- Posts tagged Software
- Explore Software on posterous
Apple Releases FAQ for Final Cut Pro X
We know people have questions about the new features in Final Cut Pro X and how it compares with previous versions of Final Cut Pro. Here are the answers to the most common questions we’ve heard.
This is what I suggested they should have had ready on product launch:
I don't mean to say Apple couldn't have had a better release… they should have anticipated many of the misunderstandings (e.g., that you're stuck saving files in the iMovie folder) and published a FAQ on the FCPX site.
I'm glad they posted this (they also "posted" one indirectly via David Pogue), but this is one of those cases where "better later than never" doesn't apply as much because most of the damage and bad PR—which this would have helped avoid—is already done. They should have been out front on this.
Express First, Complaints Longer
Ken Segall, a blogger I've linked to many times, suggested an approach to the Final Cut Pro X (FCPX) situation where Apple released it not as a Pro solution, but as the old Final Cut Express (FCE) product instead. From there, after several upgrades it would become the upgrade to Final Cut Pro 7 (FCP7). Jon Gruber and Jason Snell each seemed to agree with this strategy.
I'm not so sure. When I look at how it might have transpired, I see a scenario much worse.
The Introduction at NAB
Step back a few months to the FCPX announcement at NAB. Apple goes to NAB and announces… what, exactly? What would the pros have said to a new FCE? At NAB they don't want to hear about FCE, they want to know what Apple's doing to their product.
It's two years since the last FCP update, and Randy Ubillos goes on stage and demos FCE? This would not have gone over well. Many would complain just as they are now. Apple's focusing on prosumers. Apple is "dumbing down" video editing. Apple is obsessed with the iMove interface. I don't believe FCE would have been welcome at NAB.
Should Apple instead have explained the "FCE to FCP" strategy? Aside from many pros balking at Apple's move to the iMovie interface, it would be obvious the FCP upgrade they're craving isn't coming anytime soon. This would not have been a happy NAB.
The FCE Release
No matter what happens at NAB, at the FCE release the pros would just reiterate what by now they'd been saying for months. Apple is focusing on prosumer and ignoring pros. We need an update, 64-bit and RED support, etc. How can Apple have time to overhaul FCE if it's not the real direction they're heading? With so much focus on the iMovie interface, a true FCP upgrade must be at least a year away, if at all. We need a solution now, so we're looking at Adobe and Avid.
The FCE updates
Now Apple begins to roll out FCE updates over the next year or so. If the pros didn't know the strategy, we'd hear this: Another FCE update? Where the $#!@& is FCP?
If they did know the strategy (for which Apple would've been taking heat since the minute it was announced), we'll hear lots of comments about how this release couldn't be FCP because it lacks this or that. Every FCE upgrade would be heavily scrutinized by pros.
I think at this point pros might even believe they still have input into FCP's destiny. Not only will every FCE upgrade be considered insufficient, but there'll be much written (probably even online petitions) requesting that Apple not use the iMovie interface. The pros' belief that the future isn't quite settled, that they can somehow still influence events, will only haunt Apple when the inevitable occurs.
The FCP Release
Whenever Apple chooses to declare that FCE is now FCP, pros will just tick off the list of features still "missing". Further, despite the fact that it was inevitable, pros will be angry over the simplified interface, especially since they'd been telling Apple for the last year that they didn't want it. Clearly, they were ignored, Apple doesn't care about them and doesn't understand their workflow. It's still "iMovie Pro".
Bottom line is that a dramatic rewrite of the NLE interface as it's been known for over 10 years is not a pool into which you take the stairs, each one colder than the last. It's something you jump into to get through the initial "shock" of knowing this is it, and then have it primarily behind you. A step-by-step process would have extended this for a couple years. Years in which the pros would get increasingly restless, your strategy would be increasingly questioned, and you'd have constant negative press.
OK, What Then?
I don't mean to say Apple couldn't have had a better release. For example, I don't see why Apple wasn't upfront about FCPX not importing FCP7 projects. Did they think no one would notice? Further, they should have anticipated many of the misunderstandings (e.g., that you're stuck saving files in the iMovie folder) and published a FAQ on the FCPX site. Finally, leave FCP7 available another year so that both can be used. Anyone who buys in that year gets FCPX for free.
One could argue the FAQ has now been done via David Pogue, but it shouldn't have needed to come to that. Selling both versions is a harder concession for Apple to make, but the only way you can truly avoid a product being considered "dead" is to sell it.
Some interesting data on Mac vs. PC vs. Other
It's interesting to note that while Mac people are most concerned with the OS debate, in all three groups over half the people either think they're pointless, or skipped the question altogether.
Me, in an iMovie review three years ago
Reviewing an hour of footage with which I wasn't familiar has sold me on the skimming concept… I have no idea if skimming will make it to other movie editors, but it ought to. Further, if I ever upgraded to, say, Final Cut Express, and by that time FCE didn't allow skimming, I'd still use iMovie for many kinds of projects.
Given some of the hollering as Randy Ubillos demoed Final Cut Pro X—such as when he skimmed with audio on to find a precise dialog point—professionals are going to like skimming, too.
Mac OS X is 10 years old today, but let's go visit the original
This NeXTSTEP video demo is over 30 minutes long, but it's divided into sections and the first one (13 minutes) is the most relevant today. Why? Because this was 1992, when Mac System 7 and Microsoft Windows 3.1 were each less than a year old. While those two releases were very large advances for both platforms, NeXTSTEP crushes them both. It was truly a futuristic OS that any Mac fan today clearly recognizes as OS X.
It still boggles the mind how far ahead of everything NeXTSTEP was. Here was Mac OS X realized 10 years before we'd get it. I have to remind myself this is 1992, and that when Jobs mentions, for example, President Bush, he's referring to George Bush #1, not his son.
It's also interesting to see Steve Jobs' demo style was the same then as it is now. Oh, and don't miss him slinging around the term "apps," he's been using it a long time.
The key word is "theoretically"
The iPad, despite its enormous popularity, has one particular flaw that theoretically keeps its sales from being even gaudier than the numbers we've seen in the last year: it doesn't support Adobe Flash.
They keep repeating this, yet I've seen no proof that lack of Flash has hindered iPad (or iPhone or iPod touch) sales in any way. Further, there's no indiction that allegedly supporting Flash—there's still no legitimate mobile version, 10.2 having just reached beta—is helping sales.
Supporting Adobe Flash has become the new replaceable battery or FM radio from the iPod days. The competition touts features supposedly lacking in Apple's hardware, but that the buying public clearly has no issue with.
The Daily: What It Needs
After using The Daily a couple of days I can already tell I won't subscribe when the trial ends. I may not even use it for the duration of the trial. Here's a list of what would need to improve before I'd consider subscribing:
- Startup sound. This should never make a list like this, but The Daily's implementation is so egregious it bothers me. I don't like startup sounds. I don't like them even more if they cannot be shut off. And I abhor them if they ignore the mute switch (The Daily chimes on startup even if the iPad is muted). This is a horrible design decision.
- Speed. There's not much to dwell on here, just five minutes of using it reveals it's slower than a pregnant turtle.
- Orientation. Some articles cannot be read unless the device is in portrait mode. I don't use portrait mode, but even if I switched modes all the time it's ridiculous to require one to read some articles' content. Another horrible design decision.
- Interface confusion. I can't be the only one tapping things with the expectation of getting an article or something and finding out it's not a tappable item. It's sometimes hard to tell the difference. The slow speed adds to the problem because after a tap you wait to see if there's something that's just slow to load.
- Content. I think it tries too hard to utilize graphical and animated content. To be sure, I'd be disappointed with just a USA Today look-alike, but especially given the slow performance they should have dialed it down a notch. The writing seems USA Today-like, which is what I expected as a target, but I don't think it meets that mark.
In short, when I want USA Today I use their iOS apps, which are very well done. For other types of reading there are specific apps like Reuters, BBC News, NYT, etc., but what The Daily has really done for me is make me appreciate Flipboard even more. Flipboard is customizable, with a nice UX and lots of varied content. At this point The Daily just doesn't fit in with the apps I use most for reading.
Installing a Mac App Store app over a non-App Store version
Apple released the Mac App Store today, and I was curious how it would deal with "upgrading" an app already on the Mac to a newer version from the Store. Since I run Evernote 2.0, I used the free Evernote 2.01 from the Store as a test.
The upgrade was uneventful in that it worked as I expected. I had the app running during the install to see what would happen:
- App downloaded and displayed its progress in the Dock.
- When it came to the end of the progress bar, the Store brought up a dialog box saying I must quit the running app before the install could complete.
- As soon as I quit the app the install finished.
- Since there was already an Evernote icon on my Dock it didn't add a new one, but rather bounced the existing one to show the install was complete.
- Launch the app, and all data, preferences, etc. were maintained.
In short, it worked like any other update except that I had to quit the app instead of getting an "install and relaunch" dialog.
Aside form whatever other changes come in 2.01, there is one especially noticable change. When Apple says the Mac App Store must be used to deliver updates to its apps they aren't kidding.
Evernote 2.0 Menu and Preferences:
I have no issue with this, and in fact having one place for updates is something I love about the existing App Store. Still, it does make it clear there's a distinction between the two versions of Mac apps. From a web site, updating presumably remains built-in, but from the Store it's handled via the Store's own update facility. I suspect this difference will eventually lead some developers to stop offering a web download for the Mac.
