Not to put too fine a point on it Randy, but as the SuperMeet presentation noted, there are over TWO MILLION LICENSED FCP seats out there.

Want to take a guess at how many of those are in fully pro TV studio environs? I'd bet the total is under 10%. So while esoteric "pro features" like the ability to integrate your work into a 60 seat facility and share petabytes of storage across a 5 acre facility are important to a great many industry insiders - the actual number of users with needs at this level is probably pretty small.

PARTICULARLY since the clear and obvious trend today is in corporate DOWNSIZING. I've done work the past few months that, a few years ago SHOULD have gone to a facility with a $2million dollar plant. - but I do it in my converted hay barn with a fraction of the overhead and in digital collaboration with other pros in other states and the end result all the quality with little of the overhead. It's my primary competitive advantage.

Maybe it's still important for Apple so serve the top of the Pro market. I hope so. I like the path because it generates tools that are useful to me at the "single seat but with nice corporate clients" level.

However, Apple simply WILL NOT survive if it focuses exclusively on what may be even 200,000 "true facility pro customers" - or even event folks who want to keep mailing plastic - if it doesn't ALSO meet the needs of the 1,800,000 others out here who also contribute their money to the FCP Development efforts. Also, it doesn't take a genius to forsee a time where along with your water heater and your air conditioner, houses will come with built in data storage - and when you move you'll simply download your family files to the new house and erase them from the old (with secure backups on the cloud.)

How long away is that? A few years? The wiring is trivial and if the housing industry hadn't cratered, I'll bet you a dime to a dollar that without the real estate bubble burst - it would already be an optional new home feature gaining traction today simply because virtually EVERYBODY needs home based digital storage in their lives today. (Apple TV and Airport rigs making a bit more future sense now?)

As to FCP I certainly hope they keep every pro they're currently got. But if not, I'm sorry, but the pros are going to have to bend in this. Because no business worth it's name survives (or should) if it concentrates on filling 200,000 orders at $1000 when it has the opportunity to fill 1.8 Million orders at $299. Do the math. 529 million against 200 million?

Apple is many things. Business idiots they most certainly are not.

I don't think it's completely that owning an Apple product is "cool;" I think Apple makes great products that work. While my friends laughed at me shelling out $1400 for an old MacBook (including RAM, bigger drive, etc.), they spent $500 on a solid Dell that died within months, and they bought another, cheaper one. And it died a year later. 3.5 years later and they've spent more money on 4 laptops than I did on one. And I cut a feature film with FCP on that MacBook before selling it for something faster.

When FCP shipped in 1999, Adobe Premiere 5.1 was having serious issues with handling DV, which was fixed by ver. 6, but it was, at the time, too late for them and Mac. Avid had nothing cheap--you had to shell out lots of money just to get a decent NLE. (I'm focusing on Mac NLEs here.)

Even now, if you want to edit a high-end film, you just need a great Mac Pro (or MB Pro with ProRes 422), a bunch of hard drives, a great capture card and a calibrated monitor (think Matrox MXO and an LCD). You're probably out $5,000 - $10,000, while to do the same with Avid, you're gonna end up renting the system because it's so expensive. FCP killed Avid in that dept.

I will agree that, until now, only Premiere Pro and Vegas Pro were really adding in great new features and changing the UI a lot. I have a friend who owns a rental house and he's been renting out Avid systems for years. He told me the other day that, aside from some new features and UI tweaks, Avid hasn't changed much, like FCP, over the years.

I think message boards and communities like DVi, instructional videos, etc., have really helped push people to try FCP and that's why it's been hard for others to catch up. Vegas Pro does it well, too, with guys like Spot and VASST doing some great training discs and books. That's what attracted me to Vegas Pro, and that's an NLE UI that I wasn't comfortable stepping into, since FCP, Avid and Premiere are essentially the same.

heath

A friend of mine sent me a link about 10 businesses that have seen serious "erosion" in the past 10 years, and post-production houses have certainly got hit pretty hard with apps like Final Cut Pro, Vegas Pro, etc. Something like 48%. And it's not just the economy -- people don't want to pay a lot of money for production anymore.

Up until a year ago, I was working for a company as a one-man band (three of us total, covering Vero Beach to Miami Beach) doing writing/producing/shooting/editing of local commercials for Comcast Spotlight, who laid off something like 15-20 people and the outside company replaced them with 3 of us. Then dropped the price from $1200 for a basic :30 to $550. Low? Very, but it's the reality.

In the past 10-15 years, it's gone from "jack of all trades, master of none," focus on one or two things, which I learned in film school, to "if you don't know how to shoot, edit and do graphics (and possibly write, direct and produce), you aren't working." I spent years as an editor, always with a separate department for shooting, graphics, production, etc. Now it's all one or two people. That's the reality of it, and Apple is smart to capitalize on that market.

I'm glad people are mastering BDs and DVDs; other than working on some films from 04 to 08, the last companies I've worked for, I've had to burn a grand total of, and I'm not kidding, 10 DVDs. 7 for the corporate video company and only 3, literally, out of about 75-100 commercials I did at the local production house. For the most part, the clients wanted a WMV for their website and that was it. I was shocked!

But as I sit here, having just recently moved and my best friend and I were lugging around a ton of DVDs, comics and books from my various and vast collections, I realized I want to use my VUDU and Apple TVs more now, and get an iPad for digital comics and books. I shall NOT be a hoarder anymore. (wink) That's the future, and I said it 3 years ago after seeing the VUDU at CES 2008, even if I only half-believed it then.

One last thing, that 2 million licensed user number is people who bought the app, not "borrowed" it or stole it. So I'm sure there are way more FCP editors out there. On top of it, at the FCS 2 presentation at NAB 2007, they said there were around 800,000 - 900,000 licensed users. So in 4 years, they've more than doubled their user base. (Does it include Final Cut Express? I'm guessing yes.)

heath

Hi Bill,

Very well said.

I am no marketing expert but I do have a BS degree in Marketing and Poli Science; so, I have a decent understanding of how consumers and people 'think'. With Apple, the reason their products sell so well is due to Branding.
SNIP
!

Personally, my college path stopped short of a Mass Com degree in the 1970s - but as a former ad agency owner, I'll note that branding is functional ONLY if you have products that reflect CONGRUENTLY on the brand. If your brand is CHEAP - the goods HAVE to be cheap. If your brand is LUXURY - then your customers expect to pay a premium and be part of a more exclusive clientele, etc.

We've seen legions of internet pundits try to brand Apple products as "overpriced toys for dilettantes" but no matter how hard some argue for this view, sales, adoption and customer attitudes continue to prove that this view is abjectly wrong.

I'd personally sum up the apple BRAND today as way more than just "cool" because "cool" is transitory. I'd personally define the modern Apple brand as "technology products that inspire feelings of customer delight and consistently operate in a VERY approachable and satisfying fashion"

If FCP-X does that - its another big win for Apple. Simple as that.

And with the expertise and resources they have in Cupertino - I seriously suspect it will.

We'll see soon.

I think the target audience for a product like FCP is much different today than back when Apple orignally bought FCP. Do they want to make a product that just appeals to movie makers? Commercial? or everyone. Its been like 10 years since i-pods came out and most music is downloaded from the internet yet there are still stores that sell CDs you can download movies from multiple sources yet stores still sell DVDs & BR just because it makes sense to the "techies" of the world like us doesnt make it so. Personally id love to deliver my videos on a thumb drive and let the bride pop it in her media player but were not there yet and wont be for a long time. Personally I think Apple will release a BR solution I think they were even going that way at the end of FCP 7. I think all that stuff about BR being the past was Steve Jobs spinning the fact that they didnt want to put out the money to update DVDSP 4 to handle BR I think now that they are starting over that they will... at least I hope. I dont know what the hold up is there are tons of solutions on the Windows platform from cheap to hi-end.

... WHY then, NO OTHER software has been able to give FCP a serious run for it's crown in editing popularity?My take on this is pretty simple...

Roughly 50% of our industry (all inclusive; all markets from Hollywood to wedding videographers to the small town video shop, etc.) edits video on a Mac. I don't think they chose the Mac just for editing video with it; I believe most Mac folks consider themselves primarily Mac folks regardless of video editing.

FCP dominates on the Mac side, and that's the only popularity battle it needed to win. Since the PC side is heavily fragmented between Premiere, Vegas, and Avid (and to a lesser degree by Edius, NewTek and others), FCP wins the "most popular" title overall by default. Too many good choices on the PC side prevent any one of them from rising to the top to emerge as the clear winner, as FCP did on the Mac side. Therefore FCP is the single most popular NLE of them all (Adobe wants to change that though).

FCP's market share would have been much less if the Mac platform itself weren't so prevalent within this industry -- unlike the consumer home computer world, where PCs still outsell Macs by a broad margin. But the fact is, in the world of video editing, it's roughly 50% Mac and 50% PC.

I agree Chris. Premiere, Edius, FCP Vegas to me are like clubs in a golf bag I pick the right one for the hole im on. Mini golf of course:) the problem im having is I use Edius for most of my editing I bought FCS for DVDSP 4 probably the best author tool on the market which why I want Apple to pick up the BR so badly. All those programs mentioned have one thing in common they all have a DVD author tool tied just for it. Edius's sucks! I need a good author tool im counting on Apple to come through. I-DVD BR would be perfect!:)

I'm loving Bill's posts and I like his definition of the modern Apple brand.

But I think Steve was right to try to sum up the brand in one word. The majority of marketers consider "Positioning" to be the best book on marketing - http://www.ries.com/images/archive/large/354-1.jpg - and positioning teaches that a brand has to stand for something in the mind of the consumer, usually a single word. Like with the different car brands. Over many years, Toyota came to own the word "reliability" in the mind. (Despite more recent troubles.) Volvo owns "safety". Mercedes is "prestige". And so on.

The only thing I disagree with Steve on, is the word "cool" to sum up Apple's positioning.

The word Apple owns in the mind is "aesthetic". Aesthetic is defined in the dictionary as "giving or designed to give pleasure through beauty; of pleasing appearance".

There were heaps of MP3 players on the market. Loaded with ugly buttons and complex menus. The iPod was very "late to the market" actually. Yet it was simple, elegant and beautiful in comparison. It concentrated on the aesthetics of the user experience. It took over the market. (After all, isn't listening to music an aesthetic experience?) A friend of mine is a computer tech and a real expert on PCs. I remember a couple of years ago he told me that even the internal layout and connections of the Mac (Mac Pro) were elegant and "beautiful" and he wished he could get his PCs configured similarly. The Mac OS (in the way OS X is laid out) is similarly aesthetic for the user experience and I think Microsoft have been smart in their recent releases to move away from a "functional" interface to one which has more of the OS X "look". Same story with the iPhone and especially the iPad. Tablets just never caught on, until Apple concentrated on a 100% aesthetic user experience.

So my vote is for the word "aesthetic" to sum up Apple's branding.

And because video editing is an aesthetic medium (as well as a technical one), I'm not surprised to find that there is a much higher percentage (50% according to Chris) on the Mac platform as opposed to the percentages in the consumer home market. Anyone in this business (shooting footage and editing it) has to be a curious mixture of artist and technician. You can't do one without the other. And that applies to both Mac and PC users.

Since the release of the iPad i see Apple as primarily a technology interface company.
They let us (humans) interface with technology more gracefully than any other.
Wether it's developing the latest hardware - touch screens, retina displays, touch pads, magnetic power cords; user interfaces; or developing whole frameworks as described in an earlier post - iPod / iTunes . . . they make technology more graceful and integrated.

And as far as branding . . . with some rare exceptions, when i think of Apple i think of Quality.

I also think Chris has the essence correct. The creative industry was MAC based and Apple had the majority of software for the MAC. Now with the MAC really being an Intel PC and with the ability to run Windows programs on the MAC hardware a different competitive environment now exists. Adobe runs native on the MAC but all the other PC programs now have access to the MAC hardware/customers. There are lots of MAC users running Vegas and Edius on their MAC's so the competitive position for Apple FCP is now much greater than it has ever been.

To the one man shops not all have come from the esthetic side so some of these are pure PC based since there is a lot more software on the PC side and it is easy and cheaper to custom build a PC workstation specifically for a task in a home/business network.

The majority of consumers are PC based and they have the most cameras and these days may have more capable HD cameras than some of the professionals who may still be tape based on SD. Most of these cameras come with simple software and may even come with trials of a range of other software. Adobe Elements is the number 1 seller in this market if you can believe their claims. Elements has most of the features demonstrated in FCP X at $80 on the MAC. For $120 or so one also gets Photoshop Elements integrated with full Bluray and SD DVD creation. This is the PC world competition that Apple has not had to deal with until the Intel MAC's. It now has a lot more competition from all sides.

On the high end broadcast Apple has no hardware to integrate like Grass Valley with Edius for example.

I admit I am a PC user mainly because I like making my own PC with components I want rather than those Steve decides I need. Consequently FCP was never a choice for me. I have had no problems editing files from the MAC for other people and like the realtime performance of Edius my main editor though I do have Vegas and Adobe CS3 as well as a lot of others to choose from on my PC.

Ron Evans

I would be amazed if there are really "lots of MAC users running Vegas and Edius on their MAC's"? The ability to run Windows on Macs seems to be mostly used by people wanting to run games. I have seen the odd posting on the Edius forum from such users but seriously who is going to buy & Mac just to run Windows programs?

I dis aagree the reason people want to run Windows on a Mac is for options I know hard core FCP users will find it hard to swallow but there are programs on Windows that Mac cant do ie bluray so people want choices Adobe CS collection runs better on Windows than it does Mac so some poeple "hop" over to Windows to create someting save via Mac Drive for NTFS for OSX then go to the Mac and put it in their FCP project. I used to use my Mac for titles with Livetype then go Windows and drop them into my Edius time line.

I also think people get hung up on the latest and greatest and quickly forget what really matters to editors. To me it isn't just about 64 bit and rendering with 24 cores. What really matters is can I get the job done with the least amount of hassle. FCP seems to have that impression although it isn't perfect either.

I used to edit with Fast/Pinnacle/Avid Liquid. Now this was a pretty old school program and had certain limitations just like FCP. It was based on old code and couldn't use more then 2 cores. It was also 32 bit only and couldn't really use more then 2 GB of ram. At the end of the day however it could edit circles around Vegas, Premiere and Avid MC. It could edit 2D and 3D graphics in RT with full HD and playback perfectly long before anybody else. I could slice through timelines that were over 2 hours long with over 1000 edits and multiple layers and it would not choke with only 2 GB of ram.

My point is that hardware support isn't everything. 2 GB with one NLE is a lot different then 2 GB on another NLE. Adobe needs lots of ram because it is a hog. FCP on the other hand can do impressive stuff with 2 cores and 4 GB of ram. This is why MBP's were always considered darn good edit machines. FCP made great use of modest hardware where other NLEs need great hardware to do great.

When Avid decided to slit the throat of Liquid I started my search for a new NLE. I tried FCP, Vegas, Premiere which we use at work, Media Composer which I had a chance to port to for a very low cost and Edius. Out of all of them and even considering the limitations of ram and cpu support with FCP I switched to FCP. Part of it had to do with industry usage but a huge chunk just had to do with the fact that it seemed like a native choice for me. I liked the way it worked and at the time on my core2duo iMac it beat the pants off of the other NLE's. Now that I have a new 17" MBP it still runs great but I know the rendering is a bit behind other NLE's on this same system. I also have CS5 on here and the Media Encoder does eat Compressor for breakfast. Premiere still doesn't seem to stand up to the aging FCP however. I still feel like I get better timeline performance with FCP.

Hey gang,

Here's the "10 dying industries" I was talking about, including Video Postproduction Services:

http://www.ibisworld.com/Common/MediaCenter/Dying%20Industries.pdf

And the actual figure is 43.2%, not the 48% I thought. But I don't think it's post-production, in general, but post- houses. Gone are the days of paying $150/hour when you can do it yourself, or buy an NLE like Avid, Premiere, etc., and hire someone.

Heath

Too many things said to respond to specific people but:

What a "facility" is itself has changed. How FCP got to be where it is has to be understood.
Back around 2000 Adobe Premiere was a disaster and Avid announced they were leaving the Mac market. The latter would have resulted in a significant loss of Mac desktop sales (BTW another big "pro" Mac market is Desktop Publishing).

Apple decided it did not want to depend primarily on another company's product for Mac sales (think of how Microsoft Word was important too if you go back to that deal a little earlier).

FCP 1999/2000 was not a serious competitor to Avid though but they had to start. As it grew in features it grew from the bottom up probably first as a replacement for Premiere on the low end and eventually Avid on the higher end.

On facilities. If you looked at the cost of a facility in 1999 compared to 2011 you'd probably laugh at the cost drops. Today's "BIG" facility would have been positively small in 1999. Facilities still have multi million dollar digital LINEAR rooms and some might have been adding Avid Symphonies which dropped costs to from seven to lower six figures for a room. When someone mentions a "2 million dollar" facility I have to chuckle. That might be on par or less than a linear digital room with switcher and FX box and four digibeta decks. A "BIG" facility might have a few of those and a bunch more "offline" rooms (maybe Avid Media Composers and hence the consideration for a Symphony and maybe a Unity).

So when one says "10% to facilities" Apple knows quite well that what that means is going to change. The growth ranges from one man bands, small shops, collaborative groups. That's the growth market and that's expanding. FCPX is targeted to that and those "10%" or going to be there at some point.

Apple's price cut (if it's really a price cut) is probably in large part in line with their cost cutting. Gone is the cost of making install disks, packaging, warehouse costs, shipping costs, supply chain management, preorder management, a little retail shelf space and maybe a few other things I'm over looking. That's a WHOPPING savings for them. While it may be hard to put exact numbers on it but that savings is, at least in part, reflected in the drop in price . . . and the drop in price will result in increase sales volume.

The above may increase sales of MacPros and MacBookPros as well. It also means a bigger market for the video industry peripheral makers ranging from video input to storage to archival, plugins etc.

To say that the Mac has something like 50% of the Post market but a small portion of the consumer/home market overall doesn't point to WHY that post market is that big. For a long time Avid was Mac only for example and Apple kept them hardware loyal. For some part of the corporate market, FCP was often the only Mac in the shop, otherwise they had to look at much higher priced Avid or other Windows NLEs. Keep in mind we're in the early part of the decade and the Windows NLE market was a bit of a mess. Apple took advantage of all that.

Years later Premiere got better, Vegas is good, Edius is good, Avid got less expensive (but still a heavy burden for the small shop). My guess is somewhere around 2007 things began to be more competitive and by 2009 the FCP upgrade might have begone to weaken. It was probably around that point that FCPX was started along with iMovie and the iterations of iMovie since then reflected the simplest changes while happening on some parallel level with FCPX. That's the reason why there's some similarity. It's NOT because FCPX was "based on" iMovie. Apple and Randy Ubellos were undertaking a major interface redesign which, at its fundamental level, would have common elements. FCPX though, given the needed power, was a much longer and more difficult job, targeting architecture which, for Apple, was also still in development (64 bit OS, Grand Central, new Quicktime architecture replacing the old).

So here we are at 2011 with Lion, Thunderbolt, new QT underpinnings, new cost saving distribution model in the App store. This is why Apple business model has been about "ecosystems" rather than individual products. Apple generally isn't about being ahead of the pack in features. It's about aggregation and tieing things together in their entire business model for an easier workflow from features to distribution.

Thomas , I started editing with the Fast Video Machine then with NLE moved with Ulead and Premiere eventually getting the Canopus DV Raptor which solved all sorts of problems with DV editing for me. When Edius appeared I switched and have stayed with Edius as it is very fast and also does not need a really powerful machine for most tasks. I still kept Premiere up to date until CS3, have always had Sound Forge and Vegas from Vegas audio ( before video version).

Because people use more than one program one has to be careful with drawing too many conclusions from manufacturers quoting number of licenses they have sold and then relating to stake in the industry. Just because someone has a license doesn't mean they use the program or use it exclusively. My version of CS3 is a perfect example I have it but no longer use it regularly.

On the topic of MAC's running Windows programs I think Randy answered. The MAC users I know run Windows programs that do things they cannot do with any MAC program. None to my knowledge loaded Windows to play games. They certainly didn't buy a MAC to run Windows programs they just do not want two computers and prefer the MAC for most of what they wish to do. MAC's do have an advantage in being able to run MAC and Windows programs and there are a lot more programs available for the Windows environment.

Ron Evans

Because people use more than one program one has to be careful with drawing too many conclusions from manufacturers quoting number of licenses they have sold and then relating to stake in the industry. Just because someone has a license doesn't mean they use the program or use it exclusively. My version of CS3 is a perfect example I have it but no longer use it regularly.
Ron Evans

Hi Ron,

I agree about the licenses.

Unless I am completely mistaken, the number Apple threw out of 2mil licensed users includes all version of FCP, not just FCP 7. If Avid and Adobe did that, their numbers would be fairly large as well and Avid might be close.

I love how this thread has taken the new Final Cut and used it as a lens on the changing face of the industry.

For me, seeing the new Final Cut was further confirmation of the march of the pro video industry down the same path that desktop publishing took in the 80’s and 90’s. We even have the same core players, Apple and Adobe, leading the parade.

Once the computer became the central technology for the publishing industry, it started with high-end service bureaus who invested in the expensive equipment and software. Then the cost continued to drop to the point that color printers were given away for free with the purchase of your computer and everyone could afford to publish from their desktop. And the software from Apple and Adobe continued to drop in price as the hardware and software tools of the trade continued to be commoditized.

It seems to me the exact game is playing out today in the pro video world, but instead of HP and Epson making printers, we have Sony and Panasonic making the cameras.

The march is inevitable, and the innovative companies are the ones that speed it along with every new “disruptive” technological advancement (i.e. RED, Blackmagic, Apple, etc.).

I don’t consider this march inherently good or bad, just unavoidable.

More people will edit video because it will be easy and accessible to do so. Some will do it really well, most will be “good enough”. Because that is the primary goal of the products today: to enable the user to create a result that is “good enough” without having to make a real investment of time or talent.

Good enough to meet the deadline.
Good enough to satisfy the boss.
Good enough to make the sale.
Good enough for reality television.

But with hard work, talent, and some inspiration, some will take these same tools and create something truly excellent – and that is why all the folks doing it “good enough” will ask the question: “what did he use to make that?”

Allan Barnwell
Omega Broadcast Group - Professional Video Sales, Rental & Services (http://www.omegabroadcast.com)

I am quite excited to see FCP X out, and at that price point. I believe it will help the market stay reasonably priced for those of us who treat this more as an avocation than a business.

A lot of what is on board with X, is what has been onboard my NLE of choice, Vegas, for several years. I had watched FCP .editors doing log and tranfers and other tasks that seemed somewhat archaic and restrictive to me, when I just dragged and dropped most forms of video on my Vegas time line. I had actually gone with Premiere through Pro 2 before changing over to Vegas.

I probably wouldn't change over to FCP X, unless I perceived a need to have an industry standard program in my arsenal now for future business reasons. I have invested in Cineform as my "ProRes", and have a pretty good workflow going. However, the price point offered makes that a more practical option consideration, and I could see it happening in the right circumstance. I am currently running a Core Duo Quad system right out of Dell at 32 bits, with Vista. For almost 3 years it has been a clean machine. .I am also running Linux on it, and messing with Linux editing systems too, to keep current with that area.

Is a Mac in my future ? Seems like more of a potential today, than it did 2 weeks ago, and I think that is exactly what Apple is hoping for.

On the topic of MAC's running Windows programs I think Randy answered. The MAC users I know run Windows programs that do things they cannot do with any MAC program. None to my knowledge loaded Windows to play games. They certainly didn't buy a MAC to run Windows programs they just do not want two computers and prefer the MAC for most of what they wish to do. MAC's do have an advantage in being able to run MAC and Windows programs and there are a lot more programs available for the Windows environment. For most WIndows applications the way to do this is to use VMware Fusion or Parallels Desktop to run a Windows virtual machine on their Mac desktop. It is a major pain to exit OS X totally thus abandoning all your running Mac applications & boot Windows. Beefy applications like an NLE will not run in a VM however.

I dont mean to sound negative here but everyone keeps talking about the price point $299 is it that good? I mean it was $999 before but that was FCP, Motion, Sound booth, compressor and DVDSP 4. Now if Apple comes through with the semi confirmed rumor that there will be a some kind of suite it very well could be FCP 299 Motion 299 and sound booth 299 hopefully some sort of DVD authoring app 299 that puts us back up over $1000.

For most WIndows applications the way to do this is to use VMware Fusion or Parallels Desktop to run a Windows virtual machine on their Mac desktop. It is a major pain to exit OS X totally thus abandoning all your running Mac applications & boot Windows. Beefy applications like an NLE will not run in a VM however.

Yes the people I know really only do this because they do not want two PC's. Personally I would just buy two machines. I have 4 PC's I have made on my network two of them working with the same set of monitors , keyboard and mouse etc. If one needs a MAC or PC for business reasons just go for it. The point I was trying to make was that if someone just has a MAC they are not now limited to just MAC software.

Ron Evans

For most WIndows applications the way to do this is to use VMware Fusion or Parallels Desktop to run a Windows virtual machine on their Mac desktop. It is a major pain to exit OS X totally thus abandoning all your running Mac applications & boot Windows. Beefy applications like an NLE will not run in a VM however.

All VMware fusion is really good for is running programs like office to really run Windows multi-media software ie Edius, Encore, Premiere Bootcamp is the only way to go.

it very well could be FCP 299 Motion 299 and sound booth 299 hopefully some sort of DVD authoring app 299 that puts us back up over $1000.You don't know that though. Nobody does at this point. The full suite of apps could be a lot less for that matter.

You really do get what you pay for -- if the whole package is $1000 then it's usually worth every penny. If it's priced the same as before then you still come out ahead since the capabilities and feature sets are so much better now. This is a business expense, and you should be making your money back from it fairly quickly. To answer your question though, yes it is $300 for FCP alone. They could have priced it at $600 and it would still be a great deal as far as I'm concerned.

Because there was no upgrade price given, I have an eerie feeling that an FCP upgrade is no more; thus, there will only be full purchases at $299. I think this can also explain why its price is so low.

I have the same feeling... and I have an unopened FCS2 box still in the shrink-wrap which is most likely a doorstop now!

Adobe started talking about a subscription model for their products about 5 years ago. This month they introduced that as an option. Their preference is to have that be the only option.

Apple has moved to downloads for apps via the App store. That means no retailers other then themselves, no packaging costs and no upgrades.

I worked at a major software company for several years. The greatest expense in releasing new apps and updating existing apps was documentation, packaging and distribution. Actual development costs were minimal by comparison.

Reading these postings has really been refreshing...fairly levelheaded responses to what was "announced" (more on that in a bit) and the reactions from various segments of the industry.

I have kind of a unique perspective on the whole issue of Apple's marketing that has been running through these threads. In my first career (of 25+ years) I was in national brand marketing. As a matter of fact, one of the brands I used to run (as head of marketing) used the same ad agency, Chiat/Day, as Apple. The same guys who did "1984" and some other great stuff were peripherally involved with creating my advertising. I used to spend literally millions on TV production & post production so I have a little experience in that arena.

I enjoyed the production part of things so much (and hated a lot of the other stuff) I packed the marketing career in and began a second career by starting a micro-production company. Write/Produce/Direct/Shoot/Edit/Graphics/Distribution...we do everything. I am having a ball and making a pretty good living.

So when I saw what Apple was doing with the Super Meet at NAB and the outcry from certain segments of the editing community I kind of had to smile.

I think the event at NAB told us two things.

One. What we saw and heard from Apple was neither an announcement nor a sneak preview. What it was, was nothing more than a giant focus group...and that focus group had one clear objective - to do a disaster check. Make sure we really haven't lost our way or gone off the rails. That's it. Tell the group the minimum amount of info to make it valid and see what the response was. Let's float the pricing out and see what the response is.

Hell no we're not going to have Q&A, we know what the group will ask and we don't need to stir this research pot.

Back in the day in Chicago we used to call this "State Streeting"...got an idea/product concept/ad that you want to do a disaster check on? Go downstairs and go out on State Street and ask people what they think.
Simple. Unscientific. But it worked. Apple did a State Street test at NAB. What better place? Doesn't matter that FCPX may still go through a bunch of changes before release. Doesn't matter that we did not reveal a ton of info on other features. We'll find out what we need to know.

The proof that this was market research? Anybody ever see Phil Schiller at anything having to do with FCP? Don't let Steve kid you...they do a lot of research.

The other thing we learned is that the heavy user segment (I hate the word pro's because it has no meaning anymore) is really nervous. They see their feifdoms eroding and Apple is accelerating the process. (And since we are on the subject of "focus groups" the ones who did the most bitching about what FCP X is or is not are the one's who, to quote Steve, would say they want faster horses!)

Their sense of entitlement because they are the PROS is almost sad. How dare Apple not ask us what we think? How dare they not address all of the technical stuff that is important to us? How dare they reduce the price and democratize our little club.

I think Apple is saying to this group, "If you don't like what were doing...that's cool. We know you are important but we are not going to roll over for you and if you don't like it, mazel tov. Go use Adobe/Avid/Whatever. No problem."

We can get some brand name feature film editors to use FCP X so we have cred...and we'll sell a zillion bucks worth of software and computers to the middle market - that huge group of wedding/corporate/training/government/you name it groups (like most of us.)

It's all about product, marketing, revenue and the stock price. Apple has always known that and always will. Sorry for the rant. This has been percolating for a week. BTW...It will be a pain for my little shop to reinvest, transition and learn new software and new editing techniques. But that is life in the big city. Deal with it. I will now standby for FanBoy brickbats...though I like to think of myself as being simply and reasonably brand loyal - all things being equal.

I don't think we saw a focus group at all. I think we saw a sneak peek that was intended to stave off defection of the existing client base. A peek at a product they've neglected as long as they possibly could.

Apple has only so many R&D resources and they've all been used for a couple of years changing the company to aconsumer products company. It was a smart move. They've made a fortune at it.

Ignoring their existing creative client base made good sense. Now they'd like us all to stick around while they hurry to catch up in this market and offer a direct to client proprietary product which will also sell hardware.

I think you both are saying the same thing. They don't have the product yet. Open to suggestions on pricing and delivery and keep everyone hanging around before they desert to the competition that already has just about everything that was shown.

Ron Evans

I hope third party resellers can get some sort of a deal on their websites that allow them to link to FCP X via the Mac App Store, and make a little bit of money.

heath

Ron,

It isn't as easy, or cheap, to just up and walk away from one major NLE to another. I've used and own Premiere Pro CS5, Avid MC 4.5 and Vegas Pro 10, but I have some much time and experience (if you will) invested in Final Cut Pro, I can't imagine leaving now. I'd have to start from scratch and work my way up. Sure, I've been editing on an NLE for about 13 years now, and I'm sure I'd come around to a new NLE, but it won't be simple.

I'm sure others will have a different opinion, but I can't imagine someone would want to change over everything just to have something else that maybe had a feature 2 years before FCP X. Especially if you've been using FCP for years, like me.

Heath

And / or a "Thanks" button.

Gosh I hope so. that would be awesome!!!

They don't have the product yet.

Oh they have it. But they don't know how stable it will be by June and what features will be left until an update because they're not ready.

Once the X.0 release master is done they also need the marketing campaigns in place, server allocation for what will be a massive onslaught of downloads and trained support personnel to handle the inevitable calls.

When the iPhone was released and people couldn't authorize them and get service it was AT&T that wasn't ready, not Apple. None the less they don't want another fiasco like that ever again.

Two words: North Carolina. That massive data farm is ready for the onslaught, because I have a feeling we're gonna see a fairly large app.

heath

I understand your position Heath but if FCP X is so different than the current FCP it will be like starting all over again with a new NLE. I use Edius and Vegas, have my Shuttle Pro V2 set up so that they both operate the same way. Same buttons do the same things on both programs. Have the layouts set up much the same so they look much the same too. Just use the one that has the best feature for the task. I understand your position in not wanting to move but I do not think people who have already had all these features will suddenly move to FCP X just because it becomes available. They already have these features and will not want to move for the same reasons you have detailed. FCP is the one playing catch up. It will either meet your needs with the release of FCP X or not. We will find out when the product is really released. I am sure it will be a nice product.

Ron Evans

We paid $95,000 for our "TurboCube" non-linear edit system back in the early '90's. (that was difficult for me to say to the world)

So you pay $1000 day one. Then a year later you pay another $500. And a year after that you pay another $500.

You think the aggregate value of the SOFTWARE you've now paid $2k for is important?

Open your eyes.

You've got software plus TWO YEARS OF EXPERIENCE and unless you're incompetent, a HUGE head start in skill over ALL the competitors who didn't pay THEIR money on day one.

Plus, if you're any good at what you do, you've likely EARNED ten to a hundred times that amount while your competitors messed around trying to compare software A to software B so they wouldn't feel bad if they had to pay 10% more or get 10% fewer features than some other editor.

Sheesh.

If someone can't see the primary competitive advantage of ceasing to endlessly obsess over this stuff and simply make a damn choice and GET TO WORK - they are doomed in this fast-moving era.

My view, such as it is.

What I meant was, I can't see someone leaving FCP for another program, because of years of use. Then again, I'm just speaking from my own experience.

FCP (and Avid) is long-in-the-tooth and they're adding in features that are around, and some new ones, too. I think FCP X is gonna be a big hit. But I think I'm now just repeating myself. I try not to be a Mac fanboy, because I know how annoying that is when you want straight talk on software or hardware (RED fanboys, anyone?).

Heath

Just to chime in on NLE vs NLE: my favorite part of Premiere CS5 is its integration with other CS5 apps with After Effects being the most important to me. For others, Encore's integration is very important. With AE and Premiere, there is so much more you can do and so much faster than any other NLE. I know of the 'Duck' for FCP, Avid and AE but that is another $500 and it doesn't work the same way as AE & Premiere. The benefits of this integration is not well known, yet, I think it is the strongest feature of Adobe CS5.

Btw, speaking from experience, FCP X won't be HUGE HUGE HUGE upon release because soooo many 3rd party plugins must be completely rewritten for the 64bit app. Premiere and AE CS5 are 64bit and I know of many people who did not upgrade for a couple months because their plugins were not rewritten & released upon CS5 release. FCP X will sell very well upon release, just not super crazy like some think.

Please quantify 'super crazy.'

You're point as I understand it is that 'Pros' won't immediately upgrade.

Novices and iMovie affectionados will be downloading it because it's finally affordable and there won't be a cracked copy on piratebay.

Just to chime in on NLE vs NLE:

SNIP

Btw, speaking from experience, FCP X won't be HUGE HUGE HUGE upon release because soooo many 3rd party plugins must be completely rewritten for the 64bit app. Premiere and AE CS5 are 64bit and I know of many people who did not upgrade for a couple months because their plugins were not rewritten & released upon CS5 release. FCP X will sell very well upon release, just not super crazy like some think.

Gonna disagree a bit here, Steve.

I understand that for some users, plugins are mission critical. But for others, (myself included) not so much. In fact, in the last 2 months, I've delivered 3 full-length corporate videos, 11 HD broadcast spots, and 3 major company PowerPoint/Keynote presentations. The total number of plugins I've used in that work? NONE.

To me, plug-ins mostly add "fancy" or solve specific problems with field footage. My work typically does not rely on fancy - and after all these years of field production, I try really hard not to leave the field with "problems" I have to fix later.

So while I respect that type of workflow, I suspect I'm far from alone in thinking that there's likely nothing that's going to stop me from immediately diving into FCP-X.

From my seat at NAB, I could tell that the new interface has enough "FCP-like visual references" so I already KNOW what a CLIP looks like and what a TRACK looks like and what the concept of "between those two clips" should look like.

That's the essential beauty of the Apple closed ecosystem. The interface designers already know a LOT about how we (the poor users) expect stuff to look and work.

I expect that like ALL Apple software, I'll essentially load the program up and start double-clicking on stuff — and watch what happens. After a few days you can typically figure out the majority of how Apple stuff works.

Big advantage there!

YMMV.

Please quantify 'super crazy.'

You're point as I understand it is that 'Pros' won't immediately upgrade.

Novices and iMovie affectionados will be downloading it because it's finally affordable and there won't be a cracked copy on piratebay.

There is no difference between boxed apps, download apps or App store apps... all will end up on piratebay and other download sites. The thing that does end is the updating through software update of pirated software, and because of the more affordable price, more people will buy it, which will result in more profits for Apple.

When you download an app from the Apple App Store, doesn't it act differently than when you download a full exe for PC or a dmg for Mac? I'm not sure you're downloading a file that can be uploaded and is executable on just any computer. I think you're downloading something that Apple then confirms you are authorized to install on a short list of computers authorized via your iTunes account. I may be wrong.

In any case, I think this is one of the reasons why Apple is able to lower the price to $299... I think they'll be more in control of people using authorized copies of FCP X. I'm sure people will find ways around it, but I think it'll be more difficult, and at $299, a lot of people will resign themselves to buying who otherwise would have pirated.

One additional upside to buying via Apple App Store: I can install on all of my home computers with one $299 download. With all other App store purchases, I can install the apps on up to 5 computers.. I don't see why this app would be different, but we'll see.

Gonna disagree a bit here, Steve.



From my seat at NAB, I could tell that the new interface has enough "FCP-like visual references" so I already KNOW what a CLIP looks like and what a TRACK looks like and what the concept of "between those two clips" should look like.

That's the essential beauty of the Apple closed ecosystem. The interface designers already know a LOT about how we (the poor users) expect stuff to look and work.

I expect that like ALL Apple software, I'll essentially load the program up and start double-clicking on stuff — and watch what happens. After a few days you can typically figure out the majority of how Apple stuff works.

Big advantage there!

YMMV.

If that is how close you have to be then all NLE's I know fit the bill MAC or PC. Very little difference between the timelines on FCP, CS5, Vegas, Edius etc especially as most will allow color changes for tracks features , window layouts and short cut key functions. For the most used functions they can all be set up the same. I know I am on a PC but I have Vegas and Edius set up to work the same way so that I can just switch between them without thinking which one I am using. My Shuttle Pro V2 works exactly the same way for both . Window layouts across my two 24" monitors the same. One just does audio better, the other does multicam better with wider file format support and realtime speed.

Vegas and Edius work with native file formats and will run realtime from the timeline. Edius is more capable in this regard than Vegas.

Big advantage there over FCP !

Ron Evans

I've posted our impressions of the FCPX Sneak Peak on our website

FCPX: Professional or Prosumer? Videoguys NAB2011 Report, More Than Meets the Eye Videoguys Blog - Videoguys NAB2011 Report, Part I: Apple's Final Cut Pro X Sneak Peak ? More Than Meets the Eye (http://goo.gl/mHw7V)

Gary

Most individuals, small shops, big facilities won't move away from FCP. Generality the biggest factor in moving to another NLE is cost . . . and we can see how cost is driving this industry.

In 1989 linear online facilities began the move to Avid. Avid offline (it was poor quality for anything else) and fewer onlines rooms needed just for finishing. Avid Symphony finished off the online finishing rooms. All this was a MAJOR cost savings for facility.

In 1999 FCP appeared and, although it took a few years for FCP/FCS to become feature adequate, Avid facilities began to move to FCP due to incredibly low cost compared to Avid upgrades.

To move AWAY from FCP is a major expense and moving in that direction is against the industry's economic history. Avid has more more limited hardware support (although they're working on that) so it may mean addition input/output purchases. Premiere means moving from built in ATI cards to buying expensive nVidia cards to take advantage of Mercury Engine.

Add in the Thunderbolt factor as those are rolled out and key tie ins that FCPX may have to it. A wide installed base means manufacturers have incentive to support it and may result in far less expensive support for both manufacturer and the end user. Apple uses software to sell hardware and I don't doubt FCPX will take "special" advantage of Thunderbolt (and Lion OS as well) well ahead of other NLEs.

Even the potential weaknesses in the first releases of FCPX will be overcome. Avid had serious weakness compared to the linear online room and it won the market. FCP 1999 had serious weakness compared to Avid and it won the market. Cost was and is always the driving factor for most businesses.

Of course there are "unanswered" questions about FCPX. The "sneak peek" was NOT a two day workshop nor an "official" product rollout. From what I've seen so far, what WAS SHOWN, was something that, once learned, will increase efficiency and drive down cost. Baring an unmitigated disaster, FCP's market share will expand. This will, over time, include the highest end of the market even if it doesn't at first.

Every step of the way there have been radical shifts in the industry and an "old guard" which called the change "unprofessional" and in every case the change happened right on up through the highest end of the industry

Some of you may have no driving need to change . . . and you will certainly stay put. You're not the target market. The target is very large, it will probably be hit successfully, it will not be limited to "mid" market, small shops, individuals. It will probably be pervasive.

At $299, anyone with a Mac who is at least a serious hobbyist on up to major facilities will try FCPX. Some will move sooner, others as the features develop, but Apple's ecosystem is designed to move people to it as it will, whether now or later, do more for less.

I started working at facilities in 1980 and worked through all the above changes personally and have seen every facility I ever worked for fold and while the causes had some variation, the driving down of the cost of doing business was usually the lead factor.

Certainly it may be far less expensive to switch over a facility now . . . that's still more expensive that those starting up or purchase software that fits in with what they already have.

Craig I see your point but when you say cost you really mean cost whilst staying with a MAC. If you really mean cost you would look at all options. The difference in cost between a similar powered PC and a MAC will pay for a PC NLE or two. All computing has improved over the years and the major issues between the MAC and Win 7 for instance are in the eye of the beholder.

As you can tell I am not a MAC user or fan preferring to make my own with hardware I decide on rather than what Steve Jobs decides I will get. I do agree that Apple marketing is wonderful and that with the roll-out of FCP X there will likely be a need to also upgrade the hardware to take advantage or even make the new features work. Before spending money on a new NLE and new hardware it may be prudent to look at the full environment of computing platforms and software and see how they all perform/cost. After all MAC's are now Intel PC's with Apple software.

Ron Evans

Craig I see your point but when you say cost you really mean cost whilst staying with a MAC. If you really mean cost you would look at all options. The difference in cost between a similar powered PC and a MAC will pay for a PC NLE or two.

Staying with an OS, any OS, is generally less expensive than moving. There would having to be a compelling drop in overall cost for a Windows user to move to Mac. Keep in mind though that the Mac market share in Post Production is far higher than the market in general. Avid, which was Mac only for a long time, had a lot to do with it. There are other reasons as well for that to be the case.

I do believe Thunderbolt is Apple's next hook. While the Mac might cost more, Thunderbolt may drive down the cost of what are the most expensive peripherals. Consider that on the low end a 13" MacBookPro now has PCIe capabilities for example. From a facility perspective or a business built around location production/post production workflows it may actually be less expensive . . . depending on the eventual costs of the Thunderbolt hardware. Apple's work with Intel to get the Thunderbolt head start was done to move hardware (computers of course). As Mac users upgrade to the new Macs, that market niche grows giving the hardware manufacturers incentive. People needing Thunderbolt will likely be high end users. That's what it's designed for.

Before spending money on a new NLE and new hardware it may be prudent to look at the full environment of computing platforms and software and see how they all perform/cost. After all MAC's are now Intel PC's with Apple software.

Ron Evans

Right now only Macs have Thunderbolt. If you don't need it there's little reason to move to a Mac. If you need it or your a facility and see a cost savings in other hardware purchases so that the total cost goes down, you'd consider it. That Thunderbolt will not be limited to MacPros is major. That kind of throughput on an $1200 MacBookPro laptop will impact decision. That it will be on iMacs starting at $1200 may drive down costs for many as well. Again, if you don't need it, it's not a factor. If you need that throughput . . . it doesn't exist on Windows at all as of yet. It will probably take until the end of the year before the product diversity is developed enough to see the value and it certainly won't be valuable to any and maybe not even most, but it hits a market segment that has very steep demands . . . and this is "Pro."

Keep in mind Apple uses software to sell hardware. If there are facilities that use Avid Windows or Premiere Windows, it might motivate them to move to Mac . . . if they NEED Thunderbolt . . . and they won't even have to switch to FCPX. Of course if some take that route . . . they then get to have a look at FCPX for $299 if it gives them any advantages. It may not now. It may later.

Note that the key motivator for Apple's FCP was Avid's announcement that they were pulling out of the Mac market around 1999. That was going to be a major loss of Apple's desktop sales. FCP, through its first few iterations, wasn't even close to an Avid competitor. Small shops that couldn't afford Avid, bought FCP and made do. Bigger shops switched when FCP became competitive. Apple had made the decision they would no longer EVER be dependent on another company's software to sell Macs. This is really where their "ecosystem" model began to develop. Note that Avid decided to STAY with the Mac because they saw the potential competitor down the road. Adobe Premiere actually did pull out since it couldn't compete . . . but they came back because Apple's BIG Post Production market share was lucrative. Clearly these Avid and Adobe thought that enough people would chose Macs over Windows and they wanted part of that market. They could have just left it to Final Cut. That wasn't going to happen when around 50% of the Post Production market uses Macs.

As someone who has been both a senior editor and senior engineer at some large well known post facilities in my past life, there's very good reason why so many are Mac based. This was in the days BEFORE FCP began to dominate. You may even argue my reasons but the numbers are what they are. The Mac Post market share is large and Avid and Adobe want to be a part of it.

There's a score of other very high end Post tools ranging from Compositing to Color Correction to Motion Graphics that moved their tools TO MAC. One of the reasons is MAINTENANCE (obviously the market share is another). It's actually more cost effective for a facility to be uniform then have scores of customized PCs. Downtime is minimized. The computers have a longer useful lifespan. A good number of these facilities are NOT using FCP at all.

At one time the selecting an NLE was an extremely important decision, I don't think it really is any more. At one time there were significant, potentially disastrous differences between NLEs, now not so much. I've started to think of NLEs in the same way I think of text apps, whether you write with TextEdit or Word you're doing basically the same thing. The cutting edge days are done for this stuff, the big problems have been worked out. There are probably at least a half dozen editing apps out there that would be more then adequate for what most people need to do. I'm glad that FCP is finally getting an update but the world is not going to change as a result of it.