Final Cut Pro X and the App Store? Non-Commercial?

[britboyj]

So FCPX will be a $299 download from the App Store.

That's great and all (unless you have a bandwidth cap from your ISP) but part of the reason I was told Aperture is only $79 and not $199 was that part of the T&C for the Mac App store stipulates that programs downloaded through it are for personal use only.

If you wanted to use the software for commercial use, you needed to buy the $199 version and those of us actually making money, filing taxes and keeping things on the up-and-up, we had to buy the full version.

So how will this with with Final Cut X? It's clearly WAY cheaper than it was before, almost stupidly so if it's part of studio.* Will there be a different version for those of us who aren't just making videos of kids' soccer games?

Thoughts or more info from anyone there?

*It's possible that FCPX will replace Final Cut Express at this price and be stand-alone and Studio will come in bigger, more expensive box.

 

[martinX]

That sounds like this:

MAC APP STORE PRODUCT USAGE RULES

Except as otherwise set forth herein,

(i) You may download and use an application from the Mac App Store (“Mac App Store Product”) for personal, non-commercial use on any Apple-branded products running Mac OS X (“Mac Computer”) that you own or control.
​

However the next paragraph is this:

(ii) If you are a commercial enterprise or educational institution, you may download a Mac App Store Product for use either (a) by a single individual on each of the Mac Computer(s) that you own or control, or (b) by multiple individuals on a single shared Mac Computer that you own or control. For example, a single employee may use a Mac App Store Product on both the employee’s desktop Mac Computer and laptop Mac Computer, or multiple students may serially use the Product on a single Mac Computer located at a resource center or library.​

Personal: put it on as many Macs as you control (so all your Macs on a home network would be a typical scenario)
Commercial: (1 Mac, many employees) per application licence OR (1 employee, two Macs {1 desktop + 1 laptop}) per application licence

What is newish is that a downloaded app cannot be transferred/sold/etc to someone else. You buy it, you own it. Forever. I say newish because companies have put stuff like that in EULAs for ages but it was difficult to legally enforce because people had a physical product and if they sold it, they just had to hand it over. Now with a downloaded app it's different because it is tied to your computer/account. So not only is transferring difficult, but Apple has the means to prevent an app working on someone else's Mac.

You may not rent, lease, lend, sell, transfer redistribute, or sublicense the Licensed Application and, if you sell your Mac Computer or iOS Device to a third party, you must remove the Licensed Application from the Mac Computer or iOS Device before doing so.​

 

[britboyj]

Interesting. So if a video editing house wanted to install FCPX for three different employees, a laptop and desktop for both, they'd have to buy them all $299 +tax gift cards and tie them to the employees' Apple IDs... At least, that's how I connect the legalese to what I know of the Mac App Store...

Interesting indeed. Nice education caveat. I do enjoy that, though Journalism departments will need one Apple ID per machine??? I wonder if there's still hard copies for Volume Licenses...

 

[martinX]

Interesting. So if a video editing house wanted to install FCPX for three different employees, a laptop and desktop for both, they'd have to buy them all $299 +tax gift cards and tie them to the employees' Apple IDs... At least, that's how I connect the legalese to what I know of the Mac App Store...

Sounds about right. Right now, that's what you can do with FCS3 but it just costs a lot more.

But seriously, Apple's not going to check who is using what and when.

 

[Blipp]

Interesting. So if a video editing house wanted to install FCPX for three different employees, a laptop and desktop for both, they'd have to buy them all $299 +tax gift cards and tie them to the employees' Apple IDs... At least, that's how I connect the legalese to what I know of the Mac App Store...

You are correct for the current state of the App Store but based on some comments the Apple reps made during an iOS conference I went to a few weeks back they are actively working on a solution for bulk licensing to businesses and enterprises. I'm sure in the end everything will still get tied to an AppleID but it will instead be a corporate AppleID that legally owns all the copies of FCP and can distribute them as they see fit. Currently as soon as an editor leaves the studio if the FCP license was tied to his AppleID then legally he owns it regardless of who paid the bill.

 

[britboyj]

Sounds about right. Right now, that's what you can do with FCS3 but it just costs a lot more.

But seriously, Apple's not going to check who is using what and when.

They may not, but any business owner or production house doesn't want any sort of trouble with anyone for not keeping to the EULA.

Oh and Microsoft has an entire department that makes visits to Enterprise customers and checks on their license usage... Apple probably has something similar.

 

[zblaxberg]

Keep in mind the release of FCP X is not quite official. That was a sneak peak if you will and they have stated that there is more to come about the entire suite. Also just because it is on the Mac App store doesn't mean they won't sell it on DVD.

 

[martinX]

Oh and Microsoft has an entire department that makes visits to Enterprise customers and checks on their license usage... Apple probably has something similar.

Wouldn't want to visit my work...

It's not that we don't pay for licences, but the IT department's management and accounting for these licences is completely screwed up. We have gone from "You buy the physical media and hold on to it" to "You buy the physical media and we'll hold on to it" to "We'll install it over the network, but we'll keep a record of who owns what".

In each case, no-one knows where stuff is after about 2 years. Part of the problem is people coming and going (does the SW go with the person?), positions coming and going (does the new position need the SW?)and PCs being upgraded and stuff not being reinstalled (the SW was tied to an asset number ... which no longer exists).

 

[Blipp]

Wouldn't want to visit my work...

It's not that we don't pay for licences, but the IT department's management and accounting for these licences is completely screwed up. We have gone from "You buy the physical media and hold on to it" to "You buy the physical media and we'll hold on to it" to "We'll install it over the network, but we'll keep a record of who owns what".

In each case, no-one knows where stuff is after about 2 years. Part of the problem is people coming and going (does the SW go with the person?), positions coming and going (does the new position need the SW?)and PCs being upgraded and stuff not being reinstalled (the SW was tied to an asset number ... which no longer exists).

Actually I bet they'd love to visit your work as the burden of proof is on you. If you can only verify 50 copies and the rest are lost in a mess of unreliable paperwork they'll have no problem what-so-ever charging you to sure-up the rest of your licenses.