Waiting on 10.2.4 and 10.3

..massively updated?

After the fact they did add the writer's name
Clayton Moore
Who is a former Apple technical support specialist from 1995 - 2009 so he left pre FCPX.

www.linkedin.com/in/clayton-moore-08889218

robertdee wrote: .. My cat could have written a more informed article. ...

LOL, I just picture that .... :silly:

There are those reitareted numbers, 1mio/2mio sold copies of FCPX - you can pay a lot of developers for that, or, on another scale, you have to sale a lot of AppleTVs … so, the thesis, FCPX is no business ... not to forget the halo-effect: how many purchase a 'better' Mac, just for doing video production with FCPX?

No, that article is an opinion, but no journalism …

And concerning 'secrecy' - what do you know about future versions of Premiere, Avid and others? What are the specs&looks of next years Dell, Huwaii, wotever? That's part of the game.

Thanks Karsten!

ripple training's final cut tutorials are on sale.
something coming soon???

vitimspot wrote: ripple training's final cut tutorials are on sale...

… were on sale, 4 week special offer ends tonight .....

Every years summer sale, no indicator ....

When Arctic Whiteness reports a serious issue from 10.2.1 not been fixed, I start becoming a bit concerned at the lengthy delay, whatever the update is going to be, it must have been a serious flaw to delay publishing...

Or is it that the next update will only work on the new OS? Apple does that, forces mandatory update of the operating system to use the "new and improved" Final Cut Pro X.

I have no idea if this compulsory upgrading of Mac OSX is technical or marketing reasons, I think more the latter than the former!!

I suspect the latter as Final Cut Studio will still work, Apple could in 1 line of code render it impossible to launch, install, operate that version of FCP, yet reports indicate Final Cut Studio 2 and 3 will still be viable, ok, not motion, but the rest will still be viable...why????

I'm still on Yosemite, and I don't miss any feature from el captan. I'm hoping the new final cut won't demand people to upgrade OS.

MsJustine wrote: When Arctic Whiteness reports a serious issue from 10.2.1 not been fixed, I start becoming a bit concerned at the lengthy delay, whatever the update is going to be, it must have been a serious flaw to delay publishing...

Or is it that the next update will only work on the new OS? Apple does that, forces mandatory update of the operating system to use the "new and improved" Final Cut Pro X.

I have no idea if this compulsory upgrading of Mac OSX is technical or marketing reasons, I think more the latter than the former!!

I suspect the latter as Final Cut Studio will still work, Apple could in 1 line of code render it impossible to launch, install, operate that version of FCP, yet reports indicate Final Cut Studio 2 and 3 will still be viable, ok, not motion, but the rest will still be viable...why????

FCPX minimum Requirements are OS X v10.10.4 or later.... no forcing to update OS here.
But if so what is the big deal the OS is free!

vitimspot wrote: I'm still on Yosemite, and I don't miss any feature from el captan. ….

The update to ElCap improved my BruceX benchmark by 30%.
I don't wan to miss that …

MsJustine wrote:
I have no idea if this compulsory upgrading of Mac OSX is technical or marketing reasons, I think more the latter than the former!!

I suspect the latter as Final Cut Studio will still work, Apple could in 1 line of code render it impossible to launch, install, operate that version of FCP, yet reports indicate Final Cut Studio 2 and 3 will still be viable, ok, not motion, but the rest will still be viable...why????

Even if your assertion is true, how would it benefit Apple? When Apple, or any other developer, impose an OS version limitation, it is usually a result of new and/or improved functionality that is prohibitive to grandfather in to prior versions.

MacOS Sierra is slated to support hardware dating back to 2009 ... that's a considerable stretch in modern tech terms.

It isn't much benefit to make new features backwards compatible when the the OS, and more importantly, the hardware would struggle to keep up.

And yes, eventually there does come an end of life for all software. Mostly due to deprecated APIs and OS support. Time and technology move on. Though I seriously doubt Apple would add a line of code to kill installation on currently offered or supported apps and OS versions.

Day 186, 14 more for a round 200 days!!

I haven't been keeping up with the forum lately. I just keep looking at the App Store waiting...and waiting.
My thought is that it's probably a pretty big update since it's been a while. Possibly the first paid upgrade since release?

This is the longest stretch so far, by 24 days.

I was listening to the FCPRadio podcast with T Payton the other day. He and Richard briefly mentioned how role-based mixing could be how Apple intends to mix audio without tracks and how much more powerful it would be. Thinking along those lines (if roles are how audio is adjusted with effects on roles), think about how that could relate to video. If roles are able to accept audio effects, they could accept video effects too. That could potentially do away with the empty title adjustment layer workaround and give you an easy target to change the grade based on the role applied.

Got my wheels turning some... Even though it might never come to fruition. Still looking forward to 10.3

This is when I really fail to understand the logic at Apple, why have open beta testing for watchOS and not a beta open to the public for Final Cut???

Who better to drive the app development than the users that have bought the app? It has been said that the farce that was Apple Maps drove the introduction of open beta testing, so if this is the reason, I suspect it was not, but if it was, why why for the love of trackless, is there no beta for Final Cut??

MsJustine wrote: This is when I really fail to understand the logic at Apple, why have open beta testing for watchOS and not a beta open to the public for Final Cut???

Who better to drive the app development than the users that have bought the app? It has been said that the farce that was Apple Maps drove the introduction of open beta testing, so if this is the reason, I suspect it was not, but if it was, why why for the love of trackless, is there no beta for Final Cut??

Easy FCPX doesn't have that much real-estate as the OS does that are a controlling fact for hardware sales.

Besides from that due Autodesk and Adobe offer Pulbic Beta?

I bought my mac laptop primarily to edit on, that is just my point, if there was a beta version of FCPX, that might actually improve sales if editors not on fcpx saw what was might be included, example, if Adobe dropped rental and went the paid once off option, for all apps, I might consider buying a few apps, photoshop, premiere and the like.

What is there to loose from Apple's point of view? Nothing, not a single thing, FCPX has paid for it's lifetime development many times over, when you consider how many "shops" bought new laptops, new monitors, new mac pro's to edit on, that is all profit for Apple, and yet no public beta, what has Apple to fear, everything is protected by patent, proof is in the beta of watchOS and the like, so why not with "pro-apps"?

Nigh on 200 days, that is more than 6 months, 1/2 a year..and nothing..oh well!

Apple doing a public beta will give Adobe a shorter release time when copying FCPX features.

AppleGuru wrote: …Besides from that due Autodesk and Adobe offer Pulbic Beta?

Right.
And, what insights would one expect from a public beta of an NLE??

The good thing of the tiny and closed Apple-eco-system is: You have a reasonable footprint of different hardware combos - and I'm pretty sure, companies like Blackmagic do beta-test new versions. And maybe some hand-selected plugin makers too…

Completely different story testing Operating Systems...

Copying is not something Apple fears, if they did, why public beta operating systems??? Microsoft could copy the OS...did so once before...

What insights? Well what is gained from the public beta of OS? Why the 2? Why one public and one closed???

Apple has nothing vested in pro-apps.. It is paid for, many times over, one might even say, something just does not make sense, Apple has nothing to loose in public beta testing for example roles based audio mixing, the more people testing, the better, this is the idea behind public beta, more comments, more feedback, better product.

Yet the feedback page is outdated, limited, not fit for function, sorry but to me it seems that pro apps is a unloved child, Apple treats the people that promote the product with disrespect, threatens retribution for commenting on anything they, Apple, show...Why??? Just cannot understand the 2 systems..