Point/Counter Point from the NYT - David Pogue

[Jipsi Kinnear]

I'm neutral but another interesting take on the whole fiasco.

Professional Video Editors Weigh In on Final Cut Pro X - NYTimes.com


Credit: New York Times

[David Parks]

The Quarrel Over Final Cut Continues - NYTimes.com

But then he comes back the very next day and says "Apple blew it.." He says... "But — and let me be clear on this point — I think Apple blew it."

This guy is not a video editor,,he's a "high tech" columnist. He may have edited here and there,,but he mostly reviews consumer tech.

Scott Simmons over on Studio Daily and ProVideoCoalition is a working FCP and Avid editor in Nashville He makes his living as an video editor. I would go with his opinion first over Mr. Pogue. Pogue has waffled too much on this. Scott is giving us the good and bad and how to work with this new app.

Just my two cents.

[Henrik Reach]

Yes, he wrote a new post, but don't quote "Apple blew it" and pretend that he by that agrees with all the people crying over this release.

This is the part that is most relevant imo:

"You know perfectly well how this is all going to play out. We’ve seen this movie before, when Apple dragged us from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X, or from old iMovie to new iMovie. It always goes the same way: Apple writes a new, much more modern and capable platform that’s missing old features. Huge outcry follows. Time passes. The features eventually return, calm returns and pretty soon we forget all about the older software."

[Nick Gordon]

Pogue is definitely right about one thing: there's a ludicrous amount of misinformation flying around.

I have every sympathy for pro editors who are faced with working out how to (whether to..) change their whole way of working (full disclosure: I make a living out of running projects to put in new processes - I know how hard it is for people and organisations to change).

Having said that, I'm shocked at how quickly people are jumping on some of the patently incorrect assertions about FCPX and propagating them. There are enough serious and real issues for a full-on pro shop, and they're the ones that users need Apple to focus on. You guys who need that stuff need to clarify what really IS missing or busted.

I'm even more shocked by how many self-defined pros jumped into installing this radical new system without taking time to evaluate or test. It's a total contradiction to, on the one hand, say that this is core to your business and you can't possible survive the issues and, on the other hand, say that you downloaded and installed it on day one and now you're screwed. Honestly (and I imagine I'll get flamed for this), that strikes me as anything BUT professional.

I don't mean to slam anyone - I can understand the attraction of the great new thing, and even more I can understand the sinking feeling that comes with knowing it's just not what you expected. FWIW, I think Apple has handled this very badly indeed. At the very least, FCS3/FCP7 should continue to be supported until FCPX is a complete pro video NLE system. I think Apple *WILL* lose many pro shops to Adobe and Avid (others too) whatever their shortcomings.

But the way through this is to focus on the actual issues with the product, not on the side issues.

[David Parks]

You just illustrated my point perfectl Henrik. The guy waffles. He blows with the wind. A column such as his doesn't help me. And tomorrow doesn't help me today, He wrote three articles in three days going three directions. It is like he was doing damage control for Apple on the second day after he saw all of the negative feedback day one and then backpedaled on the third day.

This guy below doesn't waffle. He's an editor and gives a more honest and realistic assessment.

ProVideo Coalition.com: the EDITBLOG on PVC by Scott Simmons

So is this guy:

Sanity in the FCP X Debacle | The Final Rewrite

Both lay out the straight scoop on how FCP X effects you and me.

I just feel like if your getting FCPX advice from the New York Times..then you're being mislead by a guy who comments on Android Phones one day and Blackberry pads the next. Not guys in the trenches everyday like Scott Simmons. They don't waffle. The can't because there is real consequences when deadlines are around the corner and real money is on the table.

Cheers.

[Henrik Reach]

Originally Posted by David Parks

I just feel like if your getting FCPX advice from the New York Times..then you're being mislead by a guy who comments on Android Phones one day and Blackberry pads the next. Not guys in the trenches everyday like Scott Simmons. They don't waffle. The can't because there is real consequences when deadlines are around the corner and real money is on the table.

Cheers.

Take your advice from whoever you want. Everyone knows Pogue isn't an expert.

The thing here is that the is the only one so far that has gotten real info directly from Apple. That kind of makes what he has to say interesting, even if he may not understand everything he's conveying.

[David Parks]

Exactly. He's getting damage control information from the PR dept. at Apple. Come on ..a small number of guys are already drinking the Apple kool aid while a lot of you are trying to get the software to work with workarounds. Like Tim Dashwoord,,who is also in the trenches, I applaud the latter.

Cheers to the guys in the trenches making it happen,,,today.

[Henrik Reach]

Indeed, I applaud the people making the best of this right now.

I for one stick to FCP 7 thus far. Not because I hate FCPX and feel insulted by Apple, but because I just realize that it's not ready yet. For me, it's nothing more than that - I have to wait to see whether it will become ready, or if I have to find something else the day FCP 7 no longer does the job for me.

[Matt Lawrence]

From Pogue's post:

"The Bottom Line: Apple has followed the typical Apple sequence: (1) throw out something that’s popular and comfortable but increasingly ancient, (2) replace it with something that’s slick and modern and forward-looking and incomplete, (3) spend another year finishing it up, restoring missing pieces.

Professional editors should (1) learn to tell what’s really missing from what’s just been moved around, (2) recognize that there’s no obligation to switch from the old program yet, (3) monitor the progress of FCP X and its ecosystem, and especially (4) be willing to consider that a radical new design may be unfamiliar, but may, in the long term, actually be better."

Pogue may not be a professional editor, but his bottom line seems to me a fairly reasonable assessment of the situation.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Nothing against Pogue, but many of his points are not correct:

My Response to David Pogue?s* ?Professional Video Editors Weigh In on Final Cut Pro X? *Updated* | Apple, Video, DSLR Video, Business, Personal | RichardHarringtonBlog

And add to that, that Jim Jannard and Jarred from the RED Team have already confirmed that the information about Apple and RED working together for a RED plugin isn't correct.

Why everyone is so painfully wrong about FCPX

Why everyone is so painfully wrong about FCPX

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread....l=1#post782729

I do think that his article is good and gives some good tips, but it's clearly not written by a a professional editor - which he also freely admits.

That being said, I already bought FCPX and I'm not returning it, because it seems to have some impressive performance. But I don't like how it handles media, and if Apple doesn't make a statement or bring back essential features, than indeed many people will jump ship.
Everyone knew this rewrite wouldn't have all the features. We know not every plugin will work, not every effect will be there, etc.
But seriously, no in and out points on a sequence? No multiple sequences? No EDL, XML? No multicam? Very limited monitor support? No Save As?
But you do have Export to Facebook...

In all fairness: a lot of things that distanced FCP from FC Express (support for professional workflows) is gone in this version. So I think the iMovie Pro stance is correct at this point in time - again, at this point in time.
Apple has already said to work on a better version of XML and multicam, so I'm hopeful. But I do think that they had better waited a bit and released the software a bit later with some of these essentials in there. Because this launch was a mess, considering they ask pro's to adopt a whole new paradigm, promised them that this would be pro, and then making the program unusable in a professional workflow.
Jim Jannard said it correctly: they just have to communicate, and do it fast.

Untill then I'll watch some tutorials and try to get to know the program. I'm sure it has a lot of potential under the hood.

[David Parks]

"Professional editors should (1) learn to tell what’s really missing from what’s just been moved around...
...4. and be willing to consider that a radical design may be unfamiliar but may be better...

Yes he is not a professional editor and yet he is clearly advising professional editors. And it seems like obvious common sense on the surface. But professional editors tend to only listen to other pros. Because, they have a realistic view of what is required to meet their own needs. They don't need Mr. Pogue advising them on anything. In the end, each market will decide on its own what is useful or not based on its own needs. I have seen this before with Avid and we had to really kick them in the behind to get on the ball.

It is not Apple's, Avid's, or Adobe's..or Mr Pogues market. It's your market Quit drinking the kool aid guys. Get into the trenches!! Make Apple give you want u really need.

Trust other editors like Scott Simmons.

We shouldn't care what Apples typical play is here. We should DEMAND what we want in the software that we make a living with. QUICKLY!

I know you guys are getting tired of this so..I won't comment anymore.

Cheers.

[Ben Denham]

From a pro, or even enthusiast perspective, Apple seem to have got this whole thing very wrong. They obviously felt compelled to release something to make up some ground on premiere pro and other NLE's that have moved well ahead of FCP7, but in a competitive market you are surely only as good as your last release.

It's interesting because adobe seem to have learned that delivering a solid, stable and comprehensive release is more important that rushing something out that is going to cause users headaches. PP CS4 was a stability nightmare, (I don't think any FCP7 users were ever considering switching to CS4). I think this was one of the reasons that by the time adobe got around to releasing CS5 it was already a stable, comprehensive and all-round pleasurable user experience. I'm just guessing but I would bet that, having read the reviews, many FCP7 users have already switched to PP CS5.5 and by the looks of things this release is going to do nothing to stop the exodus.

In terms of corporate strategy surely it makes more sense to release something solid rather than patch it up as you go.

[Jipsi Kinnear]

Lots of backlash, interesting points from both sides. I grabbed a copy and will now play around with it to see what all the fuss is about.

Full disclosure: I'm not a pro nor am I a newb, so I'm on the unbiased fence.

[Heath McKnight]

Some of the comments I've seen on NYT/Pogue's articles are bewildering, and some are outrageous. Mob mentality is what I chalk it up to. I just want to try it out and form my own opinion, but I'm more apt to listen to someone who has sat down and tried using it, vs. someone going off blog posts of seething hate and anger. And by using it, I don't mean buy it, download it, try it for 10 minutes and quit out, then ask for a refund.

Good comments here, everyone.

heath

ps-I don't think Pogue is backtracking so much as saying that Apple could've done better.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

The heart of the issue is FCPX is not FCP it's iMovie and its disingenuous to represent it as such. If I made a thread before Apple's release, saying that if you wanted to look to the future and improve your process that FCP users should "upgrade" to iMovie I would be a laughing stock, but when Apple says it, they are geniuses. At the end of the day we all have our own opinion on FCPX based on what we need to use it for but it still doesn't change the fact they have discontinued FCP and replaced it with iMovie. Why don't you think it won't import FCP and yet it can import iMovie projects? Could it be that it is iMovie? I don't need an expert or reviewer to explain something that I can see for myself. Don't get me wrong FCP could have used a face lift years ago and had its interface modernized to make it more efficient. Instead of overhauling it they lead users down a dead end.