Final Cut Pro Trademark Update Suggests Apple Eyeing Future Subscription Model

[andrew-gw]

I would be curious. If you can attach both the Word 1.0 document file, and the print output file, I will try to print it here and try to open it with a current version of Word. Please try to include several fonts, and ideally an image or two. If you cannot attach the files here, send me a private message and I will send you my email address.

First I think we should discuss the issue of my fee… this is starting to sound like work!

Again, as I pointed out before, an HFS file image cannot be read directly by a current macOS system. The further back one goes, the less likely one is to have the ability to read old formats

This really has no relation to the subscription argument. I read a file from my Mac SE just fine.

No. When you say that Word 1.0 runs on a 5K iMac, are you claiming that you can run the 68K system 6 application natively on a 5K iMac, or that someone has written an emulator that will run that code on the iMac? If it is the latter, it is just an example of a different way of saying that applications need to be updated.

This is getting extremely picky. It runs on the latest hardware. The application doesn't need to be updated either to run natively, or to be emulated. In both cases, the original Word 1.0 binary is running as originally authored, and working as expected.

Either way, without someone maintaining it, it is no longer useable.

I feel that I've in no uncertain terms demonstrated this to be false. My Macintosh SE runs Word 1.0 and that version has not been updated in 30 years, unless the maintenance fairy has been applying patches in my sleep. I used it. It is usable.

However, for those of us that want more the applications to continue to improve, letting the applications directly fund their future development is the best way to ensure that happens. With no direct revenue stream, these products futures are left to someone deciding that there is a marketing reason to maintain them.

Paying $399.99 CAD for Final Cut Pro, not to even mention the $8,000 up front for the hardware it runs on, is "no direct revenue stream"? If only there were a more direct way to fund these poor, floundering apps from the world's richest company, perhaps through the inner ear…

This is the luxury car of computers! I switched to a Mac precisely to get away from this garbage. If I see a single tiered pricing plan screen in Logic, I'm switching to Linux. The software is all terrible, but at least I'd own it.

 

[Seoras]

^ What you said

V what Apple hears:

"I LOVE subscription software"

Good. I'm all for it. I added the bit, that you think Apple won't pay attention to, to explain to those who don't get it - like you.

 

[evatar]

God, there are so many astroturfers on this thread it's depressing. Either that or 110% morons. And I can't tell which is worse.

 

[sublunar]

God, there are so many astroturfers on this thread it's depressing. Either that or 110% morons. And I can't tell which is worse.

Not exactly certain what 'astroturfing' means even after looking it up, but there's a lot of entitled folks in this thread for sure who think that paying for a licence to software in 2011 means they will be entitled to bug fixes and feature packs for all eternity and will happily keep trying to make their old software work even at the detriment of a lot of other things. I would normally have gone through the entire thread to make sure that any points I made have already been addressed or not and I agree with your statements - but wow it's heavy reading.

In the end, there has to be a happy medium to ensure that developers get a steady income stream to fund their ongoing business - which will inevitably involve maintenance bug fixes - but where's the incentive to add new features if the only income you get is from new users?

Ultimately I think this situation is in part due to the way that the App Store is built (no 'traditional' version upgrade fees for pre-existing software for example, Apple taking a cut of in-app purchases, the way software is built not making it practical to add 'feature packs' that are activated through such in-app purchases).

Let's take Adobe as an example. They have long deprecated their old Creative Suite series of software in favour of the Creative Cloud. The old CS activation servers (another bugbear of certain people in this thread) were stopped a while back and there was for a time a site where you download aversion of the old CS software which didn't phone home (no home to phone to) on the understanding that you were originally licensed for it but were on your own in terms of getting it to work on your computer as OSes updated over time.

In the end, there will come a Windows or macOS patch that will break this software (if it hasn't already), but is it really advisable to be using old software on an old OS which might have been patched to address zero day vulnerabilities?

Let's look at Davinci Resolve - frequently quoted in here - the free version isn't the same as the Studio version which is paid for. Yes, the Studio version appears to be a lifetime licence too but Davinci also sell editing hardware etc and they'll have a user base who alreadygotten used to using the free version.

For Apple, iMovie may be free but I doubt many people are going to make the jump to FCPX because they know how to use the software - and at $300 it's not cheap for the hobbyist.

Note, you can export from iMovie (which is free) to Final Cut Pro - which is currently a one time licence payment) - but I understand that iMovie to FCPX may be quite a leap for users.

For some people iMovie is too simplistic and different to FCPX to offer an upgrade path for users.

I would say if Final Cut Pro was going to go subscription what they might be planning is to put the current version on semi maintenance mode - bug fixes only and compatibility features with iMovie and upper versions which I am about to go into.

Apple could therefore create a Final Cut iCloud edition (for want of a better marketing name) which would include Compressor 'Pro' and Motion 'Pro' plus 1Tb of iCloud (Pro) storage.

1. The software would be rewritten with future ARM CPUs in mind for even better performance in the areas that matter. At the moment Apple probably need to go that way for the current FCP but they only get money from new users under the current App Store model.

2. Base version (free) would allow a subset of basic uses including loading and saving/export - thus making data safer for people who want out (or in). People who are only making iMovie level simple edits may get away with using this - and Apple then have a bigger user base to upgrade to the subscription version in the future. You get Compressor and Motion functions only when subscribing.

3. Not sure how feasible this would be but offering a semi-lite mode in the software, activating more features for people who have an FCPX App Store licence (for no extra payment) might drag more people in to have a look.

4. Like Office 365 and Adobe CC, throwing in some Cloud storage will make certain users happier about subscribing on the value for money principle - you then have the ability to assume that every user can then collaborate on projects in iCloud. I would like to see an iCloud Pro service that has the level of granular control that One Drive offers. Let's not forget that Apple are quietly hiring Cloud engineers - it's not the kind of news that most Apple watchers take an interest in but perhaps something to keep an eye on given their recent efforts.

The upshot of this is more users of the free version who have an upgrade path to paid for subscription software which comes with:

a. Cloud Storage
b. Compressor and Motion next generation
c. More frequent feature packs and bug fixes.
d. Some of these features flow into the fully paid for FCPX.

The important thing here is how pricing is taken. Look at Adobe who created the Photography Suite to recognise hobbyists who wanted to use Photoshop and Lightroom but baulked at the likely cost (Master Suite packages are something like $20 a month individually and closer to $100 a month for everything - clearly meant for professionals who can claim that back on their tax return).

So you can buy Photoshop and Lightroom for $10 a month with a small amount of CC storage and that's acceptable to many.

You can also get 5 user licences of MS Office, each user getting 1Tb of One Drive storage for $80 a year. That's great value compared to Apple's stingy iCloud offering (Pages, Keynote, and Numbers is free).

So my argument would therefore be for Apple to make the value proposition for a subscription model affordable for their targeted user base - people who have outgrown iMovie and might be looking to switch to alternatives because FCPX is too expensive or not being developed.

Is $14.99 a month for FCP/Motion/Compressor including 1Tb iCloud storage reasonable for example? Some of those users may already be paying for Cloud storage so may be able to justify the expense.

Let's not forget that Apple abandoned the Aperture software years ago and part of this could have been because the old App Store model may have encouraged sales at the cheaper price but didn't encourage further development because there's no infinite user base to keep buying Aperture for the first time. I was sad to read at the end of Aperture's time that there were only a couple of guys maintaining it for the annual macOS upgrades.

 

[evatar]

Not exactly certain what 'astroturfing' means even after looking it up

Astroturfing = professional trolls.

There is *nothing* keeping Apple from evolving the App Store to incorporate paid upgrades. But the bean counters have decided that subscriptions will make more money in the long run than paid upgrades, so here we are.

 

[MiniD3]

Apple has amended its trademark for Final Cut Pro, its professional high-end video editing software, in a way that suggests it could be planning to turn the now one-time payment model for the software into a subscription.

As reported by Patently Apple, on Monday, Apple added a Nice Classification #42 listing to its Final Cut Pro trademark in Europe. The Class 42 identification is listed as including software as a service (SaaS), or a platform as a service (PaaS). For context, Microsoft Office 365, which is based on a monthly or yearly subscription, includes the same Class 42 listing for its suite of software.

Final Cut Pro is currently sold for $300 and is used widely by professional videographers, YouTubers, and content makers. Potentially changing the price and payment model into a monthly, or yearly subscription could entice even more customers to use the software. If Apple is planning the subscription route, it'll likely include more than simply the software itself.

With a subscription, Apple theoretically could offer subscribers access to original content, such as in-depth tutorials, walkthroughs, or exclusive videos/sessions with prominent video makers who use Final Cut Pro as part of their workflow.

Whether Apple takes the route is unknown, however, the pure nature of the updated trademark is rather telling. Apple over the years has launched a number of new services, the most recent being Apple Fitness+. The momentum is not slowing down, however. Apple is reportedly eyeing to launch a new podcast subscription service that would offer listeners exclusive and original content.

Article Link: Final Cut Pro Trademark Update Suggests Apple Eyeing Future Subscription Model

Wow................that is a shock
Down here in Australia I just paid $499 for FCP...........!
I guess I may have made a bad investment?
...........Gary

 

[WouterduToit]

I think what's happening here is the aim to take the pro workflows to the cloud. You'll be able to buy the software, but the cloud storage that is shared with others, like colorists, motion graphics artists and clients, will be subscription. It's just a hunch, but it might be iCloud Pro.