TOPIC:

I wonder why it won't run? Are they changing everything up again like they did when they went from 68000 to PowerPC to X86? It makes me wonder what else won't run. Not looking forward to the new OS if that's the case. They probably won't give us lowly Mavricks users a bug update. That'll help entice everyone to upgrade and then buy new versions of all their softs. Again.

Hopefully they'll change the OS so this isn't an issue without an upgrade. They sure are abandoning Mavricks pretty fast.

I doubt the update will be THAT destructive.

Maybe i'm misremembering, but I believe a similar thing happened with Mavericks.
The OS was released in close proximity to an FCPX update and the then-current version of FCPX would not run on Mavericks.

I'm not a programer, and certainly don't know what i'm talking about,
But I'd imagine that the "under the hood" engines that FCPX uses are developed in tandem and/or optimized for the under-the-hood updates to the OS. -- I don't know my terminology here, but that there are resources or processes that utilizes the features present in the OS.

someone can check my logic with actual knowledge....

Beta Yosemite is not finished, there are big chunks still missing. If it weren't, it would be a gold master release to the public now. Doesn't mean anything will be drastically changed for FCPX. There are new notifications, new synchronizations, etc, that some apps will have to be tweaked to communicate with the OS for. That's just how software is developed.

FCPX can in fact run in Yosemite. Right-click the FCPX icon, Show Package Contents, then run the UNIX excitable inside of there. It isn't a compatibility issue, it is a simple system call issue that has not been implemented yet. Very simply, very minor, just not a priority for the software engineers at this point in time, I would assume from the current evidence.

All it indicates is that the OS is not finished, and in early beta stages (software goes through a ton of development before even getting to beta stage). And, possibly, there is some new method for an app to call the OS for launching, because it includes something new, like syncing things to the cloud, improved sandboxing, and stuff like that. Minor, but just not a priority at this time.

But, FCPX will in fact "run" in Yosemite, it just won't "launch" by the icon only at this point. Very different things.

And again, there could be some very major changes effecting/improving FCPX in the near future that haven't been fully implemented yet. But I doubt the launch issue by itself indicates that definitively.

@Redifer. Let's remember this is the first developer Beta, with many more to come between now and October/November- LOTS of things don't work. And part of the reason why Apple has said they're doing this public Beta is because they want more feedback for when the public launch happens this Fall.

I'm not sure what you mean by this,

They probably won't give us lowly Mavricks users a bug update. That'll help entice everyone to upgrade and then buy new versions of all their softs. Again.

Considering both the OS upgrades are free and (so far) FCP X updates are free- I don't see it as a money grab. If anything, Apple's motivation seems to be that they DO want people running the latest OS. They certainly put enough emphasis on those stats for OSX and iOS at WWDC.

Let's not forget there's 2 solutions to this- either a new Yosemite Beta could fix the problem, or a new version of X that's already Yosemite compatible is released before then.

There already is a way to open FCP X in Yosemite using the executable in the terminal, which means it's probably an easy OS fix will be in the next beta. Once open, FCP X runs the same so far.

www.gearlive.com/news/article/how-to-fix...-os-x-yosemite-q214/

If you ask me, I think Apple just built into the Pro Apps the restrictions that it wouldn't run. Either in the Pro Apps themselves, or in 10.10 beta. Just to avoid any potential issues.

DigiDesign, now Avid, is very smart in certifying an OS and hardware for their apps. It usually happens many months after a OS, or hardware release. Although it may seem like they were dragging their feet, in reality the were wanting to ensure that everything worked well for their customers.

There has already been one post here on fcp.co of someone reportedly having trouble with 10.1.1, and Ben and I even tried to help him, when it turned out he was on Yosemite. I imagine if that fellow didn't do the workaround he would have just seen that FCPX wasn't going to run and just move on and get back to work.

Which post is that?

That's a good theory that they disabled the pro apps in Yosemite. That makes a lot of sense. Everyone always wants to be on the latest and greatest but don't want to deal with the consequences!

Here is that post. I was actually not going to list it because I didn't want to throw the poor guy under the bus (he is new here):

www.fcp.co/forum/4-final-cut-pro-x-fcpx/...pro-x-10-1-1-problem

"They probably won't give us lowly Mavricks users a bug update."

Sure they will. 10.10 is gonna be a while...

Lets put it this way. Things WAY more basic that ProApps don't work in the Betas at this stage- things like Mail or iBooks.

I'm honestly not sure what anyone is thinking installing this on anything other than a compatible machine you've got just laying around. My 17" MBP doesn't see much use these days, but even then I'll be waiting a few months for things to calm down. And IF the Beta is still open, maybe I'll try it.

Still, it's horrible to see people do this to themselves. Perhaps a lead time of a couple of months of developer Beta before releasing the Public Beta would have been a good idea. I dunno.

I don't think the public beta has been released yet. You can sign up for it, but the builds not been released to the public.

No worries FCP X is disabled on 10.10 for a good reason. I would not suggest updating to 10.10 unless you are a developer.

Scrubelicious wrote:

No worries FCP X is disabled on 10.10 for a good reason. I would not suggest updating to 10.10 unless you are a developer.

VERY much agree.

And if you do join the beta program, be aware you agree to a legally binding contract to NOT discuss it publicly.

"And if you do join the beta program, be aware you agree to a legally binding contract to NOT discuss it publicly."

FWIW, I would bet that Apple understands that the "public" beta testers are likely to blab about it. There are already lots of 10.10 "discussion" forums on the rumor sites. The developer release is out now, so it's developers breaking NDA's and/or making the SW available to others. Not that this changes things for anyone who respects NDA's, but I imagine there are a lot of people with 10.10 now who never heard of an NDA...

Actually, this is the public beta, which accepted the first one million folks to sign up (who aren't developers). It has been released to accepted beta testers. This is NOT the Developer program beta.
appleseed.apple.com/sp/betaprogram/
appleseed.apple.com/sp/betaprogram/faq

Developers aren't the ones breaking NDA. They, I'd believe, are much more serious about keeping their integrity with Apple. They are invested in this, it is their income, I'd think they're good with it.

I believe it is the public beta testers who, as I totally agree, will not be as aware of how serious an NDA actually is, and have less or nothing to lose from breaking an NDA, and won't care.

Repeating what you read on a public web page is one thing. Being part of a Beta program and publicly talking about what you've seen first hand, is something different. But, it is an interesting new direction for Apple. I'm interested to see how it works out.

Correct but, AFAIK, the public beta hasn't been released, so anything we're seeing now is likely coming from the developer release program. FWIW, the public "NDA" states "For clarity, if Apple has publicly disclosed technical information about the pre-release software then it is no longer considered confidential." so it's quite a bit looser. As to developers being serious... some may be, but all you gotta do is sign up and pay the fee, so I'd imagine there are a lot of people in the program who aren't developing anything. There's probably a private beta program with a much more serious NDA.

BenB wrote:

Actually, this is the public beta, which accepted the first one million folks to sign up (who aren't developers). It has been released to accepted beta testers. This is NOT the Developer program beta.
appleseed.apple.com/sp/betaprogram/faq

Developers aren't the ones breaking NDA. They, I'd believe, are much more serious about keeping their integrity with Apple. They are invested in this, it is their income, I'd think they're good with it.

I believe it is the public beta testers who, as I totally agree, will not be as aware of how serious an NDA actually is, and have less or nothing to lose from breaking an NDA, and won't care.

Repeating what you read on a public web page is one thing. Being part of a Beta program and publicly talking about what you've seen first hand, is something different. But, it is an interesting new direction for Apple. I'm interested to see how it works out.

plysat wrote:

Correct but, AFAIK, the public beta hasn't been released...

I know folks who signed up there and have it.

And any NDA, if the company who owns the software publicly releases information, that information is public, obviously. You still can't talk about what has not been made public by the owner company, in this case, Apple.

BenB wrote:

And if you do join the beta program, be aware you agree to a legally binding contract to NOT discuss it publicly.

This is not strictly speaking true anymore Ben.

There have been modifications to Apple NDA for this release that are far less restrictive than before.

There are still restrictions, but "you can't talk about it" no longer applies as broadly- based on what I've heard repeatedly this week.

*EDIT- I see you already addressed this above. I'll see if I can't find a cole's notes version of the new NDA restrictions so we're not talking in abstracts.

appleseed.apple.com/sp/betaprogram/legal

This seems pretty clear in its restrictions. I can't see what they've left out that makes it less restrictive. The more friendly worded FAQ says no talking, no tweeting, no blogging, no pictures, no sharing in any way.

You appear to be right, Tom. Just going based on the reactions I'd heard on Podcasts and such this week.

I never thought it was a freeforall, but that restrictions had been lifted in some meaningful ways.

Again, I'll see if I can find a source for what's been considered "changed".