iMovie '08 Was Originally Called 'First Cut', Ubillos on Final Cut Pro X

[AidenShaw]

that was ten years ago - look where final cut pro is now - and then imagine where FCPX will be in a few years.

I don't think many people are arguing that - the problem is that FCPX is not a new 1.0 product.

It's the latest version of Final Cut. But it's an awesome disapointment compared to the previous version for many users.

What do people using Final Cut today do for the next 5 to 10 years for FCPX to grow up?

 

[linuxcooldude]

I don't think many people are arguing that - the problem is that FCPX is not a new 1.0 product.

It's the latest version of Final Cut. But it's an awesome disapointment compared to the previous version for many users.

What do people using Final Cut today do for the next 5 to 10 years for FCPX to grow up?

Not from a software developers point of view. Totally rewritten in Cocoa, 64 bit, using grand central, using a new AV framework similar what iOS uses. Its about as close to a 1.0 as you can get.

 

[GoKyu]

The real tragedy here is if Apple thinks all the anger over FCP X is just about that particular software, and not the growing fear over the last few years that pro apps and gear are a fading priority for Apple. For instance:

<Lots of excellent examples>

You might want to forward a copy of this to the heads of the company so that at least they're made aware of what people really think...and really need.

 

[cmaier]

Not from a software developers point of view. Totally rewritten in Cocoa, 64 bit, using grand central, using a new AV framework similar what iOS uses. Its about as close to a 1.0 as you can get.

The customers aren't software developers, so while true, that's irrelevant.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Not from a software developers point of view. Totally rewritten in Cocoa, 64 bit, using grand central, using a new AV framework similar what iOS uses. Its about as close to a 1.0 as you can get.

Maybe but Apple still messed this one up.
Code wise it is 1.0 product but from a design stand point and for users it is what the 8th or 10 gen product.
Even from a software dev point of view they should have the basic design lock down and know what features were going to need to be in there.
With those lacking features is a pretty big failure because they had the research in place on what pros use.

I believe FCPX proves that Apple is leaving the pro market and going prosumer and consumer market. Apple just choosing not to compete in that area as it can not take one of the top dog spots. It being kicked out due to its lagging behind and this just more to the boot.

FCPX is great for the prosumers and clearly it was designed with that group in mind.

 

[linuxcooldude]

The customers aren't software developers, so while true, that's irrelevant.

How so?

Even from a software dev point of view they should have the basic design lock down and know what features were going to need to be in there.

And FCP X is the basic design they have decided to start with. New features have already been implemented with some older features yet to be implemented.

 

[cmaier]

How so?

It's apple's choice to start from scratch. Customers don't buy a product because apple started from scratch - they buy it because of expectations of what it will do for them. And from that perspective, it's not a 1.0 product - the customers expected this product to have benefited from the lessons Apple learned in all the previous versions, and to improve on them. And it's reasonable for the customers to have assumed that, since apple kept the same name.

If apple wanted to start from scratch and discourage expectations that FCP X is an IMPROVEMENT over prior versions and encourage expectations that this is a 1.0 product, they should have changed the name.

 

[MattInOz]

It's apple's choice to start from scratch. Customers don't buy a product because apple started from scratch - they buy it because of expectations of what it will do for them. And from that perspective, it's not a 1.0 product - the customers expected this product to have benefited from the lessons Apple learned in all the previous versions, and to improve on them. And it's reasonable for the customers to have assumed that, since apple kept the same name.

If apple wanted to start from scratch and discourage expectations that FCP X is an IMPROVEMENT over prior versions and encourage expectations that this is a 1.0 product, they should have changed the name.

Exactly the onus was on Apple to articulate what this new product is or was meant to be. Yes it's their prerogative to do a reboot but they needed to be clear about it being a new thing not a replacement thing. If they treated this like the OS --> OSX transition much of the noise would have been mute.

We'd be left with what has become the background conversation of the Craftsmen saying "This is going to be amazing" and the people who support them "Yes but it isn't the system we need to deliver".

I do wonder if it would have all been very different if they treated FCPX as the base of a developer platform instead of as a piece of software.

Noting I say this not as a film person but as a designer in another industry who has growth far to use to software versions breaking, changing stuff without enough warning (all CAD vendors are guilty of this) because the technology got ahead of them.

 

[linuxcooldude]

It's apple's choice to start from scratch.

Yes, its Apples company, they put up the money & take the risks.

Customers don't buy a product because apple started from scratch - they buy it because of expectations of what it will do for them.

iPhone, iPad, iPod, itunes music store all started from scratch and look how far that went and is still going.

If apple wanted to start from scratch and discourage expectations that FCP X is an IMPROVEMENT over prior versions and encourage expectations that this is a 1.0 product, they should have changed the name.

Always about the name? A name only labels the product. Any type of change people will still not like it. People will think and believe what they want too regardless of the name they call it now.

 

[cmaier]

Yes, its Apples company, they put up the money & take the risks.



iPhone, iPad, iPod, itunes music store all started from scratch and look how far that went and is still going.



Always about the name? A name only labels the product. Any type of change people will still not like it. People will think and believe what they want too regardless of the name they call it now.

Look, it's entirely about expectations. No product is judged other than by whether it does what it is expected to do. People don't care about what it may do someday - they care about whether it does what they expect it to do now.

And this started by someone pointing out this isn't a 1.0 product. The response was "yes it is." And the point is "no it's not." And the reason it's not is because they kept the name, and therefore, with respect to the expectations of the buying public it is not a 1.0 product.

If Microsoft came out with a new word processor and called it "Microsoft Word 2012," but because they re-wrote it from scratch with all sorts of fancy new techniques it was no more functional than TextEdit, you can bet the product would be a failure. And the reason it would be a failure is because it wouldn't meet the expectations for the umpteenth version of Microsoft Word. If, instead, they named it "Microsoft Text," then it might be successful, because expectations would be appropriately set. In the former case it isn't a 1.0 product. In the latter it is.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Always about the name? A name only labels the product. Any type of change people will still not like it. People will think and believe what they want too regardless of the name they call it now.

To be a fan of Apple and not understand the power of branding is pretty impressive.


Lethal

 

[linuxcooldude]

Look, it's entirely about expectations. No product is judged other than by whether it does what it is expected to do. People don't care about what it may do someday - they care about whether it does what they expect it to do now.

And this started by someone pointing out this isn't a 1.0 product. The response was "yes it is." And the point is "no it's not." And the reason it's not is because they kept the name, and therefore, with respect to the expectations of the buying public it is not a 1.0 product.

If Microsoft came out with a new word processor and called it "Microsoft Word 2012," but because they re-wrote it from scratch with all sorts of fancy new techniques it was no more functional than TextEdit, you can bet the product would be a failure. And the reason it would be a failure is because it wouldn't meet the expectations for the umpteenth version of Microsoft Word. If, instead, they named it "Microsoft Text," then it might be successful, because expectations would be appropriately set. In the former case it isn't a 1.0 product. In the latter it is.

Pfft...its all the same drama in the end. Change the name and its all about "Wheres my beloved Microsoft Word" Keep the the same name, now its all "Its not the same Word" In the end they still won't like it either way.

 

[cmaier]

Pfft...its all the same drama in the end. Change the name and its all about "Wheres my beloved Microsoft Word" Keep the the same name, now its all "Its not the same Word" In the end they still won't like it either way.

Not at all. People aren't going to buy "Microsoft Text' expecting "Microsoft Word." They won't feel ripped off.

And if Microsoft took the additional step of continuing to sell Microsoft Word 2011 until Microsoft Text could replace it functionally, they also wouldn't feel abandoned.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

iPhone, iPad, iPod, itunes music store all started from scratch and look how far that went and is still going.

Minus the fact that those were new products new name. They did not carry any expetations of being an improved product over the previos version.

Apple came out and acted like FCPX was going to be a new and improved FCP and in the fact that it kept the same name. That kills the 1.0 argument for conusmers. If Apple had come out and called it some other name like Apple Pro Graphics (or something complete different) then it would of been expect to be a version 1.0 product.

Pfft...its all the same drama in the end. Change the name and its all about "Wheres my beloved Microsoft Word" Keep the the same name, now its all "Its not the same Word" In the end they still won't like it either way.

People bitch about the Ribbon in MS Office but once you dug into it everything was there. Just took a little time to find everything and honestly once you adjusted the Ribbon was a hell of a lot better but the point is everything was there. MS did not remove anything in the big changed. Apple removed a crap load of stuff.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Minus the fact that those were new products new name. They did not carry any expetations of being an improved product over the previos version.

Apple came out and acted like FCPX was going to be a new and improved FCP and in the fact that it kept the same name. That kills the 1.0 argument for conusmers. If Apple had come out and called it some other name like Apple Pro Graphics (or something complete different) then it would of been expect to be a version 1.0 product.

I suppose if you don't call being able to use more then 4 GB of RAM not an improvement, to be able to use all cores, GPU rendering & background rendering, then sticking to the Final Cut Pro name should be more then appropriate for you guys.

 

[Oletros]

I suppose if you don't call being able to use more then 4 GB of RAM not an improvement, to be able to use all cores, GPU rendering & background rendering, then sticking to the Final Cut Pro name should be more then appropriate for you guys.

Losing all the features part of FC7 is an improvement?

 

[linuxcooldude]

Losing all the features part of FC7 is an improvement?

Its not FCP7 anymore

 

[cmaier]

I suppose if you don't call being able to use more then 4 GB of RAM not an improvement, to be able to use all cores, GPU rendering & background rendering, then sticking to the Final Cut Pro name should be more then appropriate for you guys.

If Microsoft made Word 2012 64-bit and spell-checking was twice as fast, but you couldn't print, couldn't output to .pdf, and couldn't load files from older versions of Word, the fact that some things were improved would be of little comfort to people who rely on Word for their livelihood.

 

[paulvee]

If Microsoft made Word 2012 64-bit and spell-checking was twice as fast, but you couldn't print, couldn't output to .pdf, and couldn't load files from older versions of Word, the fact that some things were improved would be of little comfort to people who rely on Word for their livelihood.

Dead on, but it's pointless addressing the apologists at this point.

Every single person I know who lives in Final Cut and is a professional editor - as I am - is pissed off. Everybody else is just blowing it out from a place of ignorance and and adolescent need to rebel. End of story.

They did the OS9/OSX transition correctly. They could have done this correctly. They did not.

No problem, Premiere was already looking pretty good. It's about to start looking a lot better. I may or may not finish this latest project in FCP7, but I may port it to Premiere. I tested it today and it worked well in Premiere. I'm beyond brand-loyal to Apple, have been since the mid-90's, and have defended them, evangelized for them, etc. In this case, though, it has nothing to do with me emotional attachment to them and everything to do with being able to work on my profession and my art. I will use the tools that get the job done, and if they're not made by Apple, no problem.

The lack of support for "legacy projects," meaning the last ten years of my work, which I need to revisit all the time, is the final straw, even if Automatic Duck comes up with an importer.

And believe me, I'll keep an eye on FCP-X for the future, but this was a really insulting way to pull it off for Apple.

Again, every last person I know who actually uses FCP is aghast and pissed off. Everybody else is just a drama queen with too much time on their hands.

Get over it, little boys, and keep playing with your toys. We who actually use it will finish our venting and move on to a better application. I"m not leaving Apple yet, just FCP.

 

[linuxcooldude]

If Microsoft made Word 2012 64-bit and spell-checking was twice as fast, but you couldn't print, couldn't output to .pdf, and couldn't load files from older versions of Word, the fact that some things were improved would be of little comfort to people who rely on Word for their livelihood.

Heck, if we could get all those people converted to your system from Wordstar, it would still be much of an improvement.

 

[Oletros]

Its not FCP7 anymore

Apple calls it FCP X and promotes it as the new and improved version of FCP

 

[Oletros]

Heck, if we could get all those people converted to your system from Wordstar, it would still be much of an improvement.

Share improvement = program improvement?

You're going too far trying to twist arguments and they are becoming ridiculous

 

[linuxcooldude]

They did the OS9/OSX transition correctly.

Yeah and look at all the people going crazy that Lion is not going to support Rosetta anymore. Can't support their 12 year old applications. Which coincidentally was the year FCP 1.0 first came out. Hint, hint...lol

Edit: Oops Mac OSX was in 2001, close enough. Was thinking of Mac OSX Server.

 

[paulvee]

Yeah and look at all the people going crazy that Lion is not going to support Rosetta anymore. Can't support their 12 year old applications. Which coincidentally was the year FCP 1.0 first came out. Hint, hint...lol

you're engaging in sophistry, dissembling and faulty logic. I'm out of this thread. enjoy your life. I have work to do.

 

[Alpi69]

If Microsoft made Word 2012 64-bit and spell-checking was twice as fast, but you couldn't print, couldn't output to .pdf, and couldn't load files from older versions of Word, the fact that some things were improved would be of little comfort to people who rely on Word for their livelihood.

that is a great analogy, but not all correct.

I´d say it does not print, but it outputs to .pdf and html. Yes, we can´t print to tape, but all digital-outputs are there. And that is for many sufficient, because tape is on its way out. It is still in use, but so was the floppy and the firewire400.

Apple is aggressively throwing out stuff when it suits them not us. But FCP-X is functional and I have used it for two 1080p projects already and it blows away FCP7 when it comes to mere editing - "the writing part itself in Word".
#Only....they changed the layout of the keyboard to write on and took away your homeprinter.....