Jacqui Cheng, for Ars Technica:
Which came first: Apple’s creative pro market shrinking, which might have led to dramatic changes in Final Cut Pro; or Apple’s cavalier attitude toward legacy features, which might have frightened video editors? According to the professionals we spoke to, there was already signs of an industry shift to Avid before FCPX came along, but Apple still had a very loyal and dedicated user base that it’s now turning away from.
“The perception here is that Apple is more concerned with selling iPads and iPhones than they are with the people who have stuck with them since the 90’s, the professional editors and VFX people,” said Jude Mull, who works at a post-production facility in Hollywood that processes and digitizes some of your favorite TV shows.
There’s little debate that Final Cut Pro X soured many video professionals against Apple. The tide has turned a bit as open-minded videographers have dug into Final Cut Pro X’s feature set to discover a wealth of capabilities, but the damage may have been done.
Final Cut Pro X’s biggest impact may not be on the professional video market at all, it may be on the hobbyist and “prosumer” market. Apple’s been accused of abandoning video pros, but if they’re reaching a larger potential market with Final Cut Pro X, isn’t that the smarter thing to do?
All of these disgruntled video editors claim “they were the ones that stood by Apple in the ’90s”. Like today, they were a a fraction of Mac users that stood by Apple in the ’90s. The desktop publishing industry stood by Apple in the ’90s. Academics stood by Apple in the ’90s. The list goes on.
The relevant missing features will come back to FCP – features tied to the old UI will not. Eventually the industry will catch on. Those that refuse to change will be left behind. Apple’s transition may have been too abrupt, but eventually it won’t matter.
It’s not that I don’t see their frustration, but as Kevin mentioned that market alone wasn’t what “saved” Apple during the dark years. They certainly helped, of course.
On the other hand that market was happy having an “industry standard” tool, but when you rely on tools out of your control this is exactly what happens. Every time. I’m working in higher education and there is a movement to take control of development of the software tools that we depend on.
“pros” always have an oversized ego about their importance. Look at IT people. They whine about the lack of a separate server disc/SKU, (COMPLETELY UNIMPORTANT) as much as legitimate and very real bugs.
I agree, Kevin. We’re probably only weeks away from another FCPX update, bringing multi-cam and broadcast monitoring back. A couple more and we’ll hopefully be past this “features” talk, and the false debate that it created about who the program is “meant” for. Then there can be an honest discussion about the positives and negatives that come with a metadata/trackless based editing paradigm that FCPX proposes.
There’s no question that Apple has lost some people who either didn’t like the different look of FCPX, or were at a point where their equipment was long in the tooth and they HAD to choose a path to upgrade to. And I wouldn’t begrudge those people a bit. FCPX isn’t ready for all workflows yet, and if you couldn’t wait there were other options for you. And that’s fine.
But there are already people out there using FCPX to produce broadcast work, so compartmentalizing it as for hobbyists or prosumers is a bit disingenuous.
More than anything FCPX is for people who are willing to learn a new way of working. If that’s not you, then it’s going to frustrate and infuriate you. But almost universally, those who’ve given it a chance have been surprised by how effective and fast what FCPX does do is. It just doesn’t do everything… yet.
I agree, Kevin. We’re probably only weeks away from another FCPX update, bringing multi-cam and broadcast monitoring back. A couple more and we’ll hopefully be past this “features” talk, and the false debate that it created about who the program is “meant” for. Then there can be an honest discussion about the positives and negatives that come with a metadata/trackless based editing paradigm that FCPX proposes.
There’s no question that Apple has lost some people who either didn’t like the different look of FCPX, or were at a point where their equipment was long in the tooth and they HAD to choose a path to upgrade to. And I wouldn’t begrudge those people a bit. FCPX isn’t ready for all workflows yet, and if you couldn’t wait there were other options for you. And that’s fine.
But there are already people out there using FCPX to produce broadcast work, so compartmentalizing it as for hobbyists or prosumers is a bit disingenuous.
More than anything FCPX is for people who are willing to learn a new way of working. If that’s not you, then it’s going to frustrate and infuriate you. But almost universally, those who’ve given it a chance have been surprised by how effective and fast what FCPX does do is. It just doesn’t do everything… yet.
I agree, Kevin. We’re probably only weeks away from another FCPX update, bringing multi-cam and broadcast monitoring back. A couple more and we’ll hopefully be past this “features” talk, and the false debate that it created about who the program is “meant” for. Then there can be an honest discussion about the positives and negatives that come with a metadata/trackless based editing paradigm that FCPX proposes.
There’s no question that Apple has lost some people who either didn’t like the different look of FCPX, or were at a point where their equipment was long in the tooth and they HAD to choose a path to upgrade to. And I wouldn’t begrudge those people a bit. FCPX isn’t ready for all workflows yet, and if you couldn’t wait there were other options for you. And that’s fine.
But there are already people out there using FCPX to produce broadcast work, so compartmentalizing it as for hobbyists or prosumers is a bit disingenuous.
More than anything FCPX is for people who are willing to learn a new way of working. If that’s not you, then it’s going to frustrate and infuriate you. But almost universally, those who’ve given it a chance have been surprised by how effective and fast what FCPX does do is. It just doesn’t do everything… yet.
As someone who works in the television industry I don’t know a single person who ever made that claim that they “saved apple”.
It’s not fair to use that myth as an excuse to justify what was essentially Apple pulling the rug out from under hundreds of businesses that rely on Final Cut.
There may be nice features in FCPX but it its current state it is unusable for serious television work.
You can argue all you want that Apple has the right to change track and focus on the consumer market, but to argue that video editors have no right to be upset by that is really unfair to those of us who make our living in this industry
I would add too, that when FCP first started many of us stuck our knecks out with clients and others who swore that Avid was the only solution while we were pushing FCP. I think the bitterness on a lot of people’s parts is that we now look stupid as the avid folks come back and say “we told you so”.
You can argue that that is petty and stupid to care and you’d be right but it is what it is. Unless you work in the industry you can’t understand.
Will FCPX improve? I hope so. It has great potential, but a year is a long time in this industry, and people have to make decisions on new systems, upgrades etc.
But seriously people, don’t try put this all on the pros and make us out to be the villans. That’s just veryifing the worst mac mac stereotypes.
Anyone who’s invested time, money, training and hardware in developing a workflow based around a product that Apple has fundamentally discontinued and walked away from has the right to be upset. FCP’s transition was handled very poorly by Apple.
But my point stands – it starkly underscores that at least in some cases, Apple’s only interested in bottom line results, existing customer base be damned.
Did you base your original decision to go with FCP on what the program did and how, or because it was an Apple product?
If it was the former, then you didn’t really stick your neck out, you made a rational decision based on the information at hand, and realistically, it’s served you well for a long time. If it was the latter, then yeah, you were kind of begging for it.
A tool decision based on what the tool does and how well is not “sticking your neck out”, and if, 10 or more years later the tool changes to where you can’t use it, and you need to change to a different tool isn’t “eating crow”.
In 1998, all the work I did was Mac clients talking to BIG solaris compute servers. Nowadays, the power of the clients means the need for compute servers is much less, and Sun is no more. Was I stupid in 1998? no, not at all. Do I now “eat crow” because I can’t still use Solaris? Not as long as my decisions were based on proper logical thinking, and not a love for the Sun logo.
It is entirely possible that Avid and Premiere Pro are now better tools for certain segments of the video/film industry. If so, they should certainly switch. Any switching based on that is not only good, but highly encouraged.
Just like Apple, we all have to make a living, and if that means not using FCP, then by all means, don’t. There’s nothing good nor bad in that decision. Just like Apple does what’s best for Apple, you do what’s best for you, and if both of your needs intersect, awesome. If not, well, that’s how it goes.
However, the “The UI looks like a toy” gripes? yeah, those are dumb. Stop acting like the interface APPEARANCE, (not *functionality*) makes anyone look more/less “professional”. If you’re a pro, the UI won’t hurt you. If you aren’t, no UI in the world will make up for that.
Did you base your original decision to go with FCP on what the program did and how, or because it was an Apple product?
If it was the former, then you didn’t really stick your neck out, you made a rational decision based on the information at hand, and realistically, it’s served you well for a long time. If it was the latter, then yeah, you were kind of begging for it.
A tool decision based on what the tool does and how well is not “sticking your neck out”, and if, 10 or more years later the tool changes to where you can’t use it, and you need to change to a different tool isn’t “eating crow”.
In 1998, all the work I did was Mac clients talking to BIG solaris compute servers. Nowadays, the power of the clients means the need for compute servers is much less, and Sun is no more. Was I stupid in 1998? no, not at all. Do I now “eat crow” because I can’t still use Solaris? Not as long as my decisions were based on proper logical thinking, and not a love for the Sun logo.
It is entirely possible that Avid and Premiere Pro are now better tools for certain segments of the video/film industry. If so, they should certainly switch. Any switching based on that is not only good, but highly encouraged.
Just like Apple, we all have to make a living, and if that means not using FCP, then by all means, don’t. There’s nothing good nor bad in that decision. Just like Apple does what’s best for Apple, you do what’s best for you, and if both of your needs intersect, awesome. If not, well, that’s how it goes.
However, the “The UI looks like a toy” gripes? yeah, those are dumb. Stop acting like the interface APPEARANCE, (not *functionality*) makes anyone look more/less “professional”. If you’re a pro, the UI won’t hurt you. If you aren’t, no UI in the world will make up for that.
I think the biggest lesson that should be learned here is that if Apple had seen this as no less of a transition than from OS9 to OSX, and presented it accordingly to the user base, then I think the result would have been entirely different.
But in typical Apple fashion, a wall of silence surrounded the release and subsequent discontinuation of the existing FCStudio. Creating confusion, anger, and animosity…
When if handled differently they could have created quite a bit of excitement about the innovative ideas that FCPX presents, while recognizing that it was a WIP, and some users would need to rely on FCP7 for a little while longer during the transition.
They’ve still done very little to counter the anti-FCPX sentiment that’s out there, and I think if Apple is going to continue to invest the time in Aperature, Logic, and FCP, then they’re going to need to realize that they can’t treat it the same way as they treat their consumer offerings.
Wait, what universe was this smooth transition to OS X in? Or where you got some warning about stuff?
Ok. Maybe not smooth… but at least people knew where the OS was headed, and OS9 was still supported in the short term.
I stuck my knock out because I saw the potential in the software right from version 1. You have to understand, when FCP1 came out there was only really Avid. Clients knew Avid and insisted upon it. When you convinced them that you could do the job in FCP they were very hesitant.
When you sit with a client who is used to running Avid (I’m referring to early days here) and is skeptical about new software, if anything goes wrong, andy crash no matter how minor is instantly seen in their eyes as the fault of the software. Which of course is bull because all software crashes – but thats what early adopters had to put up with. That’s what I mean by sticking your knock out.
FCP but eventually it won the industry over, and then right at the peak of its popularity without any warning Apple decided to do something completely different. There was no transition. there was no warning (you couldn’t tell from the preview they gave what the software would be incapable of doing) and overnight FCPX wen’t from being the preferred choice to not an option.
I’m not saying that Apple had no right to do this – of course they do – but it left an entire industry up in the air.
The Problem with FCPX as others have pointed out, was the way in which Apple handled it. If there had been a proper transition then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.It’s not a matter of imply switching software either. Premiere Pro is good but it’s not up to high end broadcast work yet. And switching to Avid (until the most recent version) involved a re-investment in hardware because Avid required its own hardware to run. This has only changed with the most recent version. Most of the editors I’ve talked to personally are taking a wait and see approach, but their biggest problem is they can’t buy new seats of FCP7. You can only seem to get it if you’re a big business. If you want to switch to Avid of even Premiere, the cost is significant because you have to change all your existing suites if you want to be able to move projects around. Here’s an example. I have a friend who runs an edit facility. He has four suites running FCP and wins a job that requires him to take on an additional two editors. What does he do? He can’t put two on Avid while the rest are on FCP as it would be very problematic sharing projects and assets between all suites. If he is to switch all suites to Avid it will have huge cost implication. Not only will he have to buy additional software lisences, but hardware will need to be changed too. That’s the problem facing numerous studios and facilities. It’s a big mess and it was needless. Personally, like others I think FCPX has potential but there is a lot of work still to be done. I’m optimistic and hopeful. It just is very hard to swallow people trying to blame editors for being upset over this move. People need to realize, it’s not just a bunch of Pros moaning. This has had real business and financial implications for a lot of people.
I stuck my knock out because I saw the potential in the software right from version 1. You have to understand, when FCP1 came out there was only really Avid. Clients knew Avid and insisted upon it. When you convinced them that you could do the job in FCP they were very hesitant.
When you sit with a client who is used to running Avid (I’m referring to early days here) and is skeptical about new software, if anything goes wrong, andy crash no matter how minor is instantly seen in their eyes as the fault of the software. Which of course is bull because all software crashes – but thats what early adopters had to put up with. That’s what I mean by sticking your knock out.
FCP but eventually it won the industry over, and then right at the peak of its popularity without any warning Apple decided to do something completely different. There was no transition. there was no warning (you couldn’t tell from the preview they gave what the software would be incapable of doing) and overnight FCPX wen’t from being the preferred choice to not an option.
I’m not saying that Apple had no right to do this – of course they do – but it left an entire industry up in the air.
The Problem with FCPX as others have pointed out, was the way in which Apple handled it. If there had been a proper transition then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.It’s not a matter of imply switching software either. Premiere Pro is good but it’s not up to high end broadcast work yet. And switching to Avid (until the most recent version) involved a re-investment in hardware because Avid required its own hardware to run. This has only changed with the most recent version. Most of the editors I’ve talked to personally are taking a wait and see approach, but their biggest problem is they can’t buy new seats of FCP7. You can only seem to get it if you’re a big business. If you want to switch to Avid of even Premiere, the cost is significant because you have to change all your existing suites if you want to be able to move projects around. Here’s an example. I have a friend who runs an edit facility. He has four suites running FCP and wins a job that requires him to take on an additional two editors. What does he do? He can’t put two on Avid while the rest are on FCP as it would be very problematic sharing projects and assets between all suites. If he is to switch all suites to Avid it will have huge cost implication. Not only will he have to buy additional software lisences, but hardware will need to be changed too. That’s the problem facing numerous studios and facilities. It’s a big mess and it was needless. Personally, like others I think FCPX has potential but there is a lot of work still to be done. I’m optimistic and hopeful. It just is very hard to swallow people trying to blame editors for being upset over this move. People need to realize, it’s not just a bunch of Pros moaning. This has had real business and financial implications for a lot of people.
What existing customer base? “Hudreds” of professional television production companies or thousands or tens of thousands of ‘prosumer’ users?
FWIW, the VERY SAME ‘Oh Noes Apple has abanddoned us!!!’ cry went out a few years ago when they re-wrote iMovie…
It was much smoother. Early Macs with OSX were dual boots, primarly booting to OS 9, and let the consumer play around with X if the user choose. Then when OSX became the primary boot up, OS 9 was still on the computer. And OS X had emulation software for OS 9 programs.
Final Cut X on the other hand cannot even open up old Final Cut 7 projects, but ironically can open up iMovie ones.
For one, the consumer/prosumer market is a lot more volitile than the professional market. The professional will stick with and update his equipment, and the “prosumer” will go for the latest market trend.
How many prosumer video editors have come and gone? Avid is still around. SpeedEdit 2 by NewTek has many of the same features FCPX brags about, and how did that catch on?
This is not change for the sake of change. This is bold move by a software company that recognizes that old paradigms need revolutions from time to time to effect real change. The truth is: Avid is benefitting in the short term as they secretly jam to play catchup. By the time they step into the future they’ll again be overshadowed by Apple’s forward thinking and application of bold ideas.
Did I miss the part where the old version of Final Cut Pro self-deleted from everyone’s computers, rendering it physically impossible for anyone to wait until the bugs in the new version were ironed out?
It still works. However you are missing the point. The article states, “there was already signs of an industry shift to Avid before FCPX came along.” This was due to Final Cut Pro 7 being badly outdated, not that people did not like it. It was over 2 years before a real update, while both Premeire and Avid moved on to 64 bit platforms. (In my opinion 7 should have gone 64 bit)
Apple decided to replace it, not update it. Alot of this could have been avoided if Apple called it by a different name.
As a “pro” (meaning I spend 8 hours a day in front of an NLE) FCP X almost fits all my needs as a home user. But I could not use it for work, and some very basic traditional features are missing that are nice to have even in a digital world. And there needs to be an off button for the damn “magnetic” timeline. (Stupidest idea ever) I know all you have to do is hold down a key, but doing it evertime is annoying. Allow me to make tracks with out a lame work arounds. Thats my basic problem with FCPX, to many work arounds to get basic traditional editing features you would expect. When you use features on a daily basis you expect them and not have to go through some work around.
Maybe it will improve in time. But by that time I will have moved on to a PC based system. FCP was the only reason I shelled out money for a Mac.
I use Avid at work, but it is overly expensive. I have never really liked Premier, it has always felt “clunky” compared to FCP7. I will give Lightworks a shot (but talk about a foreign work flow!) because you cannot beat the price. (FREE).
I think the real lesson learned here is that there are a whole bunch of supercilious, whiny babies in the ‘pro’ editing world. As Larry Jordan recently asked: “are we editors, or are we Final Cut Pro 7 editors, or Apple editors?”.
catch on to what exactly?
I’m well up for a bit of innovation and shake up but I don’t really see any…
what is this new way of working? I see nothing new… a few renamed concepts and the word ‘revolutionary’. its not really that different to 7 apart from a serious lack of features.
what irritates me is some software engineer dictating to me HOW to organise myself – i did that myself just fine before. (regularly worked on projects with 70+hrs of rushes)
the reason why FCP7 was so successful was it was a democracy you could do things the way you wanted to. With X you are being told how to do things because there are no options.
Now I’m stuck all my rushes appearing in every project (unless i do some work around to hide them) – idiotic. I like the keywording but, hey I managed just fine before.
The timeline was pretty much ‘trackless’ in FCP7Sure, the interface feels slick and quick – so it should – they had more than enough time to get that right.
Try cutting anything substantial in this ill thought out excuse for a release, and I guarantee you’ll wish you had used something else.Heres revolutionary thought… how about we take events, and make them so they don’t all appear in every project we do. Then say we call them bins or folders or something….ps. how did we ever manage before auditions???
“Apple’s been accused of abandoning video pros, but if they’re reaching a larger potential market with Final Cut Pro X, isn’t that the smarter thing to do?”
There’s another way to look at it. Apple had a program for novices (iMovie) and a program for advanced users (FCP 7.) Now they have two programs for novices. This means some novices will migrate from one program to another, which is no big deal at all. But the advanced users? They’ll leave.
This isn’t like a Hollywood movie, where it makes some business sense to appeal to a wider audience. You can have it both ways, so to speak, by having different programs for different user bases. FCP 7 was a very successful program, so it didn’t make good sense to alienate the existing user base in a misguided attempt to get more users, when those “more” users already had an Apple product that was appropriate for them.