"iDebacle: How Apple took the "Pro" out of FCPX"

Nice to see someone with your background make such assessment.

I personally think FCPX will grow into a very professional NLE. I suspect Apple has a lot in store given the metadata capabilities.

There are those that abhor some fundamental FCPX foundations that I would guess no amount of professional features will ameliorate. Such is the case with Connected Clips and Secondary Storylines, two features which I think are great innovation. I've been editing on NLEs since the late '80s including the earliest Avids.

To me, the track, often doesn't adequately represent my story constructs. When doing layering I'm often focused on vertical work, all tied to the base clip(s), Connected clips are something I've wanted since my first encounters with NLEs. When I need areas to work both horizontally and vertically, the Secondary Storyline makes sense. The problem I'd had with tracks is that clips in one area of a track often had little to do with clips in another part of the same track. Yet that track defined relationships (inappropriately IMHO) that forced me to make "odd" selections as I moved vertically composited clips around or to avoid clips collisions because they were consecutive in arrangement, tied to a given track when it was really just coincidental positioning.

BTW I certainly think there's much that needs improvement with Connected Clips and Secondary Storylines but I think they're a big step in the right direction for structural organizing at least as far as how my mind works.

Do you think that professional editors will see the merit in the "trackless" timeline to bring FCPX out of a niche, even if it's eventually a professional niche? I see this as a big marketing battle for Apple as FCPX matures.

Nice article, but I really wish the apologists would stop saying it is "1.0". It is not version 1.0. It is called Final Cut Pro. Do a Get Info. It says Version 10.0. When DVD Studio Pro changed a lot, why didn't people call the newfangled version "1.0" instead of "2.0" like it was? It was a complete rewrite, but nobody went around calling it 1.0. Apple called it version 2, so did we. Apple is calling this version 10, so must we. It is a sequel to Final Cut Pro 7, new code or not. It should have all of the features from 7.0. Bottom line is that Apple dropped the ball. They went full retard.

To be honest, it really doesn't matter what version it is. 1.0, 8.0 whatever. The problem is that it is being touted as the successor to Final Cut Studio. And when people try to qualify Apple's debacle, they always say "but it's 1.0!" as if that makes everything OK. 1.0 is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for it to have fewer features than its predecessor. I know many here are Apple fanboys and will go down with the (professional) ship and will say anything to make it seem like Apple is doing all of us a favor by blessing us with this wonderful new piece of software crafted on the holy ground of Cupertino or whatever the city's name is.

The bottom line for me is that I use the Mac platform specifically for Final Cut Pro. There is absolutely no other reason to use the platform that I personally can think of for me. And no, their hardware is not built better than PC hardware. My optical drives have both failed (likely the cable inside) and the front USB ports on my Mac Pro keep dying, being fixed by a reboot. These things would be much easier to fix on PC hardware and far cheaper to do so, too. But I bit the bullet because Final Cut Pro is the best. If Apple no longer wants to offer an application that is just as intuitive and has all of the features, why should I support Apple? Again, I can think of no good reason.

Aside from the incredibly nonsensical method that Apple employed in announcing and releasing FCP 10, my biggest issue is that they released the product long before it was ready. It's as if they released a product that was barely ready for alpha testing let alone, beta testing. But release it they did, then almost immediately stated that they would fix some of the known problems with the next update. And I'm not talking about bug fixes; we all know that all software has bugs. I'm talking about the real problems that they had to have known about prior to releasing it.

My second concern is the direction that Apple has been taking as a company. If you look back, the signs are all there, but most people didn't or couldn't recognize them and understand what those signs meant. Over the past several years, Apple has been consistently moving to the consumer electronics market and away from the professional software market. With regard to FCP and the professional editor, all you have to do is follow Apple's development of FCP; the upgrade from FCP 6 to FCP 7 was extremely minimal and long in coming. Then Apple terminated or transferred many of the ProApps development staff ... while FCP users still waited for a meaningful 'upgrade.' When they moved folks from the iMove development team to the ProApps team, everyone should have been able to see what was coming. Perhaps we were all just too believing that Apple would continue to support the professional editing market and couldn't fathom what they actually had planned.

I can't blame Apple in any way for pursuing the consumer market; like every other company Apple has to make a profit to survive. I understand and can appreciate that fully. But what I can blame them for is the way they touted the upgrade to Final Cut Studio 3 as an actual upgrade when in actuality is wasn't that at all. Without warning, they simply released a defective product that had been written from scratch and was seriously lacking in features that many professional editors relied on daily to do their jobs. And that's where the real problem lies.

I know they call it version 10 and that it bears the name Final Cut Pro. But it simply isn't. It is version 1 software, regardless of the name or version number Apple gave it. A more appropriate name would have been: "Ex-FCP."

Whether or not it will ever be developed enough to be a true professional NLE app is pure speculation. My personal belief is that as long as the typical iPhone/iPad owner can edit and upload to youtube, Apple will be satisfied that they have a "professional" product. There is absolutely no indication that Apple will restore any missing features, regardless of what they may claim. Believing what Apple claims these days is just being naive.

-DH

I'm still using FCP 6 and do not have an Intel machine. Based on everything I've read I'm not moving up anytime soon. A friend of mine who doesn't have a Mac and not using FCP anything is taking an editing class at a local college and they are learning on FCP X. He doesn't mind it at all!! I think the point of this is that it depends on which way your coming from when being introduced to FCP X. If you've never heard of or used FCP then it's either your first editing system or a new one if coming from other than a FCP system. For most of us FCP users we're expecting X to be somewhat familer in looks and feel to what were presently using and we find that it isn't so. Only a few on this forum seems to like it at this point and even they have big concerns about X. Perhaps Apple is counting on the masses of newcomers to buy and use X and that they are either new to editing or coming from iMovie.

It's too bad that Apple didn't continue with just adding better features to FCP7 and make it FCP 8, then 9 and so on.

Tom

Over time the video industry changes. Today's student is tomorrow's facility editor, freelancer, business startup. Facilities have been under deep financial pressure for many years now as budgets shrink. Granted FCPX is missing a lot of fundamental features but that will change. Apple loves selling hardware and they certainly want you to buy new Macs instead of Windows boxes. FCPX will be tightly integrated into the hardware. Facilities spend quite a bit on hardware and they're going to make the most cost effective purchases. If Apple has learned anything, it's how commodity pricing impacts sales... event to "professionals."

I'm with Tom. FCP 7 should have been upgraded, not downgraded into a mockery of that great application that once was. Let's not forget that the reason FCP became a huge success was because a lot of professional editors embraced it and made it a Hollywood standard. Once FCP was famous and the thing-to-have, Apple thought no longer needed the pros and it went after the massive wannabes with the new iMovie Pro, aka FCPX.

I'll keep using my FCP 7 for as long as I can, but I see no use for FCPX. Besides the lost flexibility, its interface is horrible; too muddy and dark for my aging eyes.

Alberto

I enjoyed reading Larry's article and I believe it is spot on in his assessment. If Apple had not produced an updated version we would all be happy using FC7 and anxious for when FC8 came out. Instead, what we got was an entirely new application with the same name, Final Cut Pro, however, that doesn't make it Final Cut Pro. It is, without question in my mind, version 1 of a new app. We can all look forward, or not, to its being updated to version 2 and, hopefully, it will bring back some of the many features we waited years for and finally got in Studio. Whatever its potential is, I feel a bit resentful that I now have to go back to beginner status and learn all over again. Final Cut Pro version 1 was not as intuitive as most here think. I recall how desperately we went to 2-pop asking simple questions like, how to close a gap. There were no books, DVDs or tutorials, no websites even until 2 pop began and then, even better, the kenstone.net site.
Currently I am working on a project in X. I don't want to, I would rather work on it in 7 but I figure that is the only way I will learn it. I bet Ken a whole nickel that Apple may drop X entirely in a couple of years as a result from the largely negative reaction to it.
Bottom line, other than a few requested bells and whistles, all anyone really wanted was FC to become 64 bit and utilize all our ram and cores. We would have been thrilled with just that.
On a side note, due to all the reviews, in the past Apple provided NFRs to writers who needed to get a jumpstart on new versions. With X, Apple wouldn't even talk and the $ for it came sadly out of my pocket.
Steve

Ah Joe, you see I came from a Videonics linear editing suite. Remember those expensive mixers, character generators and such and the NEVER frame accurate SVHS machines? So for me, moving to non linear really was a big change. Loved it though and thanks to this site, I learned quickly.
As to the rest , I agree with you.
Steve

Same here, still have some of that old Videonics gear and a bunch of JVC 6800-U's (none working). My Sony Hi8 deck still works great, though. I was always fairly computer-saavy, so maybe that helped.