What a let down... I don't give flying **** about Apple re-writing FCP if it sends fcp back to 2002 feature set. Actually, even back then FCP could do RS422... Apple should sell FCP to someone who actually cares about FCP and its original intended user base.
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.
Early Final Cut Pro X Response Mixed, Updates Coming
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is not a major upgrade. This is a new app. Don't know if there has been anything like this before in NLE world. Certainly not with Premiere or Avid. They all iterated the code so far and haven't done something like this.
Good point. And I think this is the point everyone should be focusing today.
Although one thing to consider:
If someone is going to switch, over this, why not switch two days ago? If the other product is better than FCPX and justifies a switch, that means it's better than FCP 7 also. So why was that person using FCP 7 and not the other product?
One possible answer: They were waiting for Apple to upgrade the suite.
But that means that people don't use the "best" software out there, and they wait, even years. But that means they can wait a little more for Apple to add features to FCP X as well.
So I don't think we'll see many switchers over this.
With that definition, FCP X is not a professional app.
But guess what, neither was FCP 1 or 2, or 3.
That being said, different people will have different definitions of professional, and some definitions will be compatible with FCP X while some won't be. For an independent filmmaker professional is what suits his needs. For someone in broadcast industry professional is what suits his needs, which are completely different, yet they use the same software.
Of course people waited. Apple announced at NAB that they had something worth waiting for.
Apple is legendary for controlling the image they present, and as such they created the expectation that FCPX was for "professional" editors, but the Reality Distortion Field is not working.
FCPX will make Apple a shipload of $$$. IMO, it's because Apple went for the easy win and bottom-line. I can tell you many people I have worked with were personally influenced and moved into the world of Apple because they saw it working for the professional user, the person who counts on it working.
As you mentioned earlier, semantics. Sure it works for the editor who works alone, and is completely self-contained. But after that?
That's what I'm saying. Waiting is always an option and switching is not necessary. Right now FCP 7 isn't useless compared to Premiere or Avid. So people will keep using it, and some will switch to FCP X and some will switch to Premiere or Avid, which is no big deal.
I don't think FCP X will make Apple a ******** of $$$. At best, it'll make Apple the same amount of $$$ as the previous versions did. Whether that was ******** or not, I don't know. I don't think that's relevant either.
Does there have to be something after that?
My point is, the word professional shouldn't be used at all, since it's too vague and means something different for different people.
The only important thing is whether or not this app suits you, not whether or not this app can be called professional or not. The former actually has a value, the latter is simply semantics. Who cares whether this app is "called" professional or not?
But, there are so many things in FCP7 that were not working that editor really wanted this to be the answer for them. That's why there is all the backlash right now. Even Apple knows of the things that were probelematic with FCP7 and specifically mentioned them in their presentation at NAB, apparently to convince the "pro", let's say "committed" folks that this was for them.
So when people find out that the priority is iMovie & iPhone import, Youtube & Vimeo export, etc, but no way to open a previous project, functionally export to another app, etc, it's a letdown.
Awful analogy. You really think the different parts of a music production are comparable to an audio guy trying to do the post mix for a feature film in FCS? It makes perfect sense to do a music recording fully in pro tools. But expecting sound guys to have to learn FCX to try and do sound design and mixing in that? Not gonna happen. Not to mention that there's no way FCX has all the audio features that were in STP (which wasn't even that advanced an audio app).
Tell me about it!
Sadly, the things that the pros on this forum were talking about have all but shown up in the Beta version of FCPX
Missing features, unfamiliar interface, missing asset management structure, lack of plugin support, lack of backwards compatibility, and lost time for serious cutters.
Now, that's not to say that it will remain that way, we all know there will be .1 and .2 releases that fix such issues. For now, I will keep my $400 for the entire suite and wait until Studio 3 really starts showing its age . . . . oh.
Does there have to be something after that?
My point is, the word professional shouldn't be used at all, since it's too vague and means something different for different people.
The only important thing is whether or not this app suits you, not whether or not this app can be called professional or not. The former actually has a value, the latter is simply semantics. Who cares whether this app is "called" professional or not?
I'm not here to define the word "pro". But you may be right when you say "does there have to be something after that?", and perhaps this is Apple way of walking away from anyone who needs more than that, some might call it the "pro" market.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
The first screen that pops up asks to import iMovie stuff. Am I wrong? That alone annoys professionals. Especially since it doesn't load FCP7 files.
The first screen that pops up asks to import iMovie stuff. Am I wrong? That alone annoys professionals. Especially since it doesn't load FCP7 files.
Yes, that would annoy the ******* outta me in an instant. Nothing says Tonka toy like popups related to consumer, freebie apps.
LMAO at some of you.....
I started on an Amiga with a card from applied magic and a effect-tool called ADPro
then came the Perception with Speed Razor
then came Liquid / Fast
then came Edius
then came FCP 6+7
Everytime the industry evolved, everytime the shooting environment evolved (from analog tape to digital tape to tapeless which I started in 2006)
FCP 7 is the WORST of all these editors for its time. It is a programme written for 2005, the time when I last used tapes. it is NOT INTUITIV at all. the reason I used it was the Studio-Bundle and the fact that EVERYONE uses FCP in a midlevel production here. So to be compatible I had to live with FCP.
FCPX is so refreshing. It takes some good bits of FCP and iMovie, but adds stuff we will need in the future. Background rendering was available on Amigas in 1996 and on the PC in FAST/Liquid in 1998!!!
No new program does everything like the other, and every program finds a way to do everything. You just need to find your way and that takes months. Nobody can expect to turn on FCP-X and work away. You will be searching for your tools, but they are there.
The only problem is for people who are still living in a tape world, and there are many of those still out there. These people can only hope for a 3rd party solution and I can understand their frustration.
But the rest can dive in. And stop the moaning, you pay 299, that is a joke. You have gameconsoles that cost more than that.....
I started on an Amiga with a card from applied magic and a effect-tool called ADPro
then came the Perception with Speed Razor
then came Liquid / Fast
then came Edius
then came FCP 6+7
Everytime the industry evolved, everytime the shooting environment evolved (from analog tape to digital tape to tapeless which I started in 2006)
FCP 7 is the WORST of all these editors for its time. It is a programme written for 2005, the time when I last used tapes. it is NOT INTUITIV at all. the reason I used it was the Studio-Bundle and the fact that EVERYONE uses FCP in a midlevel production here. So to be compatible I had to live with FCP.
FCPX is so refreshing. It takes some good bits of FCP and iMovie, but adds stuff we will need in the future. Background rendering was available on Amigas in 1996 and on the PC in FAST/Liquid in 1998!!!
No new program does everything like the other, and every program finds a way to do everything. You just need to find your way and that takes months. Nobody can expect to turn on FCP-X and work away. You will be searching for your tools, but they are there.
The only problem is for people who are still living in a tape world, and there are many of those still out there. These people can only hope for a 3rd party solution and I can understand their frustration.
But the rest can dive in. And stop the moaning, you pay 299, that is a joke. You have gameconsoles that cost more than that.....
wow. Exact same response as when Apple rolled out iMovie '08.
The die-hard iMovie power users were very upset with new UI, missing features, lack of 3rd party plugin support and overall "downgrade" of the well established and well loved app.
Now, I'm not sure how many will admit it, but iMovie '11 has pretty much brought the app back to feature parity with the old version, minus the 3rd party plugins.
Apple would have been much better off renaming the app but they stuck to their guns. Same thing here. This is the next FCP. It's not an upgrade to FCP 7. I think the comparisons to Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X 10.1 are valid.
I see the same thing happening here with FCP X. But, time will tell. I do see Apple adding back the features that true Pros are missing. But, it will take time. It would be hard to believe they spent the resources to make this drastic overhaul to entire new architecture to abandon the Pro market.
They could have just added a few features to iMovie and called it iMovie Pro and been done with it.
Apple seems to have bought into Randy's new vision for the future of editing. Let's give it some time to see what develops. For the next 12 months that may mean continue with an 'ok' but legacy FCP 7 where needed and start learning/playing with FCP X.
The die-hard iMovie power users were very upset with new UI, missing features, lack of 3rd party plugin support and overall "downgrade" of the well established and well loved app.
Now, I'm not sure how many will admit it, but iMovie '11 has pretty much brought the app back to feature parity with the old version, minus the 3rd party plugins.
Apple would have been much better off renaming the app but they stuck to their guns. Same thing here. This is the next FCP. It's not an upgrade to FCP 7. I think the comparisons to Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X 10.1 are valid.
I see the same thing happening here with FCP X. But, time will tell. I do see Apple adding back the features that true Pros are missing. But, it will take time. It would be hard to believe they spent the resources to make this drastic overhaul to entire new architecture to abandon the Pro market.
They could have just added a few features to iMovie and called it iMovie Pro and been done with it.
Apple seems to have bought into Randy's new vision for the future of editing. Let's give it some time to see what develops. For the next 12 months that may mean continue with an 'ok' but legacy FCP 7 where needed and start learning/playing with FCP X.
That kind of stuff is certainly annoying, and makes it feel somewhat amateurish. Not that it's a huge problem, but it kind of sets the tone, yes.
I have the same issue with the Flickr, Facebook etc. junk they have in the toolbars in Aperture. Not a huge problem, but having such junk featured so prominently makes people think a little less "pro" about the software imo.
We'll have to see if they're actually able to sell it first, before making that claim.
Looking at how many silly people there are out there - people that buy an application without even bothering to read about what it can do - I'd say that won't be a huge problem.
I wonder how this can even be? Does the App store make people believe they are on the iPhone buying crap for 0.99$?! Who just clicks "Buy!!!!" on a 299$ piece of software the first second it comes without even bothering to read a little bit about it? If Apple instituted an IQ-test, or at the very least a mandatory cool-down period and "Are you sure you want to buy this application?"-prompt, I'm sure the number of 1-star reviews would be drastically lower.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Apple didn't state what core features were missing and still haven't on their website. Want to lay blame? Blame Apple for not communicating properly with the customers they profess to love so much.
Reach said:We'll have to see if they're actually able to sell it first, before making that claim.
Looking at how many silly people there are out there - people that buy an application without even bothering to read about what it can do - I'd say that won't be a huge problem.
I wonder how this can even be? Does the App store make people believe they are on the iPhone buying crap for 0.99$?! Who just clicks "Buy!!!!" on a 299$ piece of software the first second it comes without even bothering to read a little bit about it? If Apple instituted an IQ-test, or at the very least a mandatory cool-down period and "Are you sure you want to buy this application?"-prompt, I'm sure the number of 1-star reviews would be drastically lower.
Apple didn't state what core features were missing and still haven't on their website. Want to lay blame? Blame Apple for not communicating properly with the customers they profess to love so much.
Last edited by a moderator:
Because two days ago the hope existed that there would be an upgrade that would improve things and not take away features without which people can't get their work done.
People keep saying that features will be added, and soon. At this point nobody knows which features will be added back and if so, when that will happen. It's entirely possible that Apple will be happy with the prosumer market and never add features back, leaving those customers to move on to other software.
IF apple is planning on adding them back, they can announce that and even say what their goal timeline is. Without that, the whole notion of "hey, it will be fine in six months" is just vaporware and wishful thinking.
People who make the perfectly reasonable assumption that a brand new version of their favorite app is at least going to contain the functionality of the previous version?
If they are going to take features OUT of any app, they should make it extremely obvious what the limitations are. And as far as I'm concerned, they should give refunds to anyone who asks for them based on not knowing that features were removed and particularly that it can't open projects from the previous version.
Based on what we knew, I don't find that assumption very reasonable. All indication pointed to some key issues making this application unsuitable for real production work. That to me meant that I resisted the urge to buy, and researched what the application actually contained.
That goes for everyone that actually frequent Macforums or similar forums, and have followed the news since word about the upcoming release got out.
For the others, the people completely oblivious to everything being said before hand, the case is somewhat different, if Apple actually has led people to believe that things like Multiclip etc. are in this version. I haven't really read the info from Apple, so I'm not sure what they have said.
Anyway, it is clearly an issue for the people that simply assumed that this would be a straight-forward jump from FCP7, but I'm not as sure who is to blame for this issue. Apple has clearly communicated that this is a fresh start and all that, and the customer must surely have some responsibility for actually checking what they buy? I may be crazy, but I never buy stuff like this until I have got some feedback from reviewers and the (crazy?
) early adopters.They weren't lying. Many of the things in FCP 7 have been greatly improved in FCP X and doing a lot of the important stuff is much easier in this app.
What they omitted, which they shouldn't have done, is what's missing in dot zero release, and give a possible roadmap that when those missing things would be included.
Well, that someone probably would be wrong.
Final Cut Pro 7 and the previous releases were extremely popular with a variety of markets, not all of them would be considered "pro" with that definition, and FCP X might be suitable today on several of those markets while being not suitable for the rest.
Nobody has the numbers here so we don't know what percentage of FCP 7 users needed those missing features and what percentage didn't.
This product, as it stands today, definitely is not for everyone. But it might be for more people than before due to the new price point, and it'll get better quite fast I believe. It's possible that in a year, this'll be everything everyone dreamed off.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
I'm struggling to think of any software update/upgrade that wasn't or isn't backwards compatible at launch. Maybe someone can shed some light on that. What Program has been updated that will not load a previous versions data
I'm struggling to think of any software update/upgrade that wasn't or isn't backwards compatible at launch. Maybe someone can shed some light on that. What Program has been updated that will not load a previous versions data