My guess is that they don't really <i>want</i> to be in the pro apps business. Their pro apps were built or acquired for platform-strategic reasons during a time that the company's future was a fraction as stable as it is now and they don't really fit with the focus of the company.<p>But it'd be tough on a number of levels to outright cancel such a successful product as Final Cut Pro. And it's beneficial for them to have a stable of very capable media app developers that help drive design of and exercise system frameworks like AVFoundation and GCD and provide code/expertise that trickles down into media apps that are more aligned with the company's focus and main customers.<p>And I think they <i>do</i> think there's more profit to be made from a much larger audience of prosumer/pro-but-non-top-10-blockbuster-movie-editors. Bet they're right, too.
If this is Apple's thinking, I think they're in serious trouble. It sounds to me they're taking how they build the iPhone and iPad and applying it to FCP, and it doesn't work.<p>There are two types of people: People who pay for video editing software and those that don't. I actually paid for Adobe Elements a few years back. It was painful, but I needed it for a specific reason. But I seriously doubt I will ever pay again (unless it's $2.99 or something). Most people will be fine with iMovie or Windows Live Movie Maker. It does 99% of what you need and braindead simple.<p>My wife (and her friends) regularly record GBs of video each week. The problem is that nothing in FCPX fixes their core issues -- most revolve around video management, and not actual editing.<p>There are amateur video editors out there, but I don't think its a growing market. It's not small, but I think Apple is making a poor bet if they think the millions of ppl creating video with their phones and cameras is going to buy this product.
My problem with the change in FCP is that it's following an unpleasant downgrade pattern on their platform. QT 7 was far more useful than QTX. 10.6 & earlier Mail is far more robust than 10.7 will be. And it goes on.<p>Apple's really pushing a premium consumer biz model, leaving professionals in the uncomfortable position of not having a professional platform.
I used to work in the post-production industry here in Chicago, specifically as an editor. I can't think of any well known commercial post-houses that abandoned Avid for Final Cut Pro completely. I know plenty of shops that USE FCP along with Avid, but the risk was always too great to fully abandon a platform that was proven to work (most of the time).<p>I can't speak for feature film editors, but virtually all of the commercial film editors I know still, to this day, use Avid for most of their projects. Editors are a finicky bunch, and I can certainly see Apple realizing that to truly compete in that market, it's all or nothing. The problem with FCP was always the uncertainty of it, hence the reason Avid is still in use at most shops, despite the fact that editors love to bash it.<p>As time marches on, I can see where FCP might, yet again, be at the forefront of innovation. The problem is, busy editors don't REALLY want innovation. They want proven systems that work. I think Apple made the right choice.
The article doesn't say much beyond the speculation already running rampant in the blogosphere. "Apple doesn't care about the pros", "They are a hardware company so they just want to sell boxes" and so forth.<p>What I think the article did miss is the recent FAQ announcement by Apple detailing where they intend to take the software from here. I'm not a video editor, nor do I play one on TV, so I can't speak to how that addresses the wants of the pro audience, but they are at least making an attempt to explain how they will be incorporating pro needs into future patches. How that turns out, is a completely different question.
I have to ask. When a newbie goes to the Appstore looking for video editing software and they see the bad rating, who is actually going to buy the software. Plain and simple, I think that Apple just blew this one.
It makes sense. With all the great competitors why would Apple throw money after aging software.<p>With Adobe you can work in any of Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects and Premiere. With FCP it's just that little bit harder. So if you can't match the features of your competitors, make one that will outperform everyone.<p>Essentially: Speed, simplicity, beauty, and most importantly the illusion that the software is doing your work for you.
It seems to me that the ascendancy of the Mac in the last ten years has a lot to do with them being in the "pro space" -- specifically software and web development pro space -- and being one of the best.<p>The geeks, that is, the mavens and influencers, folks whom others when to for advice about what computer to buy, were buying Macs because it really was such a nice environment. It still is.<p>Their strategy for ipod too reflects this as well: target the well-heeled, early adopters, people who like to chatter about their toys. Make the brand desirable through organic PR -- that is, build a truly desirable product even if it's not quite at a mass-consumer price point, and let the pent up desire sell the lower end, targeting various price points with well-vetted technology and UI.<p>I don't use Final Cut Pro, but it sounds like they're taking a different tack than usual. I don't understand it. This article didn't help.
That post is very obnoxious. it mentions why apple won't do several things, and make it seems cool while not doing it, but fail to tell one thing it bothers to actually do.<p>At the end of the read all i know is it doesn't have features, it doesn't support any format... but it does it well so because of that I should buy apple.<p>I don't buy it.