Would you pay for FCPX 10.1 ?

Andreas,

I think that is extremely high on Apple's priority list. Although I have no doubt that when FCP XML gets fully implemented it will be better than anything we had before.

Even at this point sending a complete FCPX project via FCPX XML to external applications (like we do with Smoke or Resolve) is already much more fail-safe than I have ever seen with FCP.

- Ronny

Disproportionate Pictures wrote: Direct profit has never seemed to me to be the goal of Apple regarding it's Pro apps. Early on, Apple was very likely nervous about companies like Adobe, AVID, Discreet et al walking away from the Mac platform at the nadir of it's popularity.

....

And like I said, it's entirely possible that OSX and iWork apps could be made free incentives to being part of the Apple ecosystem.

Apple may again be worried about Avid and Adobe. They're both "gateways" to Windows since they're cross platform. Adobe is a concern because, in the past you'd buy either the Mac or Windows version. Now CC is cross platform out of the box errr cloud. It's very easy for a Mac Adobe user to move to Windows now. I'm not sure what Avid's Mac vs Windows breakdown is but, unlike 2000 when they gave lip service to leaving the Mac but had a Mac dominant base, they may have a good Windows base now. Given their financial situation they could decide to dump Avid Mac (although I can't imagine them doing that for ProTools) to cut development costs.

In short, Apple really needs to get people to like something Mac specific to close that "gateway." Given any Avid or PremierePro/After Effects user buying a MacPro a free copy of FCPX could be a worthwhile hook if it's a major feature upgrade as we expect.

BTW the iWorks comment might be relevant as well. Consider that with the new iWorks iCloud, these apps now work on Windows. Not that I'd consider Pages a major gateway to the Mac but get enough people using Pages rather than MS Office and that might have a small hallo effect... just as anyone using iPhone with iTunes on Windows can very easily migrate to Mac. I can't imagine Apple attempting to charge Windows users to use iWorks.

What Apple can't afford (or at least wouldn't want) is to P.O. a bunch of people who paid and toyed with FCPX and weren't happy, with a "now you'll like it but you'll have to fork over another $300 to get it."

As to Discreet (now Audodesk)... Smoke is Mac Only.

Basically Apple seems to be moving iWorks to a "gateway" strategy. I can't help but think Apple wants to use FCPX to shut the "gateway" headed in the other direction.

[Ronny] I think that is extremely high on Apple's priority list. Although I have no doubt that when FCP XML gets fully implemented it will be better than anything we had before.

Even at this point sending a complete FCPX project via FCPX XML to external applications (like we do with Smoke or Resolve) is already much more fail-safe than I have ever seen with FCP.

Ronny,

I hope it's on the priority list.
XML and the way it's implemented is both very basic (from FCPX) and sensitive regarding the workflow you have/need. This requires that 3rd parties can handle this XML.
Last month(s) I had some people where fcpxml didn't work with Smoke at all and they had to go the way thru (fcp) xmeml. Resolve does work somehow at most times but no real parameters are resolved as they are not written to the XML.
But as said it's the workflow or what you expect from it.
And don't expect to much.

-Andreas

Andreas,

It is a fact that FCPX at this time only sends limited information via FCPXML. But we take this into account while planning our project workflow: for projects that will be finished in Smoke we never do any coloring or effects work inside FCPX. Titles and retiming effects are only added as references because they will be redone in Smoke anyway. For such projects we simply use FCPX for the things it is great in: organizing, editing and storytelling. And all our timelines, even the most complex ones, translate perfectly into Smoke where our online people can do the fancy stuff.

Since October last year we have been using two Smoke 2013 systems for finishing CTV and long-form projects edited in FCPX. Since the latest update (Ext. 1) I haven't had one single issue with conforming complete FCPX timelines to Smoke 2013, and we finish multiple projects every week.

Ronny,

As I mentioned it totally depends on your workflow.

It may work for some perfectly, for others with some workarounds or for some not at all.
It's not really the fault of FCPX, but there are only a few parameters published in the XML, some of them even can't be read by FCPX when you try to re-import the XML.
Transfering lot of (sub)titles into Smoke is a real pain -- that's a Smoke issue. You probably know how to create .ttg files for those and the documentation for those within Smoke.

Only thing I wanted to say is: a better XML support with parameters which are published (and documented) will help everybody in a collaborative workflow -- even for FCPX only users.

-Andreas

Andreas Kiel wrote: Only thing I wanted to say is: a better XML support with parameters which are published (and documented) will help everybody -- even FCPX only users

I fully and absolutely agree.

BTW we are using some of your tools in our studio. Let me take this opportunity to say how much I appreciate all the time and effort you are putting into this. Whenever you release the extended version of X-Files Pro let me know, we will be buying it.

- Ronny

Thanks Ronny,

Hopefully there will be a new version over the weekend or mid of next week.

Problem is as I say always on the Cow:
"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby
become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will
also gaze into thee."

Everybody here should have seen "The Abyss" and the making of.

Same thing here. The more I dive deeper, the more issues come up. Hopefully the end will be a "shiny" end like in the movie.
It's sometimes because of FCPX, sometimes because of 3rd party apps running in the background claiming control, sometimes just because of the OS and user settings.

But the current/upcoming version seems to work fine for most and what's more important it doesn't do any harm in any case to your work.

-Andreas

Ok, now I get it;

Some people are happy to pay for a new version as an investment. Looking at it as a push for the Apple developers perhaps. I'm with the numbers who have made money from FCPX and paying for it again was financially covered a long time ago. within a week or so after purchase when it was first released, but something inside me makes that irrelevant.

I see it now, no more confusion, I now understand why some are happy to pay again for a big new feature release.

But I can't help not looking at my individual circumstances. I'm all for the consumer as a general, I just don't want a president to be set and I think it's important for the consumer to take a stand and demand the product we are paying for for the price it was offered for.

P.s. I still doubt the next update will be a payed update, it's strategically bad marketing to do so.

I don't think it would be bad marketing at all. It's been out for nearly 2 years now. However I think they *might* do a free 10.0.10 update because there are still a couple of bugs in 10.0.9 (mostly in regards to the Freeze Frame function). But then again they might not care about them.

I think the bottom line is that the cost of buying a new version flat out is LESS than the upgrade costs used to be, I really don't see it as an issue. Yeah, FCPX wasn't ready on release but it's been stable since the 0.3 release IMO and for the cost of half a days work (money I've earnt using it over and over) I see little to gripe about. Plus it comes off the tax bill.

+1

Are we any clearer when this new version will be out?

Make that a +2

Are we any clearer when this new version will be out?

Nope, and as always no-one can say this for sure until this the day it really gets released.

My first non-linear computer based edit system I got with a MASSIVE discount for $80,000. AUD
So lets put things into perspective here. :woohoo:

My lightworks trainer sold his house to buy a Lightworks system so that he could teach Lightworks. I think it cost 50,000 back then. You could probably add a zero to the cost of that same house today and well Lightworks as we all know they are practically giving it away these days. :woohoo:

It amazes me that back then an edit suite was proper specialist equipment. Today the computer part we use is the exact same computers that every day users are using to do a bit of web surfing etc.

It's been a while now since the "video editing being the new word processing" thing has been around, thinking of this it has to mean the costs come down. They (not just Apple) aren't doing us any favours in reducing the cost, their not doing us bad either, that's for sure.

But they are reducing the cost to win the battle for Microsoft Words spot as the standard for both professional and general use word processor.

And thinking of this makes me see past my personal investment. I think getting functional apps (in general) is a very important issue in todays market.

I do wish people would get out of the "fan/supporter" mindset. Those of use who like it and find FCPX useful won't have problem paying for it.

Those who already paid for it and found it incomplete are going to be livid if they have to pay for what they consider a "working" version. You can argue they're wrong but if you do you miss the marketing issue entirely. Perception is everything and those of us who like FCPX should be well aware of that. It's been a major uphill battle for acceptance.

If Apple's objective is to Win Converts so they sell More Macs, slapping those in the face who actually paid and tried and found it flawed, would be a major PR loss. You'll have weeks of, "they finally get it right but they're going to charge me again for waiting" posts and, "this is a stupid as Adobe's CC" etc. Apple doesn't need that bad PR around the time the MacPro is released. They don't need people moving to PCs which all Avid and Adobe users can do. The bad PR is not worth a $300 piece of software vs the potential lost sales on MacPros as well as BTO iMacs and MBP Retinas.

For every "me" that has no problems paying $300 for a new version, there's a score more who bought it and were dissatisfied who MIGHT be won over with a free update especially if they like it enough to buy a new Mac to go along with it.

At the launch of FCPX there was no 30 day trail. People who bought it and who weren't satisfied with the .01 version have been able to get a refund from Apple. After that there has always been a 30 day trial, and there still is.

If you have had 30 days to try it and you buy it this means you judge it is complete enough for what you need it for. Otherwise it would be unwise for you to buy it.

If you have tried an earlier version of the software and you decided not to buy it you can get a new 30-day trial for every latest version if you want to, until you judge it's good enough for you to buy it.

So I see no reason why anyone who has ever bought it should be upset about anything, even if the next major update is a paid one. It's your choice entirely to try it out and buy it or not, just like it has been your choice to buy an earlier version or not.

Ronny, I do think there are people who bought it, spent the time beyond the 30 days as owners who learned it to some extent, attempted to use it, felt that over time and with real jobs, felt it was inadequate.

We can't know the numbers but I think there's a large block of people who did pay for it, felt it wasn't quite there yet, and were waiting and hoping it would get there with updates. Those are the kind of fence sitters Apple should be gentle with. They don't hate it. They want to like it. They feel it needs a few more things. Apple can reel them in or alienate them. Better to reel them in with the prospect of new Mac purchases.

Craig,

I agree there will be such people. But they have had two years of free updates and if they think it still doesn't work for them now I'm afraid it never will. It works for so many others including people in the most demanding end of the video world. Of course it's not perfect, no software ever is. But just like many others we make good money with it and I would be happy to pay to keep this app evolving at the same pace as it has in the past two years.

- Ronny

Some where waiting for better collaboration, others for Roles improvements to better replace tracks.
I have a hunch they'll get what they want in the next update. These are people who are using Avid or PPro because they need some key things. I'm sure Apple would really want them to move to FCPX.

I know people hate analogies but it's like leaving the runner stranded on second base. You can drive them in or end the inning (or game). I just don't think it's worth it for Apple to lose those. These aren't the nay sayers. They're the "maybes" and these are critical for FCPX trajectory IMHO. I also think it can have an impact on new MacPro sales.

Adding that I also think the negative backlash online from the maybes would hurt... especially since these aren't naysayers but would become such. Apple doesn't need to have its Creative Cloud moment... where people love the upgrade but hate the business model.