Mark Sanger (Oscar Winner for Editing - Gravity) Trashes FCPX !!!

I'm kind of pissed off about it.. because somebody at this level of professionalism should know better.

He talks about FCPX in about 4:25 in the video..

Fares wrote:

I'm kind of pissed off about it.. because somebody at this level of professionalism should know better.

He talks about FCPX in about 4:25 in the video..

i think he has valid points. Especially when they started Gravity FCPX was in an state of development that you hardly couldn't rely on

i he's not trashing FCPX , he's just objectively mentioning his points

and FCP is still not able to handle stereo - so it's not very convenient to cut a stereoscopic movie in 2d and for each 3d review you have to use another system

I think 'trashing' only really applies if the person knows what they are talking about, but decide to make an effort to denigrate a person or thing. This is lack of knowledge.

His lack of understanding is Apple's fault, both in the launch and their continuous promotion.

A person who is insulated from how flaky Avid can be by an assisting team (who are unlikely to be using a version of Avid released after 7.X), doesn't need to keep up with Adobe Premiere and Final Cut Pro X. Would an editor working with celluloid in 1996 keep checking to see if Avid software is good enough yet? It was up to Avid to reach the non-digital editors, not vice versa.

As Apple are diligent in educating their markets about their new products ("You should now expect that your phone does video calls, monitors your health, does secure payments"), the lack of any cohesive message for people in TV and feature films implies that Apple isn't interested.

There are two parts to convincing people like Mark Sanger of how much better Final Cut is:
1. Show the advantages through amazing case studies.
2. Apple committing to the market in which they work.

The ProApps team have their hands tied by old Apple thinking. Don't blame them, blame a culture that's older than Avid and digital editing, and we all know how hard it is to change those attitudes.



@Alex4D

I agree Alex. In FCPX Apple have democratised TV for £200 with an Application that can do anything and can work at all levels, and yet, since that terrible launch, have not managed to convince very conservative broadcast and film industries of their commitment.

I laughed out loud when he said how much Avid had evolved since V4. The fact is it hasn't, it's only reacted by adding a few smart tools and AMA. The whole point of MC is that it doesn't' change.

Animation editor Judith Allen made some important points on Twitter.

Mark and his team started working on Gravity before Final Cut Pro X was launched. Gravity was effectively an animated movie as much as a Pixar film. Such films take years to make.

If Apple wanted to convince anyone to edit an animated feature film in Final Cut Pro X starting today, they'd have to show that Final Cut will be supported for high-end productions until at least 2019.

"You'll love what is coming up in the next version" doesn't cut it.

@Alex4D

I think what he said is pretty accurate. Stings a little as a FCPX fan - but it's truth.

Some dismiss this conversation and think things are fine the way they are, but the conversation with Judith this morning at the least points to 2 things-

Either FCPX can't do all the things she wants it to do, OR she doesn't know that it can do many of the things she wants it to do.

I think several of her criticisms stem from simple lack of exposure to the software and it's strengths, metadata and file management.

But regardless the net result is still a failure on Apple's part. Either to provide the features she's looking for (which I'm actually more forgiving of, because the FCPX is still young and growing), or a PR failure that the program that exists in 2014 is the same one that was ridiculed in 2011.

On the FinalCutGrill 100th episode Hangout, host Chris Fenwick bemoaned his repeated attempts to get members of the dev team on the show. The impression is that they would love to but cannot because of Apple higher ups.

I continue to fail to see the advantage in Apple's line of thinking here, when they're seemingly opening up new PR avenues in other areas of their software.

Things like open beta testing are dangerous and I don't think they should do them, but better community involvement, industry action, and overall better self-promotion are things I can see nothing but upside to.

Personally I think Apple's (lack of) marketing of FCPX is an abject failure. They pretty much rely on word of mouth and that, as we can see, can actually be detrimental because words can be negative and they can come from prominent respected people in the industry.

Even Apple's own "In Action" section has a paucity of examples, rarely updated, which may well sit as an example of lack of use for anyone who visits (assuming they even know that page exists).

While Apple may listen to users, they certainly don't listen to non users. Proper marketing would see them as potential customers.

It seems Apple has no concern that virtually every other NLE available on the Mac has a Windows "exist strategy" available and this is, by no means, limited to "professional users." So the impact is not at all limited to software.

Somebody must be listening and watching. Ironically, I just got an Apple survey regarding my experience using Final Cut Pro. So I believe the ProApps team 'is' listening, perhaps more than we know.

I have zero doubt they are.

But this isn't about listening and reacting to existing and mostly happy customers, it's about selling the software to all the editors who are still out there on FCP7, or aren't sure about being subscribed to CC for life. It's about them getting the message out about FCPX/Logic/Motion's strengths, and it's about them sending a public message that says they're as proud and invested in their software as they are in their hardware.

And as Apple leaves it to word of mouth (us) as each of us becomes defeated by the negative "tidal wave" of comments by Sander that are the topic of this thread, we are forced to retreat.

Many of the best FCPX advocates retreat to discussions in "safe" forums because, as working professionals, there's no support from Apple for us entering into such contentious discussions on the public forums and places that might be listening to comments like those from Mark Sanger.

FCPX's biggest disadvantage is Apple's (lack of) marketing. As an FCPX editor I sometimes feel like an Amiga user when Alexander Haig was on Commodore's board of directors.

That's a bit extreme of course but, given the resources Apple has, their lack of marketing of FCPX itself seems a bit extreme.

That's a bit extreme of course but, given the resources Apple has, their lack of marketing of FCPX itself seems a bit extreme.

I think you resume the situation very well. Apple is among the RICHEST COMPANIES IN THE WORLD. They could get FCPX 1st on the market, if they wanted to.

The smugness spewing from my screen and speakers was too much to handle so I couldn't watch much more than the FCP X comments. Whenever I hear "The tools just need to be used to tell the story", my stomach starts to turn.

The arguments he gave were partially true two years ago, but the consumer market comment is just disappointing and ignorant.

FCP X can be used collaboratively, and it can cut stereo. Not that any films are being shot that way anymore, but it can.

Avid was a stop gap created for flatbed editors to make sense of how things work in a computer environment that somehow stuck around for almost 30 years.

The lack of PR is the major problem as Marcus said. The looks I get when I say I like and use FCP X should be enough to motivate them to let the ProApps teams be exempt from this.

Maybe we should get a petition going if only for turning the public opinion around so we don't have to defend our choices anymore.

I'd sign it.

Actually I felt this as a compliment. This was an Avid Everywhere event, he got paid to do this show and to tell exactly what Avid marketing wanted him to tell. And if they felt he had to take a quick stab at FCP X, this can only mean they respect how FCP X is evolving.

This guy has only cut on Avid. He has assistants that do all the work for him, and they have to deal with all the trouble behind the scenes. He doesn't even know what version of Media Composer he was working on for this movie. So how could he possibly know anything about any other NLEs?

I would certainly not like to see such kind of cheap "marketing" for FCP X. In spite of all the past rubbish on the internet, FCP X is becoming successful in every corner of the film and television industry. Simply because no-one can deny anymore that it is at least as good as any other option available. A positive and constantly growing user-base is the best marketing any application can get. That's why I don't feel I have to defend my choice for FCP X anymore. I think I can make better use of my time in helping to make the application even better.

- Ronny

Fully agree with you Ronnie!

1 - When FCP7 was EOL'ed, it sold more professional seats than PPro and MC combined, with about 53-53% market share, much higher customer satisfaction ratings, and was growing much faster than any competition.
2 - In FCPX's first year, it sold more total seats than FCP7 had in three years.
3 - At that time, Avid had only about 17-18% market share.
4 - At that time, Adobe had only about 18-19% market share.
5 - Adobe claims their sales increased 47% when FCPX was released, and that increase of their 18% only brings them up to 8.46% more market share than before. Still only 27-28% market share.
6 - Avid has no increased market share at all since FCPX was released, at least there is no realistic evidence of such, and their financial health still not doing well.
7 - In FCPX's first year, it sold more total seats than FCP7 had in three years.
8 - In FCPX's first year, it sold more total seats than FCP7 had in three years.
9 - In FCPX's first year, it sold more total seats than FCP7 had in three years.
10 - In FCPX's first year, it sold more total seats than FCP7 had in three years.


In the last year and a half, as a certified trainer, demand for my classes has increased a great deal. I was once teaching classes from 2-3 times a month, then down to only once every 4 months or so the last 2 years of FCP7. And here I am, three years later, teaching an FCPX class every other month, to season professionals at broadcast stations, independents (wedding, corporate, etc), and best of all, university faculty who are switching from FCP7/PPro to FCPX in droves. Very few amateurs or beginners, a few, but mostly "seasoned" pros.

I don't care what that guy in the video says, he doesn't pay my bills, and I'm not cutting major Hollywood features, so what he does or thinks has not one iota to do with my little corner of the universe. I never debate which NLE is better.

I ran an FCP users group for 9 years, and used to get pressed for debates all time time. I always simply replied with, "Use what you like, I don't care. If you use Final Cut, I can help you out. Otherwise, I can gladly refer you to friends who teach other NLEs."

So, I really don't see any need for Apple to advertise, or proselytize anything at all for any reason. FCPX is doing just fine, and getting upset with what someone else says about anything is a waste of energy.

Now, back to utilizing our energies on what matters most, supporting each other with Final Cut Pro X.

P.S. For those who have been with FCP since 7 and earlier, those versions got the same bashing X is getting now. That is normal, nothing has changed, people will be people, that's it.

I agree with Ronnie too, but he is on the much more open minded and logical side of the pond.

I just read through the twitter conversations with Judith Allen which is a perfect example of an accomplished and highly intelligent professional being very misinformed. "@Alex4D @FCPdotCO @Avid ... we also need an NLE that won't be yanked from the shelves on zero notice before we find we need an extra seat."

If they EOL'd FCP X, you'd technically be able to run it on as many computers you want. Also Apple has committed to it for at least another seven years. (Ten year dev cycle has used up just over three years)

I do live in LA, I work on indie features and more of those thankfully are using X, which will lead to more using it on bigger features, but it's happening too slowly. Having to use Avid is such a pain knowing how much faster I could work in X.

The lack of Apple PR is a no win scenario. Something Philip Hodgetts posted regarding the revisions to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2009, it changed the accounting rules regarding devices gaining added functionality. The reason the iPhone software upgrades were free is because the phone was a subscription service, and the iPod touch wasn't.

Remember FCP 5.1? Paid upgrade because it added features. My understanding is that if Apple did do PR for their ProApps, they would have to account for it differently. The Mac you need to run it on is the product, not the software. Same with Blackmagic, you need to use their hardware with Resolve to fully use it.

The biggest problem is they can't defend themselves in the same way the others can since their software is their product. That leaves us with word of mouth, which this community keeps me hopeful.

Apple never promoted legacy FCP, either. But it gained acceptance in its first 3- 4 years, just like X is.

FCPX has more copies out there than FCP7 ever did. What's the issue? Even with 7, there were Hollywood big time editors bashing it. So what?

Apple was visible at video specific trade shows like NAB. There were a large number of FCP specific user groups Apple was supportive of. Apple marketing the Walter Murch Cold Mountain story. If memory serves me, there were ProApps Evangelists.

They did advertise it actually, they even made t-shirts. They had a booth at NAB until 2008, (same year they left Macworld) you could go up and speak to the actual developers. When "Cold Mountain" was being cut, they had developers working full time on that film.

The issue for me is that when they were marketing FCP, I could at least say "It's good enough for the Coen brothers so it can't be too bad right?" (They were essentially paid to do those in action videos.)

If a company can't stand up for itself, it makes my job a lot harder in suggesting the best options for my clients.

I think once Michael Matzdorff's book about his workflow in the post production of "Focus" comes out it will help.

This is the best article I could find that sums up some clues why there is no ProApps marketing anymore.

arstechnica.com/apple/2009/09/accounting...od-touch-update-fee/

I'm having a hard time understanding what the bru-hah-ha is all about regarding the Sanger video. Both here and at the COW. He barely mentions X at all. It's one comment as an aside and hardly negative at all other than as a casual outsider's perspective of the software. Seems like the FCP X user world is overly sensitive.

- Oliver