Apple Response to “Final Cut Pro in TV and Film” Open Letter

Read more...

I have been wondering about this lately. The trickle of useful but meh updates over the last couple of years reminds me a little of when Apple released FCP 7 and everyone went, "its okay, but is that really it?". I feel like some time in the next year Apple will either release a major upgrade (FCP 11 even if that is not what it is called) or they will move away from film and television all together with a focus on web video creators. They seem to be indicating that they intend to stick with it though. I am optimistic. There is no way they could bungle a new software release worse than they did with FCPX, so I am anticipating only good things.

The less than thrilling updates find me using Resolve more and more since they haven't managed to correct the niggling bugs that persist update after update.

The initial release reeked of 'let's release something even if what's released is a dog'.
.

Historically, "we would love to work with you" is simply not true. A few years ago Turner saw the value in FCPX but wanted to help develop X with Apple and were flatly refused. Adobe seized that opportunity immediately. Some of the best After Effects artists I know went to work for Apple. I'm guessing they didn't En Masse start using Motion instead. In the glory days of Advertising if your Agency had the Coca-Cola account and you were caught with a Pepsi, you were in trouble. Apple's decisions are income driven, all metrics, all forecasting... the exact opposite of the "Creatives come first" illusion they put forth. Hence, with their new "you have to come into work now so we can keep an eye on you" management decree, they are seeing many employees depart for the next cool thing.
After years of pining for new features, I've accepted that was a waste of my energy, and FCP is just my favorite tool in a large toolbox.
So since actions speak louder than words, I'd have preferred no answer to that insulting response. Shame on the decision to release that, it simply seems like Apple gaslighting us all.

We all have a wishlist of features we'd like to see added to FCP. But is that the right direction - both for Apple and for the users?

Realistically, what sort of development do people expect Apple to add to FCP? How complex and convoluted do you want the application to become? How many legacy/obsolete workflows do you expect them to support? If Resolve is the target, then good luck. People always start with the color tools, but how many of those same Resolve users successfully integrate Fusion and Fairlight into their workflows?

Apple has conceived FCP (X) as a "platform" of sorts, which can be augmented in many different ways with third party tools. Do you want Apple to build their own tools in a less-than-focused manner, like everyone else? Or would you rather have speciality developers create those tools and keep the core app streamlined and focused on editing?

I don't think I am often so on the same page with Oliver as I am here. I do like Resolve a lot, and I think all those tools can work, but it is a lot and it can be buggy. But I like FCP for all the reasons Oliver listed. I think there are certain core functionalities that shouldn't be in the hands of 3rd party developers, especially being able to send other departments what they want (omf, aaf, various flavors of xml and edl, etc). I also never understood why they didn't offer a round trip to Motion. But that is getting into the weeds. If FCP is ever going to make a big dent in film and television, I think the big focus would need to be collaboration tools. That is the main reason Avid is so entrenched. Adobe and Blackmagic are making strides. I really hope the next big thing from Apple is really focused on that, and maybe expanding seamless collaboration to remote workflows. As soon as you start talking about third party solutions you've lost the battle.

DR: "If FCP is ever going to make a big dent in film and television, I think the big focus would need to be collaboration tools. That is the main reason Avid is so entrenched. Adobe and Blackmagic are making strides."

I'm not sure that's really the main reason. As I've written in a different forum post, in those scenarios (large feature film work, i.e. "Hollywood", network TV, etc) it's not the editor who makes the decision of which NLE to use. These choices are often made by those who have no editing responsibilities whatsoever.

In the case of studio film projects, gear (including software) is generally supplied by trusted vendors who know what fits into the standard workflow pipelines. That's more often than not going to be Avid Media Composer and Pro Tools. Remember that studios want to be able to fire anyone involved. If the editor is on Avid, then there are plenty of qualified replacements.

Only the smaller, indie projects or those with directors with cloud (e.g. Fincher) can push through alternative solutions.

I am curious about how to be considered for the "panel of industry experts" as I'd love to share my thoughts and feedback!

Oliver Peters wrote:

We all have a wishlist of features we'd like to see added to FCP. But is that the right direction - both for Apple and for the users?

Realistically, what sort of development do people expect Apple to add to FCP? How complex and convoluted do you want the application to become?

  You are joking, right ?

 Well if not.. joking... Realistically :   MANDATORY if serious about pro

- Motion Roundtrip ! c'mon !
- Internal AFF export !!! (the existing external  has limits)
- A updated and better stabilisation
- An usable Noise reduction
- a mixing panel
- a real "Consolidate" ala Avid (exporting rushes as used in Sequence with handle)
- a way to "flatten" edited multicam like legacy Fcp
- collaborative process


minimum if serious about "pro"

Apple answer is pure boring double talk.  we don't want stupids certifications !  we don't need stupid marketing

we need the list above AND THAT'S IT ! Period

Oliver Peters wrote:

We all have a wishlist of features we'd like to see added to FCP. But is that the right direction - both for Apple and for the users?

Realistically, what sort of development do people expect Apple to add to FCP? How complex and convoluted do you want the application to become?

  You are joking, right ?

 Well if not.. joking... Realistically :   MANDATORY if serious about pro

- Motion Roundtrip ! c'mon !
- Internal AFF export !!! (the existing external  has limits)
- A updated and better stabilisation
- An usable Noise reduction
- a mixing panel
- a real "Consolidate" ala Avid (exporting rushes as used in Sequence with handle)
- a way to "flatten" edited multicam like legacy Fcp
- collaborative process


minimum if serious about "pro"

Apple answer is pure boring double talk.  we don't want stupids certifications !  we don't need stupid marketing

we need the list above AND THAT'S IT ! Period

SW: "- Motion Roundtrip ! c'mon !
- Internal AFF export !!! (the existing external has limits)
- A updated and better stabilisation
- An usable Noise reduction
- a mixing panel
- a real "Consolidate" ala Avid (exporting rushes as used in Sequence with handle)
- a way to "flatten" edited multicam like legacy Fcp
- collaborative process"

LOL. Not joking at all. I'm all for features if they enhance the workflow. But, let me offer some mild push-back.

- Motion roundtrip? Why? There's no Avid roundtrip to anything and presumably those editors would be the target audience to convert.
- No NLE has great video noise reduction when you compare that to Neat.
- Mixing panel. I would agree, however, I do find the audio roles quite versatile. I do find mixing in Premiere easier, but mastering with stems and export variations are superior in FCP to any other NLE because of roles.
- Agreed on consolidate, but it's not that easy with all media types. Premiere's function is terrible. Avid's is based on Avid media, not linked, native files.
- AAF export. I would agree, although AAF out of Avid is problematic. FWIW, you can export AAF out of Logic. OTOH, most of my Pro Tools mixers still prefer OMF. That's an ancient format that Avid barely supports anymore.
- Flatten Mcam. I know the arguments why this isn't needed, but I'd like to see that, too.
- Collaboration. I'm not sure whether or not that's really needed. What is needed is proper Library or Event locking so that I can open a Library in read-only mode if another editor has it open.
- Better stabilization. Why? FCP currently is equal to what you have in the other NLEs. They are all a crapshoot and success varies with the type of shot.

I can understand the fixation on features. Collaboration is a big one for sure. It's hard to believe Apple have no awareness of features everybody wants. For Apple it's not just about features. That Apple responded seems a huge deal and cannot be seen as just promising future FCP features, or just PR and lip service. How often do big companies respond with "we want to work with you." I believe Apple when they say they want to work with a panel of experts and expand training to TV and film production. The reason? The bigger picture.

While I applaud Apple for responding, because they could have easily ignore the editors' letter, the response hints at Apple's bigger plan. The editors' letter gave Apple a reason to go public with their strategy and score some PR points. With the increasing foothold of Apple TV+, AR, ARM equipped Macs, iPad Pro, etc, it wouldn't be too much to assume Apple's thinking along this line has been in the works for a while. As their next generation of products and services mature, Apple will deploy resources only they have to gain (again?) professional respect for their pro apps and become dominant in NLE. Don't hate on Apple then for being too big and pushing aside smaller players.

Oliver Peters wrote:

Realistically, what sort of development do people expect Apple to add to FCP?

An audio mixeeerrrrrrrrrr

(OK now I leave the forum and go back to my editing job, where my client specifically asked me to use Premiere, as it happens so often. GRRR)

This is a weak and general response from a media manager at Apple with no passion or conviction in the reply. Lets hope they can contribute a real difference otherwise Blackmagic will rule the roost without a worthy competitor

Why the heck do y'all want features? I'll settle for STABILITY. On large projects with lots of effects, layers, LUTs, I see my old friend the spinning beach ball a lot. Stability and efficiency are my vote, anything else is nice but without that I'm lost.

Meanwhile, the entire landscape of modern media communications continues to morph at a lightening pace under our noses. Why do I feel like all this whinging about crap like “features” and “collaboration” are something we’re going to look back on in 10 years and wondered why we spent so much time thinking about this tactical stuff — rather than grappling with the tectonic shifts in global content re-alignment happening all around us? Eyeballs aren’t statistically on “Cinema” so much any more. Certainly not compared to SmartPhone scrolling. You wanna bet on a pre-movie Cinema Screen Ad — or on a TikTok or Facebook adjacency to drive results? Get in the real game, folks. Speed and Agility are todays currency. Not monolithic legacy code bases serving yesterdays thinking and workflows. Right now FCP is still, hands down, the fastest, smartest game in town. It might (or might not) be that forever. But your adaptability to “new everything” will be. I’d stake my future on that.

Of course Apple must support and promote to the professional bodies but please also push them to support other groups: Musicians and Universities (both of which I represent). If they were to take the example of Unity (game development), Apple would have huge learning resources, making it easier and more compelling to pick up FCP, rather than any of the alternatives. The cost of entry into FCP, particularly for students, is terrific but having to rely on well-meaning but often low-skilled YouTubers does not present a holistic, end-to-end approach for FCP. Get them young and keep them...

SurreyMuso wrote:

Get them young and keep them...

Agreed.  As much as I wish there was better remote collaboration (better = easier and more robust) and a few of the other features as well, the future of content is not the outdated workflows and ideas we keep begging Apple to put into FCP.  Eventually, the kids who never bothered working in a "professional" environment will be the dominant voice in production, and they'll all have a good laugh at our expense with all our arguing over missing stuff and workflow demands. 

I just want to see FCP get the love it deserves from Apple to keep me excited.

I know how unhappy we all are but I just want to remind us of this