Any news on FCPX 10.1?

Any news or leaks on this?
I think the next major release of FCPX could be make or break for many. Personally, I'd like to see a little more trust/control put back in the hands of the editor. An example of this is the comparison of customisation between FCP 7 and FCPX via the preferences/settings menus. These reside in around 20 tabs/sections in FCP 7, whereas in FCPX, you have 4, very basic, tabs to flick through in the prefs.

I'm not a hater by any means. Despite having dismissed FCPX since release, I've been using it on the side recently and am growing to enjoy it more and more. But I feel there's so much control that's missing at this stage...

So, any news/guesses on the next major update?

Read this first for prologue.
www.fcp.co/forum/4-final-cut-pro-x-fcpx/...e-release-discussion

I would guess this year or next year, but I can not confirm that.

Chazfest wrote: An example of this is the comparison of customisation between FCP 7 and FCPX via the preferences/settings menus. These reside in around 20 tabs/sections in FCP 7, whereas in FCPX, you have 4, very basic, tabs to flick through in the prefs.

Yeah right, that's a difference between an engineer and a storyteller.

Soundwise wrote:

Chazfest wrote: An example of this is the comparison of customisation between FCP 7 and FCPX via the preferences/settings menus. These reside in around 20 tabs/sections in FCP 7, whereas in FCPX, you have 4, very basic, tabs to flick through in the prefs.

Yeah right, that's a difference between an engineer and a storyteller.

Not sure I follow? Are you laying into me because of my wish to retain the technical and layout decisions that every other NLE on the market continues to give editors (aka 'storytellers')?
I hope I've misread the situation... Please elaborate.

I sure hope they won't be making it more like FCP7 again. Working in FCP7 after FCPX is like going back to the 90s... Totally uninspiring... I hope they keep the course and don't let the naysayers get to them...

Hi Charles,

I don't think FCPX needs any "making or breaking" anymore. Even its fiercest first-hour opponents in the professional post world now happily admit it has become an excellent NLE for the vast majority of our editing workflows. I run a fairly big post house for broadcast and we just love working with it. I see many people now using it for long-form and television work and I also see more and more people starting to learn it. So I'm quite confident FCPX is already very successful.

I do agree the next major update could give us a fair indication of Apple's future roadmap for FCPX. Will it only fix some existing issues and add some more features to attract an even broader user base, or will we see the basic layout for high-level collaborative editing and a truly seamless integration with other Apple pro apps? I hope both (-:

I don't think the quality of an NLE is measured by its complexity or by the number of its preference panes. I would say the opposite is true. Nowadays UI simplicity combined with a rich feature set as well as high performance and reliability are the real quality standards for any professional application. FCPX has become a perfect example of this. The main issue I (and many others) had with it is that it was launched too soon and the dev team could not integrate some important features for advanced workflows in the first releases. Fortunately this was corrected very quickly, and even more: every missing feature that has been re-estated over time is now the very best in class.

Apple learns fast and they have shown this with Logic X: they really have taken their time to re-write this application. The UI has been completely overhauled and simplified, but without sacrificing any features and even adding a large number of new ones. A DAW requires many more customization options than an NLE, so they have integrated both a Basic and an Advanced workflow setup making the app easy to use for both the novice/basic user and the advanced user. This is the way of the future and I hope FCPX will continue to go that way as well.

I am confident that FCPX will get some deeper kind of user control as it continues to grow. There are indeed some extra user preferences that could be useful. But I really don't want to see 20 preference panes coming back, god forbid. That's a thing of the past, and it's a thing nobody really needs anymore in modern post production. We certainly don't, and we do work in quite a high-end environment.

Kind regards,

- Ronny

Hi Ronny,
Great to hear your thoughts on this. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I too work as an editor by profession, and on increasingly complex, VFX heavy projects, that require me to integrate various packages to get the job done. For instance, I regularly export my first cut as an XML to then bring into Nuke, set up a folder system for my plates, and begin comping in there. Once done, I'll delink into FCP 7, and then, if needed send a revised XML to Color or Resolve for final delivery.
This workflow at present can't happen with FCPX's proprietary XML. Resolve can deal with it, but almost every other package on the market (Nuke, Color, FCP 7, Premiere, AE, Smoke etc) can't accept it at this point. This question I ask is "why take this industry standard option away from the user, against their will??" If you're introducing a new standard, fine, great, do it. But leave the previous versions in there as an option. As with FCP 7, you could choose which XML version to export, depending on where you're heading with that data.
This is a small, but incredibly relevant issue. Why force users to buy third party applications (7toX and Xto7) to make cross software collaboration possible?? Nobody else does this, Lightworks, Premiere, Avid, Smoke, even Vegas!! They all allow you collaborate easily with 3rd party software. I'd half understand if Apple still had Shake and Color. Because then they'd have an entire package. A Studio, like the old days. I wouldn't necessarily agree per say, but I'd certainly understand their 'logic' (nice pun no?). Cut in FCPX, send audio to Logic Pro X (even this doesn't work as it should right now!), send your VFX plates to Shake, bring everything back and grade in Color for delivery. But no, they killed Shake, against the world of VFX artists wishes. They had the industry in their palm at that point, almlst every major film/post house in the world was comping in Shake, and many were grading in Color. Yet they unceremoniously killed both. And now? Now they make it harder than ever to get your plates and cuts out of the NLE?! Surely they can't assume that a major feature is going to be graded in FCPX? Or that little or no VFX will take place?? I'm aware there are work arounds, and when I use FCPX outside of work, I find a way to get in and out of Nuke manually, memorising frame ranges, jotting down clip names and locations etc. but this is cumbersome to say the least, and I'd never want to do it on a project.

The reason I'm using FCPX in my spare time though, is that I do have confidence that Apple will (in time) improve upon and generally open up this software. And you know, I actually do enjoy doing rough cuts in it. I'm by no means a hater, I just want the extra functionality. And much of it is so simple that there's no excuse for it to not be there from square one!! Let alone a few years down the line!!

Let's not pretend I'm the only one who feels this way and that the whole world has taken to FCPX, this is simply not true. Not for a second. I myself am not a am of Premiere, it's clunky, slow and awkward, BUT, that's where the vast majority of FCP 7 users are heading. That's not my opinion, it's reality. It's happening. And I hope Apple can kick out a huge update this year that brings back much of the functionality that's needed right now.

And as for the '20 pref pane' debate, again, I personally love having any software I use set up in the way that I like. From shortcuts (thankfully still customisable in X), to window layouts and organisation/collaboration workflows. I hark back to Nuke on this front, I think The Foundry do an incredible job of listening to their users. Everytime I see someone working in Nuke, the UI looks completely different. It's fully customisable, GUI colours/shades, windows layout, full screen/multi screen/single screen, floating panels or single frame layout, everything is customisable. It's great, and I switch layouts (many of which I've personally created and saved) depending on what I'm doing, whether I'm keying or tracking or painting or generally comping, I'll have my layout set out differently for different tasks. And that's why Nuke is (from what we hear) the most widely used compositing software on features. Because it is so flexible. And this is what is want from FCPX. I'm not asking for it to be FCP 8. I like it's new approach, I appreciate where it's heading, but it needs to at least OFFER more control to the users who want it. For instance, a great example of catering for both is in OSX 10.7 (Lion) onwards - when you click 'About This Mac > More Info', you're greeted with a much more user friendly screen, displaying easy to digest info on basic specs and a few tabs for ram and HDDs etc. Which is great, and perfect for many. But users like myself may still want to know the finer details of GPU specs etc, and this can still be obtained via the system profiler, through the 'System Report' box. And THIS (in my opinion at least), is a perfect example of where FCPX should be heading in general.
Whether its preferences or GUI control, give a simplified approach by all means, but also offer up a more advanced option for those who want, and indeed NEED it. A pref/properties panel with glossy buttons and a few basic options, but in a corner somewhere is an 'advanced' button, which then takes you to a much more feature heavy prefs window. This isn't something new, it's been done in many software packages before, and even games! If Apple do this, in my opinion at least, they'll be on the right tack. They'll continue to please many who already use FCPX, but they'll also begin to bring back thousands who dismissed it and simply can't use it in their pipeline.

End of rant anyway.
Here's to the future of FCPX whatever it might be, colour me intrigued

Chazfest wrote: Hi Ronny,
Great to hear your thoughts on this. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I too work as an editor by profession, and on increasingly complex, VFX heavy projects, that require me to integrate various packages to get the job done. For instance, I regularly export my first cut as an XML to then bring into Nuke, set up a folder system for my plates, and begin comping in there. Once done, I'll delink into FCP 7, and then, if needed send a revised XML to Color or Resolve for final delivery.
This workflow at present can't happen with FCPX's proprietary XML. Resolve can deal with it, but almost every other package on the market (Nuke, Color, FCP 7, Premiere, AE, Smoke etc) can't accept it at this point. This question I ask is "why take this industry standard option away from the user, against their will??" If you're introducing a new standard, fine, great, do it. But leave the previous versions in there as an option. As with FCP 7, you could choose which XML version to export, depending on where you're heading with that data.
This is a small, but incredibly relevant issue. Why force users to buy third party applications (7toX and Xto7) to make cross software collaboration possible?? Nobody else does this, Lightworks, Premiere, Avid, Smoke, even Vegas!! They all allow you collaborate easily with 3rd party software. I'd half understand if Apple still had Shake and Color. Because then they'd have an entire package. A Studio, like the old days. I wouldn't necessarily agree per say, but I'd certainly understand their 'logic' (nice pun no?). Cut in FCPX, send audio to Logic Pro X (even this doesn't work as it should right now!), send your VFX plates to Shake, bring everything back and grade in Color for delivery. But no, they killed Shake, against the world of VFX artists wishes. They had the industry in their palm at that point, almlst every major film/post house in the world was comping in Shake, and many were grading in Color. Yet they unceremoniously killed both. And now? Now they make it harder than ever to get your plates and cuts out of the NLE?! Surely they can't assume that a major feature is going to be graded in FCPX? Or that little or no VFX will take place?? I'm aware there are work arounds, and when I use FCPX outside of work, I find a way to get in and out of Nuke manually, memorising frame ranges, jotting down clip names and locations etc. but this is cumbersome to say the least, and I'd never want to do it on a project.

The reason I'm using FCPX in my spare time though, is that I do have confidence that Apple will (in time) improve upon and generally open up this software. And you know, I actually do enjoy doing rough cuts in it. I'm by no means a hater, I just want the extra functionality. And much of it is so simple that there's no excuse for it to not be there from square one!! Let alone a few years down the line!!

Let's not pretend I'm the only one who feels this way and that the whole world has taken to FCPX, this is simply not true. Not for a second. I myself am not a am of Premiere, it's clunky, slow and awkward, BUT, that's where the vast majority of FCP 7 users are heading. That's not my opinion, it's reality. It's happening. And I hope Apple can kick out a huge update this year that brings back much of the functionality that's needed right now.

And as for the '20 pref pane' debate, again, I personally love having any software I use set up in the way that I like. From shortcuts (thankfully still customisable in X), to window layouts and organisation/collaboration workflows. I hark back to Nuke on this front, I think The Foundry do an incredible job of listening to their users. Everytime I see someone working in Nuke, the UI looks completely different. It's fully customisable, GUI colours/shades, windows layout, full screen/multi screen/single screen, floating panels or single frame layout, everything is customisable. It's great, and I switch layouts (many of which I've personally created and saved) depending on what I'm doing, whether I'm keying or tracking or painting or generally comping, I'll have my layout set out differently for different tasks. And that's why Nuke is (from what we hear) the most widely used compositing software on features. Because it is so flexible. And this is what is want from FCPX. I'm not asking for it to be FCP 8. I like it's new approach, I appreciate where it's heading, but it needs to at least OFFER more control to the users who want it. For instance, a great example of catering for both is in OSX 10.7 (Lion) onwards - when you click 'About This Mac > More Info', you're greeted with a much more user friendly screen, displaying easy to digest info on basic specs and a few tabs for ram and HDDs etc. Which is great, and perfect for many. But users like myself may still want to know the finer details of GPU specs etc, and this can still be obtained via the system profiler, through the 'System Report' box. And THIS (in my opinion at least), is a perfect example of where FCPX should be heading in general.
Whether its preferences or GUI control, give a simplified approach by all means, but also offer up a more advanced option for those who want, and indeed NEED it. A pref/properties panel with glossy buttons and a few basic options, but in a corner somewhere is an 'advanced' button, which then takes you to a much more feature heavy prefs window. This isn't something new, it's been done in many software packages before, and even games! If Apple do this, in my opinion at least, they'll be on the right tack. They'll continue to please many who already use FCPX, but they'll also begin to bring back thousands who dismissed it and simply can't use it in their pipeline.

End of rant anyway.
Here's to the future of FCPX whatever it might be, colour me intrigued

You need to see a psychiatrist - and quickly!

So long as the psychiatrist gives me choices, I'm in

Chazfest wrote: So long as the psychiatrist gives me choices, I'm in

I'm afraid its an Apple certified one, so you don't have a choice!

Dang!

LOL!!

Seriously, I appreciate an honest rant. It relieves the pressure and frustration and it keeps us from needing to see a psychiatrist

Let's deal with some of the things you mention one by one.

This workflow at present can't happen with FCPX's proprietary XML. Resolve can deal with it, but almost every other package on the market (Nuke, Color, FCP 7, Premiere, AE, Smoke etc) can't accept it at this point.

FCPXML is Apple's new implementation of the old XML format, which has reached its limits for transferring complex projects between different systems. Just have a look at how many caveats there are with roundtripping complete projects via classic XML, even between different applications from the same company. The relatively new FCPXML can already transfer and restore more project information confidently than the old XML ever could. Obviously Apple didn't want to the use old XML anymore because of its known limitations, and they left it out of FCPX. Other software companies can adopt the new format if they want to work with FCPX. Some major players like BMD with Resolve and Autodesk with Smoke have already done this, and others will follow. Transferring entire projects between FCPX and Resolve or Smoke is part of our daily workflow and I must say it works flawlessly. The new Logic X works with FCPX but it needs some more bug fixes to get the same level of compatibility, this has nothing to do with FCPMXL.

For applications that are are only able to work with old XML third party developers have created utilities like Xto7 and 7toX to fill the gap. This seems to work, except for the fact that the transfer capabilities of these utilities are limited again because of the limitations of old XML.


Why force users to buy third party applications (7toX and Xto7) to make cross software collaboration possible??

With FCPX Apple has developed a new concept for the way an NLE can work. Not only by introducing some new editing paradigms such as the magnetic timeline, but also by changing the very nature of what an NLE should basically offer to be attractive to a very large user base while opening it up to third party developers to fill in the gaps for specific niche workflows. I particularly like this "hub" concept: you pay a very low price for a user friendly uncluttered professional NLE that will work fine for most workflows, and users who have specific needs that many others don't have can add this extra functionality via very affordable third party solutions. This leaves this choice entirely to the people who work with the NLE, so nothing wrong with this.

In the case of cross software collaboration it is simply up to the software vendors to adapt their software to work with the improved XML format, like I have explained above. Blackmagic and Autodesk have done it, so any other vendors can do the same if they wish to. In the meantime third party utilities can fill the gaps.


I myself am not a fan of Premiere, it's clunky, slow and awkward,

Agreed.

BUT, that's where the vast majority of FCP 7 users are heading. That's not my opinion, it's reality.

I'm afraid you are taking your personal opinion for reality here. We recently had an in-depth review with quite a large number of editors from different parts in the world asking them what they saw happening in their country. The vast majority of FCP users is still using FCP and is not even thinking of changing at this moment. Some have switched to Avid, which IMO is the best choice next to FCPX. Some others have adopted or are considering Premiere because it very much looks and works like classic FCP. In our part of Europe FCPX is becoming very popular. And if you just have a look at this site and other forums this seems to be happening in all parts of the world now.

So I guess you are right when you say that a lot of FCP users will make their future decisions based on how FCPX continues to grow, and that's a good thing. Yet to me all this is completely irrelevant. I truly don't care what other people use or not. If you are a serious professional you just pick the tools that are best for the specific work you need to do and that's it. If you are a freelance editor however you will need to know more than one NLE at this time, Avid in the first place and FCPX if you want to work with us


Whether it's preferences or GUI control, give a simplified approach by all means, but also offer up a more advanced option for those who want, and indeed NEED it.

I agree with this, and I know this will happen if enough people request it. They did this with Logic X as well. OTOH I don't see many FCPX users complaining about a lack of prefs or IU customization, so I guess this will not be very high on the priority list. FCPX is above all a professional NLE intended for a large user base. Niche workflows and feature film work represent only a very small fraction of the total NLE user base. And the days that professional people made their NLE purchase decisions based on what others are using or how many blockbusters have been cut on it are long gone. Mankind does seem to become more intelligent after all

- Ronny

I hear you Ronny,

I agree on the most part with what you're saying. I too work in Europe, the UK specifically, and in my circle
Of
Editors, clients and collaborating artists, I'm yet to hear of a single case of someone switching to FCPX, perhaps that's just the UK though? A very small corner of the world after all regardless of this, I absolutely agree with you on the front that and editor/artist/storyteller should pick the tools that allows them to be creative and to get the job done as efficiently as possible. We still use FCP7 at our place, and have no intention of switching any time soon. It's a huge task, as you're well aware, and requires all editors to teach themselves a new way of editing. Whether it's Avid or FCPX. Or even Lightworks for that matter, though time will tell with that one.

We will definitely be switching NLEs in the not too distant future, perhaps by mid 2014. Hence why I'm keeping my eye on FCPX. It really does intrigue me, though I'm still confused as to how it holds up in a multi editor multi project scenario, working with assets on one RAID, render files on another. And archiving projects to a separate backup system on a semi regular basis. That's how we work currently, and I'm sure there's a way, but it's not clear to me at this moment in time... Would each editor have every active project on the RAID constantly open in FCPX?? Hundreds of separate projects, many spanning multiple terabytes?
Or is there a way of choosing which to open and close, as per FCP 7?

On the large part I think we see eye to eye by the sounds. As I've said, I'm not for a second attacking FCPX, I think it's got great potential. I'm just not sure how to fit it into our pipeline at this moment in time. And on a separate note, I had no idea Autodesk had adopted the FCPXML format! Good to hear

I love options as much as any other man but FCP7 and the millions of preferences was just down right silly. I used to teach the FCP Classic Apple courses. They went for 5 days and I needed the best part of the first day to explain the preferences. After that the peoples brains were fried for the rest of the day. So you can imagine how much I love preferences. From the 5 days I effectively lost one to preferences!

Making things simple is important It helps people be creative.

See the video below for one very clear and transparent approach!



just my 5 cents :whistle:

Paul

ps I´ve seen a lot of people with custom layouts in FCP and frankly most of them horrified me

pps I can not resist telling my enlightening story here:

Guy goes to Guru and asks is there such a thing as free will?

Guru replies sure there is.

Guy asks can you demonstrate free will?

Guru replies sure I can but you have to help me!

Guy replies will do.

OK says the Guru I want you to stand using only your left leg!

Guy complies.

OK says the Guru I want you to stand using only your right leg!

Guy complies.

OK says the Guru I want you to stand on no legs...

Personal preference (I'm all puns today), in my opinion. I respect your history of teaching and losing days to people who aren't familiar with FCP. On the other hand, I use those preferences. The last time I had to trash my FCP prefs, I spent an hour or so getting things back to how they were. And whilst this was indeed an hour, in the big scheme of things, when I'm spending 5-7 days a week using that piece of software all day long, it's essential that I can feel comfortable with the GUI.
It's not that I don't feel comfortable with FCPX's GUI specifically, I think it's nice, if a little big (As with Premiere, both UIs feel much bulkier than FCP7 and Avid imho).
The thing is, I don't use the same layout in FCP 7 for cutting as I do for colour correcting/multicam/interviews/audio etc. And this is absolutely normal in my experience. I have custom window layouts that make each task easier (for me at least). The same goes for any software I use, and that's common practice. I'm sure you'll agree that if you visit a handful of post houses anywhere in the world, they'll have their Nuke/FCP/Avid/Smoke stations setup differently depending on what task they're currently working on, and ultimately, their own personal preference. Which is great. I wouldn't expect to walk into an art studio and know exactly how an artist is holding the brush, and where or how their paint is stored. I'd expect it to be the artists choice to a certain extent.
Smoke's a great example of an adaptive GUI in my opinion, though I never use it myself, I think it's an amazing approach to intelligently adapt the interface to suit the task in hand! That's awesome!

I agree that the GUI shouldn't get in the way of the art/creativity, but ironically, that's exactly the point! When I paint in Nuke, I hit space bar on the viewer and the whole interface disappears, leaving only the full screen viewer and the paint controls, this is like having a canvas in front of you, no distractions, just leaving you to focus on the task in hand.
On the other hand, when I'm tracking, I tend to like to lose the node graph and maximise the viewer with a floating properties pane, so I can track with as much screen real estate as possible, while keeping an eye on the controls and tweaking them when necessary.
This is the same when editing, I'd love to have a more flexible work space, even FCP 7 isn't great at this in my opinion, though it tried at least.
I'd love for my interface to change to a more 'Color' like UI when grading for example.

My point is, that whilst I fully respect your (and any users) choice to working with fewer preference panes and less customisation, equally, users like myself (I'm really not the only one shouldn't be forced to lose our customisation in favour of a simplified approach that's easier for new users to understand.

It would be great if there was a middle ground, a nice simplified GUI, that's minimalist and user friendly, but with 'advanced' options hidden under the hood, which can be accessed when needed.

Just my 5 quid

Chaz

Chazfest wrote: …  My point is, that whilst I fully respect your (and any users) choice to working with fewer preference panes and less customisation, equally, users like myself (I'm really not the only one shouldn't be forced to lose our customisation in favour of a simplified approach that's easier for new users to understand. …

we can get soon very philosophically here but …

Apples approach, kharma, principle (btw THANKS @paurray for the video!) is to create the 'best' products. so, if it's best, you can not improve it (by customization) :silly:

I'm a total newbie and hobbyist with all these tools 'n toys, but UI touches my interests.
The major difference in GUI btw. FCPX and M5 is The HUD!

A bit like the Info Pane in FCPX, but Motions HUD is more flexible (pun intended).
Oil on your fire:
M5's HUD offers simplified controls, compared to 'info' on left! (e.g. going beyond '100')
Why has FCPX no HUD? Just that static Info Pane.-

I can well imagine the first meetings, "make it simple. single window!"
And I can very well imagine one of the last "but color correction, compositing, multicam have different demands on Interface!"

… I'm NO friend of customization - I'm happy to find my A on the far left, and the 9 on the upper right of my keyboard.

Imagine my surprise when trying to open a door in the US the first time a) with a round knob, b) turning in the 'wrong' direction! (I'm not talking about drivin' cars in GB! Never dared that!)

.... no final answer to this complex question.

… but as Jony, I would order "only this way! the right way!" … :woohoo:

Hi Chazfest

Maybe we can agree to differ in a constructive way and not just the well we have different opinions way! Ok so we are both into simplicity in its own way. Sure there are times when I want more window layouts in FCPX. OK there I just gone and said it. But just let me shift every thing around the way I like it and save it and call it up if and when I need it. Maybe even switching window layout depending on which task/tool I am using!

I can not even remember precisely how the window layout thing worked in FCP Classic. You could move windows around and save a window layout. But how was it with the track layout? Like you want to change the height of a track! Was that stored in the window layout menu point? I have a nasty feeling that it was not! Or what about column layout in the browser? Probably not either! It was a mess...

Let me digress for a minute. Audio tapes were not all bad. You could have hundreds of them and fish them out and throw them in your tape player, press play, rewind fast forward etc. If and when you needed them. But you had a tape for “The Jungle Brothers” a tape for “Public Enemy” and a tape for “Ice Tea” etc

Then along came the iPod and this weird little dial thing that was not quite like the dialer on a phone and not quite like a button on a tape recorder. But with a little bit of practice it actually became apparent how powerful it was! You could get all of your stuff up and playing with a simple swirl and click from the same control or preference if you will. That was cool as it meant less rummaging in different boxes, pressing clunky buttons and rewinding of tapes.

What I am trying to say here is. I am open to some more preferences but get them into a nice simple interface where I have one wheel and a couple of clicks or similar. I do not want to have to set the track height in one place and the track length in another etc. Boxes yes. Boxes inside boxes yes. But not boxes beside boxes beside boxes ad infinitum!

@ Karsten every tried to use an ATM where the numbers are the other way around!

i.e. the 1 is where the 7 is and there 7 is where the 1 is. OMG the doors are where the windows are and the windows are where the doors are... :blink:

ps Karsten I am going to have bail out of this thread now as Tatort is going to be on very soon Have a pleasant evening. Need some candy for my brain

pps Can you enlighten me Karsten, who is "Jony"?

paurray wrote: … Can you enlighten me Karsten, who is "Jony"?

my fault … 'Sir' Ive
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ive
www.apple.com/pr/bios/jonathan-ive.html

head of blablabla and DESIGN (aka NOT only look, but also feel of software …)

… Tatort - don't fall asleep!

Ah yes Johhny I saw him on Blue Peter once



Call me simple but I prefer a good "Tatort" to a bad film any day.

If it is shit I will press the stop button :woohoo: