Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
BLOGS:My COW BlogAdobe BlogMacWorldEditingTechnologyAfter EffectsFinal CutEntertainment

FCP X and it's launch: Blunder or Genius?

COW Blogs : Bret Williams's Blog : FCP X and it's launch: Blunder or Genius?
Share on Facebook
In light of all the NAB announcements regarding editing, I have to ask - "WHY is it going to take time for FCPX to mature?" Apple is the biggest richest company in the world. I have to figure they've been at this piece of software for 2-3 years. They had 10 years of making FCP 1-7, Motion, etc. They own the code base for shake. They have logic. They can hire anyone they need. Why is it in the same 2 years Avid and Premiere can reinvent themselves? Adobe seems to be able crank out a limitless amount of software to fit every niche and need in nothing flat. Smoke has been completely revisualized to be simpler and more powerful. Blackmagic is advancing DaVinci as fast as anyone can and just reinvented the camera market.

And somehow we're all here getting excited over a forthcoming viewer window and some multitrack audio capabilities whilst discussing workarounds to basic media mgmt and how to make a proper j or l cut in only 5 steps. Does it even have a drop shadow effect yet or did Steve Jobs decide drop shadows were obsolete?

Why do we cut X such slack? Cuz skimming is fun. It's addictive. But maybe it's time to get over it and realize Apple didn't cause this storm of new advanced NLEs by stepping down. Perhaps they saw the storm coming and decided to step out of the race and create a new race. A new category in which they are the only entrant. Software that is powerful enough to keep some of its base while being cheap and simple enough to be the only real choice for the masses that are on a Mac. And, of course, you have to buy a Mac to use it. Apple doesn't want the high end market. There's too much competition. They may have purposely calculated their screwed up launch to throw Avid and Adobe off the trail of the new market segment they cared about. Now they have the segment all to themselves while the rest are fighting to conquer the high end. I'm sure Avid, Adobe, Autodesk, and even Blackbagic are throwing everything at development and nobody knows what to put in their boutiques next. But the consumers, the prosumers, the basement companies, the corporate video depts, and all the web video enthusiasts have to decide if they want to get a $3000 package from Avid, Adobe, or Autodesk, or if FCP is "good enough for now." Hell, it's cheap enough that most of us have broken down and bought it out of curiosity. In the meantime, I think Apple is throwing meager resources at it compared to other companies specializing in edit software. Theyre treating it as a upscale hobby, listening to the users, and seeing where it goes. Genius really. They're not competing with Avid, Adobe, or Autodesk. Their biggest competition is FCP 7. And they promptly took that app out of the running when FCP X was released.

Posted by: Bret Williams on Apr 16, 2012 at 10:28:35 pmComments (21) Final cut pro x, Editing
Reply   Like  
+1
Share on Facebook

Comments

Re: FCP X and it's launch: Blunder or Genius?
by Peh Wee
I do not know about pro. But I buy FCP X just because iMovie is not enough. Yes, I have to make content on FCP X. I bought Compressor,Logic,iWork,Motion...etc to do my content creation. Under a grand to do these stuff is really not bad. It will cost 3 time or more if I use all the"industry standard" softwares.

I think also it is not justifiable to buy a Mac if you cannot do prosumer stuff at lower cost. Since the Apple open App Store:

High price Mac with affordable pro app
vs
Low cost PC with expensive pro app
Re: Blog: FCP X and it's launch: Blunder or Genius?
by Chris Kenny
[Bret Williams] "Why is it in the same 2 years Avid and Premiere can reinvent themselves?"

Premiere and Media Composer weren't entirely replaced with new ground-up apps in two years. FCP X already contains numerous features that make no sense if it's exclusively for the market segment you're suggesting. IMO most of the "Apple must not care about pros or they'd have launched with X, Y and Z" arguments are simply underestimating the complexity of writing large desktop applications -- and software development is (rather famously, actually) not the sort of work where throwing money at a problem reliably speeds up progress.

Apple is actually using its wealth very cleverly with FCP X. They wanted to make big changes. They knew they'd take a short-term hit if they did so. But they can afford to take a short-term hit, in a way that Avid and even Adobe can't.

The key to grasping why the feature set in 10.0.0 was what it was is that Apple understands that change in this industry -- contrary to what a lot of people seem to believe -- has to occur bottom-up. That's how classic FCP got into the market. Established editors and (especially) facilities are, on average, too conservative for significant change to occur top-down. Given that change has to occur bottom up, it begins by getting new entry-level editors to adopt your app today. This means it makes sense to ship an app as soon as it's usable by new entry-level editors. Holding a radical new app off of the market for an extra 12-18 months to add high-end features would have been extremely counterproductive, because most high-end users wouldn't have adopted a radical new app that soon anyway.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.
Re: Blog: FCP X and it's launch: Blunder or Genius?
by Franz Bieberkopf
[Chris Kenny] "Apple understands that change in this industry -- contrary to what a lot of people seem to believe -- has to occur bottom-up."

Chris,

I don't know - I see change happening from all levels all the time. I'm not sure it happens in one way, in one direction. The shift to digital in the 90s was certainly more top down. FCP was probably more of a bottom up. But I don't think there's an across the board formula.

I think FCP's original success was based on price and functionality - it was significantly cheaper than the other options and could function in many of the workflows that existed.

Apple isn't playing that strategy with X - whatever they're doing it is a different approach than what they did 10 years ago. And the field is completely different.

But they don't seem to be appealing to me or people with my particular concerns and needs.

Franz.
Re: Blog: FCP X and it's launch: Blunder or Genius?
by Chris Kenny
[Franz Bieberkopf] "I don't know - I see change happening from all levels all the time. I'm not sure it happens in one way, in one direction. The shift to digital in the 90s was certainly more top down."

We're talking about the move to digital tape formats here? I'm not sure "digital" is a meaningful distinction there. So you move from BetaCam to DigiBeta, so what? It functions the same in your production workflow -- "digital" is just an internal implementation detail. On the other hand, look at things like the adoption of FireWire, or the move to digital for feature filmmaking, where there are real changes in workflow. Those were both bottom-up.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I think FCP's original success was based on price and functionality - it was significantly cheaper than the other options and could function in many of the workflows that existed.

Apple isn't playing that strategy with X - whatever they're doing it is a different approach than what they did 10 years ago. And the field is completely different."


I think Apple is doing the same thing with FCP X, and a lot of more established editors/facilities just don't see it because they don't know what workflows are being used further down in the market. Take, for instance, the lack of broadcast monitoring, a significant instance of a case where FCP X 10.0.0 didn't seem to fit into existing workflows. I imagine that initially made FCP X useless to you. OK, it initially made it useless to us as well. But there's a huge market out there that doesn't need this feature -- people editing web video, most event videography, most students in undergraduate film programs, etc. FCP X fits into their workflows just fine. And some of them are going to move upmarket over the coming years, and bring FCP X with them. This is exactly what happened with 'classic' FCP.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "But they don't seem to be appealing to me or people with my particular concerns and needs."

The original FCP similarly had little initial appeal to established editors and facilities.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.
Re: Blog: FCP X and it's launch: Blunder or Genius?
by Joseph Owens
[Chris Kenny] "Given that change has to occur bottom up, it begins by getting new entry-level editors to adopt your app today. This means it makes sense to ship an app as soon as it's usable by new entry-level editors. "

This might be true if NLE was a new technology, but its not. While I do agree that the underlying core code needed to be changed, trying to go back ten years and change the course of history can only succeed in sci-fi movies.

jPo

You mean "Old Ben"? Ben Kenobi?
Re: Blog: FCP X and it's launch: Blunder or Genius?
by Daniel Frome
To be honest, I don't think we cut X a lot of slack. The majority on this forum are former users of FCP7 who have turned ultra-critical. Look at the X defenders on this forum: it's half a dozen at best, taking on every forum topic multiple times a day.
Re: Blog: FCP X and it's launch: Blunder or Genius?
by Tim Wilson
I think that the "fer"/"agin" split is more like 40/60, but you have to remember that many of the "fer" folks have moved on to the FCPX Techniques forum, which is the second most popular on the COW.

Any guesses on #1? LOL

No really, I'm actually laughing. Out loud.

Tim Wilson
Associate Publisher, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW Magazine
Twitter: timdoubleyou

Re: Blog: FCP X and it's launch: Blunder or Genius?
by Daniel Frome
[Tim Wilson] "Any guesses on #1? LOL"

Oh God... this is going to crush me I just know it...
Re: Blog: FCP X and it's launch: Blunder or Genius?
by Paul Jay
FCPX, CS6, Resolve, Smoke.

Its all awesome. Its all progress. Its all democratization of technology..
Re: Blog: FCP X and it's launch: Blunder or Genius?
by Jamie Franklin
[Paul Jay] "Avid, CS6, Resolve, Smoke.

Its all awesome"


Fixed...
+1
Re: Blog: FCP X and it's launch: Blunder or Genius?
by Alan Okey
[Jamie Franklin] ""Avid, CS6, Resolve, Smoke.

Its all awesome"

Fixed..."


"Avid, CS6, Resolve, Smoke. It's all awesome."

Now it's fixed.

;)
Re: Blog: FCP X and it's launch: Blunder or Genius?
by Joseph Owens
[Bret Williams] "In light of all the NAB announcements regarding editing, I have to ask - "WHY is it going to take time for FCPX to mature?" "

Yes, exactly.

Apple ProApps had a fully evolved package that did pretty much what everyone thought they needed, but it needed to be more efficient and ecumenical. And what we got was back to the beginning. And someone decided they were Alexander the Great and burned the ships on the beach.

Simply, this is the difference between a general store and a focused boutique. Even back in the day of dedicated electronics, it was difficult for even SONY to compete, camera-for-camera with Ikegami. The former made a full range of media products and the latter made cameras... and monitors. The HL-79 was almost unbeatable. All a Sony rep could do was start building a sales package that included a bunch of other goodies and build out the markup so the customer would choose quantity over quality.

Now buyer trends seem to favour consumption of mass quantities, which is mostly about self-gratification, but there are probably still a few around who will choose *actual* benefits over useless features.

The price shouldn't be a mystery. I don't really see Apple Corporation as being a particularly benevolent or philanthropic organization -- not with that much money at stake. I know, there's lots of "they have plenty of money, they can afford it" thrown around... but nothing could be further from the truth if you have spent any time around the people who actually have *that kind* of money. So some people will buy *it* just out of curiousity. Apple could care less. Buyers will also include bona fide enthusiasts who would balk at the idea of $1200, and there are professionals, apparently, who do as well, as astonishing as that may seem.

Is it "chump change" to Apple, financially and technologically and only a little island in its ecology? It would be understandable, but then we should begin to suspect a delusion that it really thinks its being benevolent; but it does sort of come off as patronizing, especially as dumbed-down as the perception is (rightly or wrongly) of FCX.

jPo

You mean "Old Ben"? Ben Kenobi?
Maybe Apple forsaw a Bleak future
by Richard Cardonna
Maybe the people at Apple saw more than they are telling.

I just realized by a comment from Ben Rojas of the bleak future of post specialy highend.

Not that it was a total surprise but the forth coming cloud can make outsourcing to editors and artist way to easy.

Now oufits in India,Philipeans,Eastern Euroupe... can offer great services at greatly reduced cost. Thats not to mention the clot of content searching for venues many of them pirate prone.

The availablity of high end software at bargain prices ie symphony,smoke,mc. Changes the whole lot.

My friends in Hollywood tell me that content cost including camera talent is spiraling down very fast.

I know that the user is the important element but for sure there great users in other parts of the world.

And we are all happily contributing to this future. What else can we do?

RC
Re: Maybe Apple forsaw a Bleak future
by Bret Williams
I guess that is sorta what I'm getting at. I was just musing train of thought. I don't know about this india outsourcing thing. Have you ever heard of a Hollywood movie or television commercial being outsourced to india? I don't think so. Isn't it horrible enough trying to just talk to tech support with that method? I don't foresee reality TV being cut that way. Heck, if anything, we're moving toward cutting while shooting on a laptop.

Cloud editing? Sure. When you can upload 500gigs in a few seconds. But for now the file sizes are getting larger and the internet speeds and cost aren't coming close to keeping up. Proxy editing maybe, but that just adds another step and doesn't really help.

No, I think it's just too precise an industry and craft. Maybe episodic cartoons or something repetitive, where someone overseas is doing the grunt work. But I don't see some guy in india competing for corporate editing gigs any time soon.
Re: Maybe Apple forsaw a Bleak future
by Andrew Kimery
[Bret Williams] " Have you ever heard of a Hollywood movie or television commercial being outsourced to india? I don't think so."

Animation and VFX are getting outsourced to India and SE Asia all the time. Disney does it, FOX does it, low-budget features do it. It's only a matter of time before editing can be outsourced just as easily.


-Andrew

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)

Re: Maybe Apple forsaw a Bleak future
by Jamie Franklin
[Andrew Kimery] "Animation and VFX are getting outsourced to India and SE Asia all the time. Disney does it, FOX does it, low-budget features do it. It's only a matter of time before editing can be outsourced just as easily."

All have lead compositors and project managers hovering over their shoulders. Editors LOVE that! :P

And a tech review process that is easily achievable now with lower cost drives, clouds and fiber. And a lot of what goes over is pretty cookie cutter when it comes to series...

Editing a series requires about 10 sign offs from producers and directors and DP's all requiring access to the editor, most of the time now while IN production...they won't be flying to India anytime soon

I don't foresee this process ever moving overseas on a major scale, nor anywhere near like vfx
Re: Maybe Apple forsaw a Bleak future
by Andrew Kimery
[Jamie Franklin] "Editing a series requires about 10 sign offs from producers and directors and DP's all requiring access to the editor, most of the time now while IN production...they won't be flying to India anytime soon"

Not all editing requires that vast amount of supervision and even for projects that did why would they need to fly to India when they can just watch it where ever they are in the world? The tech backbone currently exists and it just needs to be leveraged by an NLE maker. Avid showed off a demo a couple NAB's ago called Edit Anything, Anywhere and it was their vision of a Cloud-based editing solution. You could conceivably be sitting on a beach in Europe using the iPad to edit 4k RED files (or whatever) stored on a server in LA.


-Andrew

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)

Re: Maybe Apple forsaw a Bleak future
by Jamie Franklin
They still require access to the editor. Sure you can do a review process online. I recently cut a film with the director living in Dubai. But it was the slowest process I have ever worked on. Brutal. This boils down to a lot of talent can be achieved for highly technical projects in India (Prime Focus) or SEA. But editing is completely different animal. It's not about modeling and compositing, huge technical time sinks where you might need 200 vfx artists. Editing is usually a solitary man who may or may not own a chicken...

I'm not saying its impossible. Of course it is. But creatively, productions have a talent pool of editors they work with here for a reason. And there is really no budget justification to hire out 1-6 editors overseas for a project. Unless you are seriously so cheap you can't afford to pay one principal a decent wage...and it is better, creatively, to be sitting in the same room as your editor, imo
Re: Maybe Apple forsaw a Bleak future
by Andrew Kimery
I think it really depends on the needs of the production. Reality show on a tight deadline? Probably not a great fit (some repetitive AE duties could probably be done overseas). I've worked on commercials and pitch reels where I only saw the producer twice (once to pick up the footage and once to drop off the final product) and all other interactions were phone, email and Vimeo links. And at a previous job for a website that did a lot news-style interviews there was no producer/editor interaction other than receiving the raw materials at the beginning and having the producer rubber stamp the final product at the end.

I could see those types of jobs easily being done remotely (either over seas or in a different part of the US where people didn't need to make Los Angeles rates to survive).

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)

Re: Maybe Apple forsaw a Bleak future
by Gary Huff
[Richard Cardonna] "Now oufits in India,Philipeans,Eastern Euroupe... can offer great services at greatly reduced cost. Thats not to mention the clot of content searching for venues many of them pirate prone."

Yes, and we know how well that worked out for the tech support arena, don't we?
Re: Maybe Apple forsaw a Bleak future
by Bret Williams
Yup. And while I haven't really seen labor rates go through the roof, I haven't seen them plunge. I mean here in corporate land, a camera op and his gear are still 1000-2000 a day and a freelance editor can make 50-100/hr. 10 years ago freelance editors were more like 40-70/hr. So not too bad in a crappy economy. I work at home suite and freelance. And the rate isn't really that much different. I'm not running a smoke or anything. Yet. So I could probably do better if I didn't spend thousands on gear every year, but I'd be buying a lot of it anyway just to keep up to speed. Might as well use it.

So I dunno. Gear prices have come down, and more people have access to the gear. But there's just so much more content to be made.



Blog FeedRSS


Archives:

April 2012 (1)


Tags:

show more


FORUMSTUTORIALSMAGAZINESTOCKYARDVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2013 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]