[voodoo]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

FCP X is iMovie "advanced" (I hesitate to say pro)

It's made for prosumers, it's priced for prosumers, it's pleasing to prosumers and it's targeted at prosumers. It's a prosumer app.

I can understand why professionals who depend on FCP are not happy with this version (or revision) of FCP7->X

YouTube - Conan O'Brien on FCPX

Apple is a prosumer/consumer company now. Recognize it.

Ah and to add: one besserwisser-member here kept claiming that Apple cared about software development and its professional userbase, i.e. wasn't fixated on consumer/consumption devices.

Wow this release of FC"P" X sure stuffs some crow in that member's mouth!

[Veltliner]

Here are the FCP X system requirements:

Apple - Final Cut Pro X - System Requirements and Tech Specs

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Here are the FCP X system requirements:

Apple - Final Cut Pro X - System Requirements and Tech Specs

I thought those requirements have been available since Day 1, no?

Anyways what I'm most interested in are the licencing rules. I can't seem to find them. If I buy it I don't want the licence to be limited to a single machine. In the very least it should support one laptop and one desktop.

[chabig]

Since you're buying it from the Mac App Store, you can install it on all of the machines you own (up to 10, I think).

[Eug]

Originally Posted by chabig 

Since you're buying it from the Mac App Store, you can install it on all of the machines you own (up to 10, I think).

I wasn't aware of that, so after I read your post, I looked it up. According to this article, that's not true for "pro" apps, but if the licencing for Aperture applies to FCPX as well, then that's reasonable.

When you buy an app on the Mac App Store, you’re getting the rights to run that program on any Macs you own and operate, for your personal use. Basically, if your household has a half-dozen different Macs, including desktops and laptops, you can buy a copy of Gratuitous Space Battles and play it on every single one of them. Consider a purchase of consumer software via the Mac App Store to be a bit like buying a household site license for the app.

The situation is slightly different for apps that are considered commercial or professional in nature. For apps that fall into this category—Aperture’s a good example—the Mac App Store license says that you essentially can install that item on computers you use or on a single computer shared by multiple people. Basically think of it as a one-seat license for a pro app.

[OreoCookie]

Regarding Final Cut Pro X and the focus on professionals, I thought I'd share an anecdote from two or three years ago with you. Two guys from university have a business on the side, a professional color correction program for videos. They had a small, but exclusive circle of customers among pros, including the big studios. Each year around the time of WWDC, they'd drive down to LA and visit some of their customers and there they heard from them that Apple was showing off prototypes of future software in the area of color correction (their core business) and Shake. They were very explicit that Apple was developing a successor to Shake that was engineered from the ground up and they sought feedback and input from professional users.

Hence, I don't think Apple is thinking for one second to dumb down its software, to aim it at amateurs. IMHO one of the main guiding principles of Apple is to make stuff that solves a specific problem and stuff they want to use. That's how the magnetic power cord came about I hear. Or iTunes. Or the iPod. Or Aperture.

[Eug]

^^^ Well, Shake is dead. It was finally discontinued 2 years ago (after not being updated for some time), and there is still no direct replacement available in 2011.

I do agree that Apple will eventually spruce up Final Cut Pro X to include some of those bazillion missing pro features, but I also think by that time they will have lost a lot of existing pro customers... and gained customers like me.

So yeah, they will likely still continue to support the pro market here, but the way this was launched highly suggests to me that they are willing to chance the backlash and the loss of pro customers because Apple thinks it will get a lot of prosumer types to fill in the void, and then some, and will likely rebuild some of the lost pro market at a later date.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug 

^^^ Well, Shake is dead. It was finally discontinued 2 years ago, and there is no direct replacement available in 2011.

The point of my anecdote was that Apple is talking to professionals when designing pro software, even if it did not produce a successor to Shake. If some of the stories on the internet are to be believed, they did the same thing with Final Cut Pro X, that'd be consistent with what I've heard.

Originally Posted by Eug 

So yeah, they will likely still continue to support the pro market here, but the way this was launched highly suggests to me that they are willing to chance the backlash and the loss of pro customers because Apple thinks it will get a lot of prosumer types to fill in the void, and then some, and will likely rebuild some of the lost pro market at a later date.

I agree that Apple botched some aspects of the launch. I think they'd have had an easier time if their official position was `Final Cut Pro X will serve as a basis for a replacement of Final Cut Pro 7, but now, we release it as successor to Final Cut Express.' On the other hand, I think Apple would argue that they wanted to make clear what they think their intended positioning of Final Cut Pro X is: and that's the pro market. Whether it lives up to its promises is a different matter.

In a sense, the whole discussion reminds me of something Steve Jobs said at All Things Digital with regards to the iPad: If we succeed, they'll buy 'em, and if we don't, they won't. Apple's stance is that the philosophy behind Final Cut Pro X is the future of professional video editing. I guess we'll see in three to five years whether they're right or not.

[Veltliner]

Is there still the 30 day trial period, or has this been discontinued because it's being sold by the App store now?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The point of my anecdote was that Apple is talking to professionals when designing pro software, even if it did not produce a successor to Shake. If some of the stories on the internet are to be believed, they did the same thing with Final Cut Pro X, that'd be consistent with what I've heard.

Shake Product Designer Ron Brinkmann: Apple doesn't care about the high-end professional market

For those that aren’t familiar with the history, Shake was very entrenched in the top end of the visual effects industry. The overwhelming majority of our customers were doing big-budget feature film work and were, naturally, all about high-end functionality.

So after Apple acquired us there was a lot of concern that Cupertino wouldn’t be willing to continue to cater to that market and, although it took a few years, that concern did indeed come to pass. The development team was gradually transitioned to working on other tools and Shake as a product was eventually end-of-life’d.

And back then the same questions were being asked as now – “Doesn’t Apple care about the high-end professional market?”

In a word, no. Not really. Not enough to focus on it as a primary business.

Let’s talk economics first. There’s what, maybe 10,000 ‘high-end’ editors in the world? That’s probably being generous. But the number of people who would buy a powerful editing package that’s more cost-effective and easier to learn/use than anything else that’s out there? More. Lots more. So, a $1000 high-end product vs. a $300 product for a market that’s at least an order of magnitude larger. Clearly makes sense, even though I’d claim that the dollars involved are really just a drop in the bucket either way for Apple.

So what else? I mean what’s the real value of a package that’s sold only to high-end guys? Prestige? Does Apple really need more of that? Again, look back at Shake. It was dominant in the visual effects world. You’d be hard-pressed to pick a major motion picture from the early years of this century that didn’t make use of Shake in some fashion. And believe me, Lord of the Rings looks a lot cooler on a corporate demo reel than does Cold Mountain or The Social Network. Swords and Orcs and ShitBlowingUp, oh my. But really, so what?

---

After the acquisition I remember sitting in a roomful of Hollywood VFX pros where Steve told everybody point-blank that we/Apple were going to focus on giving them powerful tools that were far more cost-effective than what they were accustomed to… but that the relationship between them and Apple wasn’t going to be something where they’d be driving product direction anymore. Didn’t go over particularly well, incidentally, but I don’t think that concerned Steve overmuch…

---

So if you’re really a professional you shouldn’t want to be reliant on software from a company like Apple. Because your heart will be broken. Because they’re not reliant on you. Use Apple’s tools to take you as far as they can – they’re an incredible bargain in terms of price-performance. But once you’re ready to move up to the next level, find yourself a software provider whose life-blood flows only as long as they keep their professional customers happy. It only makes sense.

---

And, in spite of the fact that MacRumors characterized this post as saying “Apple Doesn’t Care about Pro Market” I don’t believe at all that ‘professionals’ should immediately flee the platform. As with anything, you should look at the feature set, look at the likely evolution, and make your own decisions. My perception of the high-end professional category is informed by my history in feature-film production, which is a large, cooperative team environment with a whole lot of moving pieces. Yours may be different.

Ultimately my goal was to shed some light on the thought-processes that go into Apple’s decisions, and the type of market they want to address. Bottom line is that I do think that FCPX will provide incredible value for a huge number of people and will undoubtedly continue to grow in terms of the features that are added (or re-added) to it. Just don’t expect everything that was in FCP7 to return to FCPX because they’re really different products addressing different markets. It’s up to you to decide which market you work in.

[mduell]

Continues to pile up poor ratings from paying customers... now up to 634 1s, compared to 416 5s with an average of 2.5.

[voodoo]

FCPX video, to the point - good points made by Steve Jobs in it.

(probably not edited with FCPX )

(Premiere actually, but well)

[voodoo]

The state of Apple’s professional line � Brook Willard

(written in 2010 on the Mac Pro and Apple's view on professional equipment since Jobs)

http://www.onerivermedia.com/blog/?p=322

(written in 2011 on FCPX)

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

They replaced it on August 29th, 2009. If you've been following Lion a bit, you'll know that the answer is a resounding "hell yeah".

"hell yeah"

What were you talking about? QuickTime Player X in Lion has almost no new features and still pales in comparison to QuickTime Player 7.

[teresabush]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

FCP X is iMovie "advanced" (I hesitate to say pro)

It's made for prosumers, it's priced for prosumers, it's pleasing to prosumers and it's targeted at prosumers. It's a prosumer app.

I can understand why professionals who depend on FCP are not happy with this version (or revision) of FCP7->X

YouTube - Conan O'Brien on FCPX

Apple is a prosumer/consumer company now. Recognize it.

Agreed.

FCP X is actually another version to make editing easier on Mac. It could not be said as the advanced version of FCP 7.

The background rendering in FCP X would facilitate the real-time preview, but no Apple ProRes 422 (LT)?

[Eug]

Apple put Final Cut Studio back on the market in September, but it seems the migration to Avid continues.

Bunim/Murray makes switch to Avid NLEs

BTW, I still use Quicktime 7, in Lion. I also use Quicktime X a bit now, but more just because it more closely emulates what works on Apple TV. If it doesn't play properly in Quicktime X, then it won't work on AppleTV. Otherwise it's just disappointing... It's 2012 now, and Quicktime X remains extremely basic.

[Eug]

Apple - Press Info - Apple Updates Final Cut Pro X

CUPERTINO, California—January 31, 2012—Apple® today released Final Cut Pro® X v10.0.3, a significant update to its revolutionary professional video editing application, which introduces multicam editing that automatically syncs up to 64 angles of video and photos; advanced chroma keying for handling complex adjustments right in the app; and enhanced XML for a richer interchange with third party apps and plug-ins that support the fast growing Final Cut Pro X ecosystem. Available today as a free update from the Mac® App Store™, Final Cut Pro X v10.0.3 also includes a beta of broadcast monitoring that supports Thunderbolt devices as well as PCIe cards.

First look: Final Cut Pro X 10.0.3 restores professional features; adds notable new ones | Macworld

With FCP X 10.0.3, the ugly ducking feel of the first version of this app seems to be receding, as the app’s swan-like feathers begin to emerge. While there are still many improvements needed, especially for those who work in multiuser environments, the current update indicates that Apple is listening to the complaints and concerns of the working video community that put Final Cut Pro on the map.

[Big Mac]

That's good. Pretty funny that such a major update receives such a tiny change to the version number. This sounds more like FCP X 10.1.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's good. Pretty funny that such a major update receives such a tiny change to the version number. This sounds more like FCP X 10.1.

Yeah, that's odd. Maybe it's Apple's acknowledgement that these features should have been there in the first place.

P.S. Here is a very negative article on FCP X from Creative Cow, from a few days ago before the 10.0.3 update, written by a pro who used to be a diehard Apple guy.

What a Long, Strange Year It's Been! - Creative COW

Apple imploding. Adobe ascending. Avid opening up. Who could have seen it coming? Here's Walter's look at what happens when the blinders come off.

OBSERVATIONS, MOVING FORWARD
It's absolutely unreal that we've gone through 12 years of a fairly steady arc of Final Cut Pro creation, foothold, acceptance and industry dominance -- and it all changed within a matter of months. It's startling to see so many people simply abandon Apple, regardless of what Apple does with FCPX after this.

Additionally:

For now, we're running Avid Media Composer 6, Adobe Premiere Pro CS 5.5.2 and FCP 7 all on the same machine (we actually have two machines that are both running all three of them), and we can even run them all the applications at the same time, all with the AJA Kona 3 boards.

I now prefer Avid DNxHD to Apple ProRes. The DNxHD codecs are lighter on our systems than ProRes, and we're really glad to see so many third party companies adding support for them.

For existing ProRes projects, we find that both Premiere and Media Composer can work with them, Media Composer does ProRes better. We determined in testing that running ProRes in Premiere with the AJA Kona bard requires an 8 core machine. However Media Composer can run ProRes nicely on a 4 core machine. We're really not sure why. Same machine, same Kona board, but there you go.

Avid has much more solid tape controls than Adobe at this time.

Both Premiere and Media Composer are faster than FCP 7. Both are 64-bit. Both are metadata rich. We have completed broadcast projects with both and the end product doesn't look any different.

If you're a freelancer, I HIGHLY recommend learning both Media Composer and Premiere. I can tell you that we will support Final Cut Pro 7, Adobe Creative Suite and Avid Media Composer in our shop because we're an independent post house and it makes sense to support all of them. As to what will be our primary editing tool, we'll make that decision in another week or so after more testing with the SAN.

In all of this, the debacle of FCPX has caused me to "lift the blinders" that kept me focused solely on Apple. There's a whole new world out there, and I am now open to accept the possibilities, no matter where these new opportunities come from.

[Big Mac]

Yeah that's sad. Whoever managed the software division (or at least the creative professional software portion of it) really dropped the ball big time with the original FCP X. I think it's largely symptomatic of Apple continuing to run too lean, not having sufficient developer resources and management oversight over non-core parts of the business. The problem was documented by that former Apple employee a while ago. Any competent manager could have foreseen the avalanche of criticism that would come Apple's way as a result of the first release of FCP X.

Alternatively, maybe Apple executives are so indifferent to FCP and the other professional software platforms that they don't care if backlashes occur. If that's the case, Apple should really sell the software or spin off a division like Filemaker was spun off so long ago. If Apple doesn't care anymore (that business is a tiny sliver in its revenue/profit pie), it should pass the ball to those who do.

[Spheric Harlot]

They REALLY should have released it as a follow-up to Final Cut Express, and communicated its status as a "public stable alpha" of sorts for pro users.

[OreoCookie]

Yes, I agree, Spheric. Just imagine how different the reaction would have been if you release it for enthusiasts first, but make clear that Apple intends to transition from Final Cut Studio 7 to Final Cut Pro X after adding essential features and taking feedback into account.

It seems Apple is moving quickly to fill the gaps in FCP X, so it's really a pity they effed up the transition.