Early Final Cut Pro X Response Mixed, Updates Coming

[milo]

Based on what we knew, I don't find that assumption very reasonable.

"What we knew" is what was linked from rumor sites. The average user isn't aware of that info and shouldn't have to snoop around just to find out about things like missing features and no backwards compatibility.

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

This.

And the "it's a totally different" app excuse doesn't fly. If it IS a totally different app, apple needs to tell users that since upgrading an app you're already using is a completely different experience than dumping the app you were using for something totally new. Especially since if it's a clean slate, might as well consider switching to another app (since that's what you're essentially doing anyway).

When people buy an app with the same name but a different version number, they expect an update to that same app, not a totally different one. And that includes opening old sessions.

 

[iBug2]

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.

Agreed. They need to break their secrecy and get the official word out on this.

But it's reasonable to assume that those features will be back. After all, what else are they gonna do except adding more features? Obviously this product won't be the last iteration of its kind, it's the first.

 

[iBug2]

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

That's the problem. This isn't an upgrade, it's a new app with the same name. Like Mac OS X was to Mac OS 9. Nothing alike.

 

[Reach]

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 never got to open my old Logic files when I got the new one for OSX. Granted, there were some versions in between.

 

[maclaptop]

They must do that. The only info about the missing feature set of Final Cut came from people under NDA and they couldn't specify exactly what was missing, due to NDA, and only said "it'll be missing some important stuff".

And it seemed like even though those articles were posted on macrumors page 1, many seemed to have missed them and purchased this app thinking that it'll work.

This is a very bad move for Apple, not informing people about stuff as important as "this doesn't open FCP 7 projects".

While it may be a bad move, let's not forget this is Apple. They are rarely held accountable for anything. They not only have the best marketing, but they have refined the art of finger pointing to the extreme.

 

[iBug2]

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.

That's the problem. I was also surprised to find out that people didn't know about the missing features, even people who visited macrumors since at least 4 different articles have been posted on this topic since March.

But even though it's surprising, you can't still blame the people for not paying attention to a rumor site for something Apple should have told them through official channels.

 

[iBug2]

While it may be a bad move, let's not forget this is Apple. They are rarely held accountable for anything. They not only have the best marketing, but they have refined the art of finger pointing to the extreme.

My gut is telling me that they are going to apologize on this in some form or another and it'd be great for them to give the next version of FCP X for free to the adopters of this release, exactly like they did with giving away Mac OS 10.1 to people who bought 10.0.

 

[milo]

After all, what else are they gonna do except adding more features?

Of course they'll add more features. But the question is whether they'll add the stripped out high end features or ones that pander to the prosumer market - will the FCS7 stuff come back or will it move farther in the iMovie "Pro" direction?

Like Mac OS X was to Mac OS 9.

But in that case, it was NOT the same product name. Apple made it completely clear it was a fresh start unlike this case where the product info makes it sound like an update to the existing app.

I never got to open my old Logic files when I got the new one for OSX. Granted, there were some versions in between.

You just said, there were versions in between, if you had those versions you could take one project through every version. I guess you can't think of an example?

 

[samcraig]

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)

No excuse. Period.

 

[iBug2]

But in that case, it was NOT the same product name. Apple made it completely clear it was a fresh start unlike this case where the product info makes it sound like an update to the existing app.

Of course it was the same product name. It was still called Mac OS. Instead of 9 you had an X. Here instead of 7 you have an X. The name change is done the same way.

And Randy made it clear during NAB that this was not Final Cut 8, and this was a new app. Whether or not that reached everyone is questionable, and I don't think that it did. Their webpage says "It's not just a different cut, it's a whole new production". It's vague but I don't see them marketing this as FCP 8.

In any case, they should have listed all that is missing on their webpage, and the App Store.

 

[samcraig]

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 said program not OS anyway. Show me a program version n and n+1 that wasn't backwards compatible. And as another said - the excuse this is a new app doesn't fly since they are using the fcp name. Few would be complaining if this was called iMovie X or iEdit or what have you. Fact is - to date - it has been mismarketed

 

[Truffy]

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 agree to an extent with your first point. To many professionals, many of the 'missing' features are not a deal-breaker.

But if you're in the major league film/broadcast industry (I'm not) then these omissions are deal-breakers. The problem is, if these people move on to other NLE, what becomes of Apple's flagship pro app?

I have no idea what the market breakdown is of the large shops vs. small operators, but if it no longer becomes economically viable for Apple to develop FCP further, everyone loses.

Like it or not, semantics aside, we're all in this together.

 

[iBug2]

I agree to an extent with your first point. To many professionals, many of the 'missing' features are not a deal-breaker.

But if you're in the major league film/broadcast industry (I'm not) then these omissions are deal-breakers. The problem is, if these people move on to other NLE, what becomes of Apple's flagship pro app?

I have no idea what the market breakdown is of the large shops vs. small operators, but if it no longer becomes economically viable for Apple to develop FCP further, everyone loses.

Like it or not, semantics aside, we're all in this together.

That's one of the important points which nobody mentions. What percentage of FCP userbase needs those features today is all that matters.

They know exactly what they omitted and they know exactly in which industries those omitted features are essential so it can't come as a shock to Apple when people started complaining yesterday. So they should have made up their plan according to this.

If they assume that this product, as it stands today, would sell, and sell well, that means a very small percentage needs those features and losing those people will not effect Apple, or the future of this product.

On the other hand if a considerable amount of users need these, then Apple's plans must include adding those features very quickly. Because otherwise, why go into trouble of such a rewrite, when they know that they can't sell this thing.

 

[iBug2]

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 said program not OS anyway. Show me a program version n and n+1 that wasn't backwards compatible. And as another said - the excuse this is a new app doesn't fly since they are using the fcp name. Few would be complaining if this was called iMovie X or iEdit or what have you. Fact is - to date - it has been mismarketed

More or less. I don't think changing the name matters. Because they didn't change the version to 8. If they changed the version to 8, then I'd agree with you.

But the mismarketing happened when they didn't announce the important missing stuff.

About a program, I can't think of any program, because what Apple did here is not common. And be careful, n to n+1 is not the case here. X is not 7+1.

 

[100Years]

People shouldn't be surprised by any of this...content creators are no longer a priority for Apple (and have not been for some time now); their focus has gone to content consumption (iPhone, iPad, iTouch, etc.).

I'm not saying that content creation will be forgotten about, but I would not expect Apple to give it any priority treatment.

 

[darthraige]

I don't know if "botch" is the word to use unless your every day work involves multi-cam productions...

Otherwise, just finish your current projects on FCP 7 and start your next on the new system and enjoy the new features and less micro-managing

It's not about that. It's more of now I gotta buy a graphics card for my MacPro before taking advantage of the new software. I want it mostly for rendering in the background.

 

[ZballZ]

Well, lots to be said about the new release, but I am sure we can all agree that the "export to facebook"-botton is an awesome addition!! As a pro editor this is a feature that I have been looking forward to with much anticipation! It also really underlines the "Pro" in the app !!

 

[Reach]

Well, lots to be said about the new release, but I am sure we can all agree that the "export to facebook"-botton is an awesome addition!! As a pro editor this is a feature that I have been looking forward to with much anticipation! It also really underlines the "Pro" in the app !!

lol I don't understand how Apple can't see that those kinds of things detract from pro apps.

Should have seen it coming though, Aperture was a pioneer when it came to that.

 

[iBug2]

Well, lots to be said about the new release, but I am sure we can all agree that the "export to facebook"-botton is an awesome addition!! As a pro editor this is a feature that I have been looking forward to with much anticipation! It also really underlines the "Pro" in the app !!

Nothing wrong with that. Pro apps are supposed to do things that consumer apps do to begin with. And of course they should do more. But not less. So if a consumer app has export to facebook option today, a pro app should have it as well.

 

[Reach]

Nothing wrong with that. Pro apps are supposed to do things that consumer apps do to begin with. So if a consumer app has export to facebook option today, a pro app should have it as well.

No! Apple is good at, and seems to take pride in, removing clutter.

Those damn buttons (for trash I can find in a menu if I need it) is clutter of the worst kind.

 

[kingtj]

Can't say I agree, exactly ....

There's NO justification in my mind for giving Final Cut Pro X a "1 star" review like so many people did. 1 star reviews should be reserved for apps that won't even run when you install them, or have SERIOUS problems so they don't do the things they claim to do in their menu selections when you try to do them.

On the other hand? Sure, it's obvious that quite a few professional/career video editors out there are missing features in this release that they require for what they do. In that respect, I wouldn't give this app a "5 star" rating either. Multi-cam support may be promised and "coming soon", but it's not here now -- meaning at least knock a star off the rating to give back when it arrives.

Unlike some people, I never really cared for Apple's differentiation between "Pro" apps and "Express" versions of the same apps. As far as I'm concerned, if you had to code all the stuff into the full-blown "Pro" version already, why not just sell it at an affordable price so everyone can get their hands on it, and design it intelligently enough so people who don't NEED all those features can basically hide them and use the rest of the program? It's stupid trying to maintain two releases of the same core product and putting some folks in a situation where they're re-buying a lot of the same code if they decide to "step up" from Express to Pro.

I think maybe, this is where Apple is trying to go with FCP X, and if so, I applaud them!

Posted my review on the App Store: I am sure I agree with all the negative comments. As a young aspiring editor eager to learn, even I feel like this app was written for consumers and not professional editors. It feels more like iMovie Pro. I have so many fundamental issues with the structural build of this program. The UI is not the problem! The changed shortcuts are not the problem! Its the beams in the concrete that are pulling this application down. Hopefully others feel sane enough to explain the details. While I am still eager to learn new tools, this release only encourages my inevitable purchase of Avid. Apple has a lot of work to do!! I am not sure how they can pull themselves out of this whole. Unless their plan all along was to make a product for consumers.

Also, various comments all over other forums and my blog. So disappointed...the more I think about it, the more I realize they are marketing this towards consumers. It was built for consumers. But what does this mean for all of us loyal FCP editors? We jump ship?

 

[iBug2]

No! Apple is good at, and seems to take pride in, removing clutter.

Those damn buttons (for trash I can find in a menu if I need it) is clutter of the worst kind.

Don't think export to facebook actually adds clutter to FCP X.

 

[Reach]

Don't think export to facebook actually adds clutter to FCP X.

I assumed it was a button on the main interface since the guy was complaining. If it's hidden somewhere clever that's fine.

If you know Aperture you'll know what I mean with those damn buttons being clutter. (Yes, I can remove them thank god, but I still don't like Apple putting them there. )

 

[kingtj]

re: loading previous versions' data

Valid point, but I'm also struggling to think of other applications I've used that have less of a NEED to ever import old/finished work than I'd have with something like FCP X?

I mean, obviously, if you need to re-use actual video clips that you saved someplace on a drive, FCP X is going to import them again for you - so kind of a non-issue there. Otherwise, simply don't switch software versions in the middle of a project (and it has NO problem with you installing BOTH FCP X and a previous version simultaneously on the same Mac).

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

 

[filtatos]

?

This is a joke!

There aren't "missing features"; this is a software designed for another
"target group". I don't think that apple developers are stupid. Color is dead
and your old plugins for color correction are dead. OMF export is dead.
Non customizable media organization, non customizable audio tracks.
You cannot open old projects. Event Library!!!???

OK, we got the message...