One of the problems of being in the middle is that I can see both sides. I don’t necessarily agree with them, but I can appreciate their point of view.
My blog this morning – Who’s Accountable – touched a nerve because, in addition to the people that commented directly on the blog, I’ve also had several private conversations with Apple and people who are very, very upset with Apple.
What’s become obvious over the last week, is that the way the Final Cut Pro X launch was handled has totally overshadowed the features of Final Cut Pro X.
Over the last several days, I’ve been consumed with trying to decide what to do – stay with Final Cut or move to another platform. If I switch, what do I switch to? What advice should I give to others trying to make the same choice?
As my office will attest, all this internal debating has not made me a pleasant person to be around.
Let me share my thinking with you — then, you can decide for yourself whether you agree or disagree.
First, let me say that I think the launch of Final Cut Pro X was very badly handled. As I’ve written, I don’t think Apple needed to cancel Final Cut Studio (3) as abruptly and coldly as they did. They should have given us more time to make an orderly transition. They were thinking as a technology company, not as editors managing a decade of assets.
Canceling Final Cut Server, even though it was incompatible with Final Cut Pro X, has unnecessarily jeopardized companies building a business on that platform.
Apple never does things accidentally, so they will disagree with me. Probably strongly disagree… I remember a remark one of the people at Apple told me before the launch, in that they were expecting a lot of controversy over the new version of Final Cut Pro.
Well, we can certainly agree about that.
I also think that Apple seriously erred in not providing a conversion utility between Final Cut Pro 7 and FCP X. The one-two punch of canceling FCS (3) and an inability to convert old projects dominated the discussion far more than the merits of FCP X.
Apple will disagree, but the launch did not take the feelings and passion of editors properly into account. And damage was done.
On the other hand, there are some very cool new features in Final Cut Pro X. Some editors are writing and telling me how much they are enjoying the new program. (Just as other editors are writing to tell me, at length, why they are moving to Avid or Adobe.)
There’s a lot of passion on both sides. And both sides have some truth behind them.
But, let’s look at a few more points:
* Apple said in their presentation at NAB that FCP X redefines video editing for the next ten years. There is lots of additional development planned.
* Apple told me that because FCP X is distributed via the App Store, they can update the program much more frequently than when it was sold as a package on DVD.
* Apple wrote in their FAQ that they are already working on adding new features, such as XML and multicam, to the product and releasing updates quickly.
* Apple has stressed that FCP X is designed to provide a feature set for professionals, and not just as an upgrade for iMovie. (I am not saying they MET the needs of professionals, but a look at the architecture of FCP X reveals features that no iMovie user would ever need.)
* However, it is also self-evident that Apple needed to provide a clear and consistent upgrade path to iMovie users who were totally lost trying to understand how Final Cut Express works. Apple feels that it is possible for one product to meet both needs.
As I wrote in an earlier blog – Moving Forward – the first rule of business is to stay in business. All of us should keep an eye on our options. Check out what Avid, Adobe, and Media 100 are offering. If you feel you can’t wait, then switch.
But I would also suggest that many of us would benefit by taking a deep breath and giving Apple a chance to live up to their promises for the program.
Final Cut Studio (3) still works.
It took Avid, Adobe, and Apple many years to evolve their programs to their current feature set. I’m willing to give Apple a few months to get their act together and fix what’s broken with FCP X.
I’m going to stay with Final Cut Pro for a while. Work at learning the new version. Give feedback to Apple on what they need to do to improve things. And share what I learn with you.
Final Cut Pro X has a lot of exciting potential – but, for many of us, that potential is not yet realized.
The burden is on Apple to deliver on their promises, update the program quickly, and repair the damage they did during the launch. The proof is in the program.
If they succeed, great. If not, Avid and Adobe will still be around in six months.
Larry
89 Responses to What Will Larry Do?
← Older Comments Newer Comments →-
Leo Hans says:
July 10, 2011 at 10:41 am
-
Claes says:
July 10, 2011 at 11:01 am
-
Ron Priest says:
July 10, 2011 at 1:48 pm
-
Peter Jensen says:
July 10, 2011 at 4:57 pm
-
Mark Raudonis says:
July 10, 2011 at 7:55 pm
-
Larry says:
July 10, 2011 at 8:09 pm
-
Keith Wright says:
July 11, 2011 at 10:45 am
-
Pat (VET) says:
July 11, 2011 at 10:53 am
-
Richard Fendelman says:
July 11, 2011 at 11:04 am
-
Larry says:
July 11, 2011 at 11:09 am
-
Doug Garside says:
July 11, 2011 at 11:22 am
-
Mitch Ives says:
July 11, 2011 at 11:52 am
-
Larry says:
July 11, 2011 at 11:55 am
← Older Comments Newer Comments →Bort, Larry, FCPX supports one sequence per project but the concept of project has changed.
In FCP1-7 a project was all the media, all the bins structure and all the sequences, not anymore.
Now projects are sequences and you can have unlimited projects. You can group them on folders. This way, you can consider the folder containing all the subfolders and projects inside it as a whole project like it was on previous versions.
I have two complaints with the current implementation of projects:
1) You can’t have more than one project opened at time. Thats make too slow switching projects and it still useful to do that. (the left/right arrows are unpredictable to know which sequence will open).
2) When you duplicate a project you can choose to copy or not the render files, but you can’t “share” render files. The best optimized way would be to share renders until a particular render file needs to be different from one project to other (for instance in the case you change a parameter) then it would be necessary to have different render files for each one.
Larry, I appreciate your efforts at keeping some balance in this brouhaha.
For all of you who are absolutely gushing with love for Adobe and Avid:
From Avid I get the distinct sense that they would love for the world to be back in the days when software had bunches of zeroes before the decimal point and the users didn’t think of upgrading anything connected to the system without first getting the blessing from Avid, because the whole thing might blow up. I know I don’t want to get into that world.
From Adobe, I get mixed feelings. On one hand, they want to wow with new features in each upgrade. On the other hand, they just moved to a 12 month release schedule instead of 18-24 month. That’s an effective price increase of something like 150-200%, in a down/recovering economy. They are also really pushing getting us all on to subscription, where your software works as long as you pay. Don’t pay = no software, not just no upgrade. But when you add up the monthly subscription, it’s like paying full price for the software every 12-15 months, with nothing to show for it at the end. I feel Adobe is getting very arrogant and greedy and they feel they can get away with it, because they offer this integrated package that does it all.
In the end, I don’t trust Adobe or Avid to be there for the long haul for my business either. Adobe already proved that with first letting Premiere on the Mac languish and then removing it from the Mac totally, until they decided to bring it back years later (because us Mac users were somehow forgiven??). That could happen again, tomorrow.
“In the end, I don’t trust Adobe or Avid to be there for the long haul for my business either. Adobe already proved that with first letting Premiere on the Mac languish and then removing it from the Mac totally, until they decided to bring it back years later (because us Mac users were somehow forgiven??). That could happen again, tomorrow.”
You had better believe it could happen again, and there is nothing that Adobe would like to do more than to once again stop supporting the Mac. I’m with you here Claes, I don’t trust Adobe either, and if they had their way, they would have a new version every 6 months instead of 12. They don’t fix the bugs with current versions now before they come out with a new version as it is. It will only get worse! Good luck to all of you that think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Also, you’ll want to wash that egg off your face as soon as possible!
If you go through Adobes history with Apple it´s a love hate thing.
Apple has gone out of their way to kill flash, which is an Adobe product.
They changed the foundation for 64 bit software with a blink of an eye and Adobe lost so much work with that blink it set them back on the Apple platform.
Avid is fighting a battle with every release thanks to the Apple way of doing things. They fix mistakes in Quicktime and adds new bugs that renders it useless. Avid has to produce a fix everytime that happens.
Buy a PC and use that for your professional work and keep everything else on the Apple platform. It works!
Gasper,
As the VP of Post Production at Bunim-Murray I will tell you that your facts are COMPLETLEY WRONG. I don’t know where you got your information, but here’s the truth: We are doing NOTHING until 2012. We did just upgrade all of Mac Pro towers, but have NO PLANS to switch them to PCs. Nothing has been “returned”. Nobody is “Pissed”. Regardless of what we do, they will work JUST FINE for either Avid, PP, or FCP-X.
Please do not present incorrect information about our actions as “fact”. Our office # is 818 756 5100. Next time you want to post about we we’ve done, please call me before you make something up.
Thanks.
Mark Raudonis
VP POST PRODUCTION
BUNIM-MURRAY PRODUCTIONS
Everyone:
I removed the original incorrect comment, but left Mark’s reply in case any rumors were started.
Mark, I’m sorry I approved the original post without calling you first.
Larry
What will Larry do?… what should freelancers do?
I edit for many companies, some have FCS in-house and some farm it out to mostly Avid based facilities.
But yesterday a client asked me – “What edit software should I buy for our in-house suite?” I was stumped. I can’t recommend FCPX. Firstly we know it lacks stuff, but secondly no one knows how to use it properly yet. I’m toying with FCPX myself and it feels like I’m learning to walk again. It’s going to take time.
So where does that leave people looking to invest in a suite right now? Avid is certainly more affordable and well proven and then there’s Adobe PP. Up until now I’ve never taken PP too seriously, for one simple reason, no one ever hires me to edit on it.
But, with FCS discontinued and FCPX dividing the edit community, Adobe is starting to create a buzz amongst people and companies I know. It has a lot going for it.
Last night I opened up Adobe PP for the first time on my computer and had a play. Why?, because I suspect very soon I’m going to get that call – “Are you available on… oh, and can you edit on PP?”
Better get learning.
Thanks Larry some very interesting and thought provoking posts recently. (Well they always are of course)
It’s been an amazing few weeks and we are working hard to help editors cope with the changes.
I spent some time talking to an editor who had just finished completely getting to grips with Color (in FCP7) to see his future career vanish. (he’s had a look at the color correction tools in FCPX)
But of course there is no immediate problems for FCP houses. We run FCP & systems and expect to be using them for another year.
We now term them Legacy FCP for clarity.
We’re looking at using our iMac FCP systems for the increasing Avid take up so they won’t go to waste.
We will also be playing with FCPX (and have been since release) and seeing what is strong and whats weak (or missing) and looking for solutions. And fully expect by V1.5 (or is that 10.5) that we’ll be seeing a useful post tool. Around 2014 I expect but who knows.
As to why FCP CS3 had to die is easy. Apple needed the FCP badge to sell FCPX. iMovie-deluxe just wouldn’t have sold as well as FCP.
Apple look to have played a smart game. They evolved FCP and created a market and reputation. They sold it at a reasonable price and with no real licensing protection (not activated) and it spread like wild fire in the education community. Apple now have a young market of Apple editors.
Looks to me like Apple have played the game remarkably well.
I imagine like most you’ll still pt your FCP7 to good use and look to see what jobs FCPX could be used for and what creative tasks it could excel at.
If we go to Adobe, do we really need to stay with an Apple computer. Wouldn’t a Windows Pc be just as good or better?
Migrating edit systems is one thing. Migrating computers means that all your data and all your other programs will need to be changed. The system you edit on is your choice, but changing computer systems is a HUGE amount of work.
Larry
I have recently (March ’11) adopted final cut server as our asset manager and I feel sorely mis-sold. We are a broadcast commercial suite with 6 FCP’s, mainly delivering digitally (uncompressed QT masters) but occasionally we still need to deliver tape – sposnsorship idents are still delivered directly to staions in the UK, rather than distributed to the broadcast centres, as they pertain to specific programs and time slots, and therefore require the facility to produce tape direct from the NLE. Additionally there are thousands of hours of legacy footage on Digi Beta in our archives that we may need to re-visit…
We have just invested heavily in a product that apple gave no indication was about to become obsolete. This raises longer term questions about how can a professional trust apple with their secretive policies, adopt to FCP X only to have it whipped away from under us in 5 years? Smart? I think not.
Are Apple offering refunds on Final Cut Servers purchased in ’11?
Larry,
The only problem with your point is this… with the new announcement by Matrox (and Phil Hodgetts):
“Matrox made there announcement this morning and categorically stated that there is no way to get video out…
“FCP X does not support professional video monitoring. For full-screen, preview-quality output you can use the second DisplayPort output from your computer in Full Screen Mode”
Peter Wiggins who was also at the meeting clarified that he did not hear anyone say that pro video output was coming. And the original poster has posted several corrections on Twitter after being contacted by Apple.”
This alone will keep FCPX from ever being considered a professional app. This is THE most basic requirement. Proper color correction CANNOT be done on a cinema display, I don’t care how much work they put into colorsync.
I can adapt to the new paradigm. I can adapt to work arounds for the various XML and OMF needs. What I cannot adapt to is being unable to open old projects and being unable to properly monitor the output. IMO it’s those two things that have killed FCPX, not all the little things…
I agree – I find it very, very difficult to believe that Apple will be unable to find a way to provide video output.
Larry