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

[mozumder]

Totally glad I learned iMovie

I actually went from FCP7 to iMovie08 in my editing workflow. Why? Because the data organization capabilities of the new iMovie was fundamentally better than FCP7's, and iMovie is enough for most of my edits. I learned from Aperture, which has a similar data organizational model.

iMovie is pretty much FCPX-lite, and the interface is very similar, especially regards to magnetic timelines and trackless design. When editors were going nuts about the feature from the NAB supermeet demo, I was trying to figure out how it was any different from iMovie.

It is now clear that those editors never even bothered learning the iMovie08 trackless use model.

BTW it took Apple 6 months to go from Aperture 1.0 to Aperture 1.1 and another 6 months for Aperture 1.5. I expect a similar schedule for FCPX features upgrades.

FCPX is going to be industry standard in 5 years. There is nothing else that will come close.

The most hilarious part about this debate is seeing the reaction from editors. Their reaction reminds me why they're editors, instead of Directors. They are the bricklayers of the movie industry, instead of the Architect. Their lack of any sort of 5-year vision is quite incredible, and it's obvious they've never made a 5 year business plan, and can only assume that the world will forever exist in the current state.

These people actually think Apple doesn't know what they're doing. LOL. This is Steve Jobs we're talking about here. Must I remind you that Steve founded Pixar and is the single largest individual shareholder at Disney, one of the largest media companies in the world?

Do editors REALLY think he doesn't know anything about editing? REALLY? The guy that founded the company that made movies renowned for their storytelling, doesn't know how to edit to tell a story? REALLY?

Just shows how incredibly stupid so many of these editors are.

 

[Gen]

I am sick of the stupid kids who has no idea of video editing posting their useless garbage in here.

Final Cut Pro X IS GARBAGE!!!!

I work in a TV station, we had no less than 900 projects in FCP 7 and is just no tolerable not having FCP X not reading those projects 100%. We are not exporting in any other stinky format, WE JUST CAN NOT! WE HAVE NO TIME!

Compressor 3 was mediocre enough, Final Cut Server was a complete lie already.

By the end of the year we are going to switch the entire platform to Adobe Premiere and that is going to cost our shareholders some good money and time and training but better safe than depending on a CEO of a crazy software company with cancer in his brain creating software for Barbie.

There are not excuses, we have been left alone on the wild with FCP X. It is a lame joke that has no excuses.

It is just like changing every single gas station to hydrogen overnight. What do I do with my car now? you ask, well we are not supporting it anymore.

I mean, the bunch of kids doesn't get it.

If I had a gun with one bullet and had Fidel Castro in front of me or Randi Ubillos... wow... I would be pointing back and forth.

Steve Balmer must be shocked and laughing at this and you bet FCP X will end up in the Guinness Book of Records as the biggest software flaw ever!

Um, who's stopping you from continuing to use FCP7?

 

[LoganT]

Prediction: These FCP X threads will read like this in a couple years.

 

[slrandall]

So many negative reviews ... For everyone saying that FCP X is feature-less or abandoning its base or that Apple is no longer interested in professional tools [not to mention how excellent Xcode 4 or Lion Server are], here's a very good review from a true professional: http://www.macworld.com/article/160713/2011/06/fcpxrev.html#lsrc.rss_main

 

[res1233]

Most of our files that worked in OS9 still worked on OSX though. They even had Classic mode, and then Rosetta for the PPC-Intel transition. Here they just cut off our heads and left us bleeding...

This is true. Apple should have made a bit more of an effort at backwards compatibility at launch at the very least, although all the missing features probably made that impossible. I think the situation is very different now. FCP7 is perfectly usable the way it is, even though it has some flaws such as being 32-bit, and there are workflow issues, but it still works just fine. Same couldn't be said about OS 9.

Extension conflicts, cooperative multi-tasking, and many other things made OS 9 a pretty terrible OS in my opinion. I remember getting quite a few headaches out of it. It needed to be dropped, and because of this, Apple had tremendous incentive to make sure OS X was 100% backwards compatible with OS 9, which it was, for the most part. Plus, that's how they've always done transitions as far as Mac OS goes: Include a compatibility layer for the older hardware/code till they can fully transition to the new stuff, not so much with regular software.

 

[Lex Yu]

Well.. Somewhat disagreed.

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:

* It took almost 2.5 years to go from Final Cut Studio 2 to Final Cut Studio 3, and Final Cut Studio 3 was just a moderate update. Then it took almost another 2 full years to introduce Final Cut Pro X, which removed tons of features!
=> Actually, they removed $700 from the previous price. Don't you notice it?

* Apple bought Shake, and then cancelled it. Cancelled it! Apple said there would be a next-generation app coming in Shake's place, but that never showed up.
=> Yeah, you are right about that.

* Apple started letting Logic atrophy.
=> Totally disagreed. Logic is growing. The studio package with tons of virtual instrumentals and samples is worth more than $2,000. However, Apple sells it just for $499 and this explains why pro/amateur musicians are switching to Mac.

* Apple "phoned-in" the last few Mac Pro updates, just slapping in some new Intel chips, but not adding value such as 1) more expansion slots (three slots is not a lot for a workstation), and 2) never bothering to include an eSATA port, even though tons of media professionals started using eSATA, 3) never bothering to include a USB3 port, etc. etc. Many people are wondering if the new Thunderbolt port will be Apple's excuse to give up on the Mac Pro altogether.
=> Check out the "facts." Apple can't hire USB 3.0 because Intel's motherboard chip does NOT support USB 3.0. Apple had no choice.

* Apple stopped updating its "Pro" page almost two years ago, here: http://www.apple.com/pro/
=> You seem to be right.

* Apple stopped attending NAB, and other standard industry events.
=> I think Apple's got a better way to show off their newest S/W. People now are talking about FCPX all over even though Apple did NOT attend NAB. Does it ring a bell?

* Multiple rumors that Apple was trying to sell its Pro Apps division....
=> You now are slashing Apple based on some rumors? Oh, for God's sake! Grow up.

People have spent a lot of time and money building their businesses and careers around FCP. But since the iPhone launched, FCP and other pro apps and gear have gotten noticeably less attention.

That makes a lot of people nervous, and left to wonder what Apple's intentions are. You really can't help but wonder because Apple is so ridiculously silent about its intentions, which works fine on the consumer side but not when people are investing tens of thousands of dollars in apps and gear around Apple.

Combine that with Apple shipping a new version of Final Cut that is so radically different and so underpowered, and also discontinuing sales for FCS 3 suites and FCP Server (with no explanation about Server's demise or any intentions on bringing back multi-user functionality) and you can see how the dam finally burst in the Pro community and the angry flood waters rushed in.
=> I respect your opinion. However, your view is NOT the ONLY view. There are tons of reviews in favor of FCPX. It seems that mixed reactions are floating around. Some so much love FCPX, some so much hate it. Among these, I wanna point out that the new FCPX is less than a half price with 10x faster performance compare to the older version. That make sense enough to me and some others.

Apple better start communicating better with its pro customers, and re-assuring them that it's committed to professional work in this new era of the iPhone/iPad. Otherwise, a lot of people will be heading for the doors...
=> Half right. Apple SHOULD communicate with pro users. However, do you see a lot of new users are coming in through the very door?

See above.

 

[res1233]

see above.

my eyes. They burn.

 

[JesterJJZ]

It is just like changing every single gas station to hydrogen overnight. What do I do with my car now? you ask, well we are not supporting it anymore.

Right on. You can still drive your car, but one day you will run out of gas and it won't work anymore.

Sure, FCP7 works NOW...but what about next year?

Seriously...will it run on Lion? I heard something about the FCP7 installer needing Rosetta to work. Lion is dropping Rosetta support.

Just stay on Snow Leopard. Ok...my Mac is due for an upgrade, I think new MacPros are being released this summer, probably shipping with Lion installed. Can I downgrade those to Snow Leopard? Possibly not...

Now I'm on the side of the road. I guess I need a new car...but what brand should I go for? I guess I could go used, but I need to make sure to buy it with a full tank...

 

[butterfly0fdoom]

No, it doesn't have a different name, it has a different version suffix

If anything, there's a bit of a trend going on with Apple. Mac OS X, Quicktime X, and Final Cut Pro X are all completely rewritten and overhauled versus their predecessors which have (had in the case of Mac OS) a period of overlap between the old and the new.

That statement somehow came out a lot less coherent than it sounded in my mind.

 

[linuxcooldude]

never bothering to include an eSATA port, even though tons of media professionals started using eSATA, 3) never bothering to include a USB3

Intel does not support USB3 yet anyway.

A $19.00 bracket that have cables that connect to the motherboard would give you two eSATA connections.

 

[the vj]

A perfect example of someone who doesn't look to the future. Someday, once FCPX is fully featured, we should return to this forum for a few chuckles. Also, if you're so quick to dump a perfectly fine product (Final cut pro 7) because the latest revision isn't up to snuff, causing so many other issues along the way, perhaps you should consider another line of work...

I make 120K a year and I have 8 video editors, I handle and 3 graphic stations for 4 different cable channels... I am in the right field, sorry your lack of experience can make you see beyond your nose.

We have to edit and compress files for 6 different cable providers. Just cor Xfinity we have to re compress 8 movies per week into H264 and it takes around 6 hours each just because stinky Compressor only recognizes one core. The new Compressor is multicore but does not talk to FCP 7 so we have to render the movie in FCP 7 in native format (Pro res 422) = 1.5 hours and then to H264 = 4 hours in Compressor 4. This is so clumsy even for early 90's standards.

FCP X may look fancy but that's all it is. It is taking my mind back when I used to have a beige 233 G3 PowerMac in 1998. Even Premiere was more powerful back then.

Experience, that is why I say to step aside and let the one who know do the talking. As Henry Ford said: if I ask my costumer what they want they will say "faster horses".

No time to experiment with new editing software, the 90s was for that.

 

[res1233]

I make 120K a year and I have 8 video editors, I handle and 3 graphic stations for 4 different cable channels... I am in the right field, sorry your lack of experience can make you see beyond your nose.

We have to edit and compress files for 6 different cable providers. Just cor Xfinity we have to re compress 8 movies per week into H264 and it takes around 6 hours each just because stinky Compressor only recognizes one core. The new Compressor is multicore but does not talk to FCP 7 so we have to render the movie in FCP 7 in native format (Pro res 422) = 1.5 hours and then to H264 = 4 hours in Compressor 4. This is so clumsy even for early 90's standards.

FCP X may look fancy but that's all it is. It is taking my mind back when I used to have a beige 233 G3 PowerMac in 1998. Even Premiere was more powerful back then.

Experience, that is why I say to step aside and let the one who know do the talking. As Henry Ford said: if I ask my costumer what they want they will say "faster horses".

No time to experiment with new editing software, the 90s was for that.

You have no time to experiment with new editing software. Gotcha. Stick with FCP7 then and enjoy it. I'm betting many other pros will too till FCPX is worth testing. But I enjoyed you waving your expertise in my face to somehow attempt to salvage your self-image... It didn't have the intended effect however. Look to the future. FCPX is at its core a much better product than FCP7 was, it's just lacking in many features, but that will change. I think if you're incapable of seeing that, then my previous statement stands: Get out of your line of work before you cause any damage to your clients. Forward thinkers have a future. People stuck in the past do not.

It is ironic that you quoted henry ford however. The man was nothing if not a forward-thinker. The car was a very radical thing at the time, possibly one of the most radical inventions ever. I'd say FCPX fits the bill too (minus the most radical invention ever part).

 

[the vj]

Right on. You can still drive your car, but one day you will run out of gas and it won't work anymore....

When I said "tomorrow" I meant "tomorrow" no next year. Tomorrow you will have your car with the gas is left in the tank. That is what Apple is doing.

By next year we are going to have Premiere or Avid, for sure no more stinky Apple experiments. They became the monster they were fighting... Microsoft.

 

[LethalWolfe]

You got a good point there. I mean we have people bashing Ubillos, the person that created the stuff that these same people are praising.

George Lucas created the original trilogy and the prequels. Just sayin'...

A great example of a company that is doing this is Netflix. They invented the mail-order DVD. And yet they invested heavily in streaming, hurting their own DVD-mail order business. But they knew that DVD-mail order was doomed, so they helped kill it.

Of course a massive difference is that Netflix still rents DVDs. The day it turned on its streaming servers it didn't simultaneous shut down its mail-order business.

Apple's handling of the move to FCP X has so far been a road map of how not to do things. How many professional apps get made fun of on late night TV? David Pogue even came around and agreed that FCP X, as a pro tool, doesn't meet the needs of the industry today. Jim Jannard (founder of Oakley and RED) has said that Apple continues to drop the ball by not communicating w/users. A number of FCP evangelists are now former evangelists.

And it's not just one thing it's a perfect storm of multiple events. FCP X lacks basic yet very necessary features. Apple apparently dropping support for FCS (software recalled from retailers, FCS update links on Apple's site now redirect to FCP X page, etc.,). Final Cut Server, Apple Color, DVD Studio Pro and Sound Track Pro all got axed w/o any warning. If Apple publicly provided a road map or said they'd concurrently support FCS until FCP X was up to snuff none of this would've happened.

The reaction from the pro segment is not knee jerk like some people believe. Editors and post facilities have been waiting for a significant update to FCS for years. The small update in '09 was met with a collective, "Really, this is it?" and people were already making alternate plans for their businesses. Because, like smart business people, they know they are in the editing business, not the FCP editing business. Apple finally launched FCP X and here we are. These people aren't transitioning way from FCP 'cause they are mad at Apple. They are leaving because they can't wait indefinitely on Apple to release a product that meets their needs.

Potential doesn't pay the rent.


Lethal

 

[mixel]

I make 120K a year and I have 8 video editors, I handle and 3 graphic stations for 4 different cable channels... I am in the right field, sorry your lack of experience can make you see beyond your nose.

Experience, that is why I say to step aside and let the one who know do the talking. As Henry Ford said: if I ask my costumer what they want they will say "faster horses".

You don't have experience of software design and software sales though, so surely you should leave it up to the people who do. Apple. They have a plan that you may not fully understand, gramps. What's best for *you* is not what's necessarily best for the end user, the industry or their target consumer moving forward.

 

[YoGramMamma]

This is the same genius that ruined iMovie.

I guess I really don't have a "learned" opinion on this. I am a high-level consumer video editor at best, Just a few family things and stuff destined for youtube.

Still, I cant help but think back to what this guy did to iMovie. He took a straightforward program that was very logical, and turned it into a toy. Now, some three versions later, iMovie is only now providing some of the control and editing features which it had YEARS AGO before this "visionary genius" changed (ruined) it.

Maybe I am missing something, and I could be totally wrong, but it seems like this guy is in the process of doing the same thing with FCP. He took something which I used to see as professional and somewhat intimidating (FCP) and dumbed it down. i can only imagine what aspects of fine level control and precision has been lost in the process.

I think you are missing something. iMovie (the previous versions before the big change) was a great app that did its job well. BUT... it was also an app that couldn't generate any text/title over video without the need to render. It had to pre-render everything, transisions, effects, etc. It worked with HDV footage but was made back when everyones camera was a DV based thing with a firewire port. It also had hit a ceiling in terms of the codebase it was created on. They were getting to a place where they simply couldn't keep just adding stuff on top and calling it newer. Eventually you have to start from scratch so that, in 2011 going forward they have a solid (modern) foundation to build upon and carry iMovie users for another several years.

Could you imagine if they hadn't have redone iMovie when they did, what it would be like now? disastrous. We'd all have core i5 macs, DSLR HD footage and a clunky piece of bloatware that was written 10 years ago that still cant place a line of text over a video and play it back in real time. THIS would be a big problem. It'd still be 32 bit and wouldn't use all of our ram. It wouldn't use openCL or GCD or any of the modern technologies, what... so people could still be content using something they were familiar with 3 years ago?

At a point, you just have to say out with the old, in with the new. Final Cut was getting the same way. Mac pros with 32 Gigs of ram, and their Pro software only using 4GB of it.. and couldn't use but half the processors available? And still, if I took some raw DSLR footage, slapped it on my timeline in FCP7, it ... still... couldn't play back a line of text over a layer of video without pre rendering. THIS WAS A PROBLEM you see?

While I think Apple handled the whole transition to FCPX horribly... they were spot on in looking at what they've got and saying, "ok, guys... what we have now is in no way capable of taking us into the next generation of computing and software scalability. We gotta redo. Ground up." Yeah, they should have released it into the wild a bit more feature complete, but it'll be a solid foundation to build off of in the years to come as computers get much faster and more capable, the software will be able to scale with it (unlike old iMovie and old FCP).

 

[mave1969]

it takes around 6 hours each just because stinky Compressor only recognizes one core.

FCP 7 in native format (Pro res 422) = 1.5 hours and then to H264 = 4 hours in Compressor 4. This is so clumsy even for early 90's standards.

By your own calculations this is still saving you time...

 

[garybUK]

People saying 'Stick with FCP7 and stop whining' are just plain dumb. Apple has stopped selling this, if you have ever worked in a business you'll know how critical it is to have supported software.

What if you need a new workstation... oh wait can't buy FCP7 anymore .., what if you need to call Apple for support... 'sorry we only support FCPX'

Not good enough, especially when the workstations from Dell & HP are more powerful and cheaper than the 'CURRENT' Mac Pro's, Windows 7 is rock solid.

Now is the real time for Avid and Adobe to take the bull by the horns and make a load of cash.

 

[res1233]

People saying 'Stick with FCP7 and stop whining' are just plain dumb. Apple has stopped selling this, if you have ever worked in a business you'll know how critical it is to have supported software.

What if you need a new workstation... oh wait can't buy FCP7 anymore .., what if you need to call Apple for support... 'sorry we only support FCPX'

Not good enough, especially when the workstations from Dell & HP are more powerful and cheaper than the 'CURRENT' Mac Pro's, Windows 7 is rock solid.

Now is the real time for Avid and Adobe to take the bull by the horns and make a load of cash.

I'm sure Apple will hemorrhage a few costumers due to this, but then there are the many people out there whose mac pros are going to be fine till Apple gets around to making FCPX a competitive product, which it currently isn't. Also, there are always ways to get a hold of older versions of software. Amazon still sells it in fact, you just can't get it from Apple anymore. I really think people worry too much. Also, why wouldn't you restore from a backup upon the purchase of a new MP? Why would you have to install anything?

 

[gallofilm]

I actually went from FCP7 to iMovie08 in my editing workflow. Why? Because the data organization capabilities of the new iMovie was fundamentally better than FCP7's, and iMovie is enough for most of my edits. I learned from Aperture, which has a similar data organizational model.

iMovie is pretty much FCPX-lite, and the interface is very similar, especially regards to magnetic timelines and trackless design. When editors were going nuts about the feature from the NAB supermeet demo, I was trying to figure out how it was any different from iMovie.

It is now clear that those editors never even bothered learning the iMovie08 trackless use model.

BTW it took Apple 6 months to go from Aperture 1.0 to Aperture 1.1 and another 6 months for Aperture 1.5. I expect a similar schedule for FCPX features upgrades.

FCPX is going to be industry standard in 5 years. There is nothing else that will come close.

The most hilarious part about this debate is seeing the reaction from editors. Their reaction reminds me why they're editors, instead of Directors. They are the bricklayers of the movie industry, instead of the Architect. Their lack of any sort of 5-year vision is quite incredible, and it's obvious they've never made a 5 year business plan, and can only assume that the world will forever exist in the current state.

These people actually think Apple doesn't know what they're doing. LOL. This is Steve Jobs we're talking about here. Must I remind you that Steve founded Pixar and is the single largest individual shareholder at Disney, one of the largest media companies in the world?

Do editors REALLY think he doesn't know anything about editing? REALLY? The guy that founded the company that made movies renowned for their storytelling, doesn't know how to edit to tell a story? REALLY?

Just shows how incredibly stupid so many of these editors are.

Premiere CS5 is way better than FCP7 and FCPX. Canopus is better. Avid is better.

Editors are very important, a good editing job is like second directing. Obviously you are not very familiar with how movies are made. In this case, FCPX is probably OK for you, but you shouldn't criticize professionals workflow if you don't know how it works and what the real needs are in a professional place.

 

[kap91]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_8 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E401 Safari/6533.18.5)

I really can't believe all the super critical criticism going on with fcpx. The sheer amount of bitterness is ridiculous. Did people really think it was going to play nicely with their existing plugins right from the start without even giving developers time to rewrite? Did they really believe it would be able to open up existing projects even though its clear the program has been completely rewritten and works in a completely new and different way? And what the heck are you doing upgrading your software if you are in the middle of a freaking project?!?!

 

And yes there are some missing features that many higher end workflows need but A) if you are in a situation that uses high end workflows you shouldn't be upgrading immediately anyway because Version 1 software always has bugs and its too big of a risk and B) if they had been paying any attention to the numerous blog postings and other sources of information from notable people in the industry that have had access to it for a while and have talked to engineers instead of ranting after using it for less then 24 hours then they'd know that there are already workarounds for a few of the missing features, that there will be numerous opportunities for 3rd parties to fill niche gaps that Apple has decided to leave open and that Apple will be working with developers soon on that, and they'd also know that apple has made it clear that many features and additions will be coming in the future and from the sound of it in the very near future.

 

It's a completely new program people!!! And one that gets a heck of a lot more right than it gets wrong (and it does get some things wrong...different post though) There is no possible way it could have duplicated all the functionality of FCP7 right from the start.

 

The only thing that people should be complaining about at all is the FCP7 is no longer available for sale - that does seem like a bit of dumb decision to me - but it seems most are not complaining about that they're just too busy giving FCPX 1 star reviews kicking and screaming.

 

Alright, rant done. I'm not normally this harsh but this really bugs me. The people at Apple have put a tremendous amount of effort into making this program and building a robust foundation for the future and it seems hardly anyone can see past the next month. Just give the software developers a chance.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Experience, that is why I say to step aside and let the one who know do the talking. As Henry Ford said: if I ask my costumer what they want they will say "faster horses".

No time to experiment with new editing software, the 90s was for that.


It is ironic that you quoted henry ford however. The man was nothing if not a forward-thinker. The car was a very radical thing at the time, possibly one of the most radical inventions ever. I'd say FCPX fits the bill too (minus the most radical invention ever part).

Whats more ironic was Henry Ford waited way too long to update his model-T. Other car manufactures surpassed the Model-T in quality and technology. ( True story )

He also said "You can have the model-T in any color as long as its black." That kind of shows his unwillingness to change.

Great inventor, but as someone has said, not so great forward thinker.

No time to experiment with new editing software, the 90s was for that.

Markets change very quickly, if your unwilling to change, you will die very quickly. Especially in the computer field. The 90's? That was over twenty years ago!

 

[Leddy]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

It has been at least 4 years since a decent update to Final Cut. (As mentioned, version 6 to 7 didn't bring a lot to the table.) For those saying, "stick to version 7 and wait until X is up to the job", understand that may have been a viable alternative 2 years ago, but not now. Not when Avid and Adobe are offering compelling alternatives. Many businesses held out due to the pitch from Apple that X would be a significant update, not that it would be a version 1 not ready for prime time.

It is no wonder they feel angry and betrayed when 80% of a pro workflow is missing. These features are not just capricious whims - as discussed elsewhere. To stick with version 7 which still works, as many have pointed out, makes for an inefficient edit suite due to the need to transcode footage - footage which can be edited natively in other offerings. Inefficiencies and workarounds cost time and we all know what that costs. 

Some of the smug comments on here show a real lack of empathy for the way Apple has treated it's pro user base.

"Utter disrespect", are words that spring to mind. Now by not openly addressing exactly what features will be returned with the updates that surely are around the corner, it is no wonder many are talking of, or are in the process of jumping ship. Who knows, they may miss the greatest piece of editing software since it's inception - they will however, regain a stable, versatile and proven workflow guaranteed to meet their needs. 

This situation could have been avoided with clear communication. (A sneak peak mentioning new features but not relaying the numerous omissions really doesn't cut it sorry.) That's all it takes. Give your users the opportunity to make informed decisions. If Avid and Adobe can do it regarding their editing software, then so can Apple, surely ...

Best wishes.

 

[daneoni]

I really don't understand the whining. It is a completely rewritten software. Things were never gonna be complete at version 1.0. Yet people act like armageddon has come. If it is that big an issue for you Adobe and Avid will be happily waiting for you.

 

[Manderby]

I think it's more like

Cause:
FCP7 is written in Carbon.

Effect:
If Apple is going to have to rewrite FCP, they may as well give it a fresh start.

I think you have a fairly valid point there. Cocoa is ok, but tell an old school software engineer (which is required for high performance video editing) that he has to write in Objective-C from now on. He will cry. They needed to start from scratch, and I mean from sub-level, because they even needed to learn a new language and Framework.

Now, let's see what iTunes will be after Cocoaization... oh wait, it has already evolved into the App Store.