's successor - not the same, but probably somewhat similar.
FCP X is not the older version of FCP, it is the brand spanking new successor. And yes, still quite wet behind it's ears. Here's hoping it'll grow up to make old man FCP7 and the rest of it's forefathers proud!
What apple as done with FCP X is brileant.
I agree. Looking at the new FPC XML standard and APIs for FPC it is clear to me that Apple clearly put a lot of effort into creating a world class frame work for Final Cut Pro, something that was missing in past Final Cut APIs.
Based on the API I believe Apple has big things planed for Final Cut, the thing is, some of these "big plans" will come from Apple and Others from partnering with developers to create add ons that fill the gaps that Apple believes can be better addressed as a developer opportunity. This as always been the case with Final Cut, and in my view what makes Final Cut pro great. I think we'll more of this strategy in other pro products like Logic, OSX Server and Aperture.
I use to work for Avid, and I can tell you first hand, Avid's biggest drawback is that they try to develop everything in house; from the internal meridian boards and IO break-out boxes software features that are best left to a 3rd party developer.
I agree. Looking at the new FPC XML standard and APIs for FPC it is clear to me that Apple clearly put a lot of effort into creating a world class frame work for Final Cut Pro, something that was missing in past Final Cut APIs.
Based on the API I believe Apple has big things planed for Final Cut, the thing is, some of these "big plans" will come from Apple and Others from partnering with developers to create add ons that fill the gaps that Apple believes can be better addressed as a developer opportunity. This as always been the case with Final Cut, and in my view what makes Final Cut pro great. I think we'll more of this strategy in other pro products like Logic, OSX Server and Aperture.
I use to work for Avid, and I can tell you first hand, Avid's biggest drawback is that they try to develop everything in house; from the internal meridian boards and IO break-out boxes software features that are best left to a 3rd party developer.