6 ms·

Apple needs to do better than this. For the duration of the company's existence, one of their biggest customer segments has been the creative industry. I can't

by Ryanmf 15y ago

Apple needs to do better than this. For the duration of the company's existence, one of their biggest customer segments has been the creative industry. I can't think of a single pro audio/video/graphic/etc app that doesn't make extensive use of plug-ins, another Mac App Store disqualifier. Do the developers of these apps necessarily have a "right" to iCloud APIs, delta updates, and other benefits of playing in Apple's sandbox? Of course not. But is Apple harming themselves and their customers by excluding the creators of these apps from the party and potentially causing them to focus their development efforts elsewhere? I think they may be.

smacktoward 15y ago
> For the duration of the company's existence, one of their biggest customer segments has been the creative industry I would have thought the Final Cut Pro X debacle (http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/professional-video-editors-weigh-in-on-final-cut-pro-x/ http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/professional-video...) would have served adequate notice to those folks that Apple doesn't consider them an important market segment anymore...
- Ryanmf 15y ago
  Maybe. I hope not. All the filmmakers/editors I know still use a previous version of Final Cut, many of them really like some of the features of Final Cut X (syncing is apparently dead easy, nearly automagic), and remain hopeful that Apple will pull it together and address their needs in future updates. I don't know if you have used/use Final Cut 6/7, but it is a phenomenally ugly, often poor performing, generally unintuitive piece of software. I can see where the motivation for a full reboot would stem from. Now, a reboot that involves consolidating formerly modular panes into a single window when the target market typically works on two, three or more displays is just dumb. A reboot that was, as a practical matter, 0% backwards-compatible may have been necessary, but if it could have been avoided, it should have been. But buried under all the mistakes, I think there was some genuine good intent (yes, I know I'm grasping at straws). I primarily work with music, and you don't need to be as involved as I am or attend as many shows as I do to know that for any artist/band that uses a laptop on stage, the MacBook Pro is the de facto standard. The same applies to Mac Pros in studios (although those boxes may be going the way of the Dodo as well). None of this necessarily makes a difference to Apple; the new features in Mountain Lion which focus on Chinese web portals and social networks serve as a reminder that the emerging Chinese middle class is likely as important a segment to Apple as any, and the number of potential customers in that group already dwarfs the ranks of every DJ, producer, sound engineer, and electronic musician on earth. Still, it would be a great disappointment to me and many others if Apple were to abandon such a loyal group of customers who helped them reach this point.
  - jesseendahl 15y ago
    FYI, the latest update to Final Cut Pro X was a major update, adding impressive multicam support which uses "audio waveforms from the different cameras to sync them together. The audio doesn't have to be the final production track and can be used for syncing purposes only,"[1] chroma keying, media relinking, import of photoshop layered graphics, support for XML 1.1, and beta broadcast support. This new update has an average review score of 4.5 stars Mac App Store.[2] While Final Cut Pro X started out weak, it looks like it's becoming very solid. [1] http://www.tuaw.com/2012/01/31/apple-updates-final-cut-pro-x-with-multicam-more/ http://www.tuaw.com/2012/01/31/apple-updates-final-cut-pro-x... [2] http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/final-cut-pro/id424389933?mt=12 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/final-cut-pro/id424389933?mt=...
- batista 15y ago
  It's the opposite. Taking the time AND money to rewrite the old Final Cut Pro codebase from scratch is an indication that Apple is pretty much dedicated to their Pro apps. Unlike, say, Adobe, that merely piles incremental bloat upon incremental bloat, and calls it a "new version of the suite". The complains are from people that: 1) see a black interface as some kind of iMovie-fication (iMovie is black, so they have dumded down FCP). 2) Think professional software means convoluted GUI (they made things simpler, so they have dumbed it down) 3) Expect a rewrite of a 10+ year old codebase to have feature parity with the old version from day one. 4) Expect a rewrite of a 10+ year old codebase, with the intention to support modern movie making practices, to also cater for obsolete practices that the old version covered (like tape editing).
  - Ryanmf 15y ago
    As I indicated above, I think the reboot of Final Cut was well intended. Having said that, I've had far too many conversations with far too many professional filmmakers and editors (I'm talking "multiple all-nighters every week editing multicam RED; invitations to Cannes; contracts to produce music videos for multi-platinum selling artists and promos for Fortune 100 companies" professional) about the weaknesses of Final Cut X to have much regard for the opinion you've shared here. Ultimately, if the intended users are dissatisfied, then Apple missed the mark, any rationalizations from armchair analysts notwithstanding. By the way, you left a complaint off your list: Zero compatibility with project files from previous Final Cut versions. Hope you've got some free time to recapture everything you've ever shot.
    - batista 15y ago
      Ultimately, if the intended users are dissatisfied, then Apple missed the mark Not really. System 9 Users also complained about OS X 10. How it wasn't like OS 9, how it missed some features, how it was unstable etc. But putting a nice foundation down is better than giving instant gratification to your users in the long run. By the way, you left a complaint off your list: Zero compatibility with project files from previous Final Cut versions. Hope you've got some free time to recapture everything you've ever shot. Or just use the old version for your old projects, and only move to the new one for new stuff? What kind of Pro jumps to a new version of a core tool anyway as soon as it it released? Most actuals Pros keep their setups steady for many years. Which is why I think most of the noise is from low production tinkerers, that already use both FC and Premiere etc.
feralchimp 15y ago
MAS applications are not disallowed from supporting plugins.
- Ryanmf 15y ago
  You're technically correct. They're just disallowed from supporting plugins in the manner that they have been on every platform for 20 or 30 years.
  - feralchimp 15y ago
    Providing deep platform-specific support in a cross-platform codebase is a pain; believe me I get that. But platforms evolve, and frankly the ways they've been evolving recently is likely much tougher to keep up with than "loading plugins from a new location, or with a new security context", especially for a time-based media application. Wholesale changes in OS or environment runtime? Changes in underlying processor architecture? Forced update to full 64-bit support? Customers wanting to operate on files that are an order of magnitude larger? If these apps have any claim to being worth hundreds or thousands of dollars per seat, and charging hundreds of dollars for basic compatibility updates, their developers should Pro-up and deal with this change like they've dealt with others. And given the motivation for the change, I think they should skip the complaining step and lean into the work.
LaGrange 15y ago
Actually, the sandbox seems like a requirement for safely distributing apps that allow plug-ins.
- Ryanmf 15y ago
  Are you suggesting that every pro media application released before March 1, 2012 was not safely distributed? I guess I should step back a bit and make my argument more clear. I'm not opposed to the concept of sandboxing, I recognize the benefits of these policies as Apple's user base grows and malware becomes a greater concern. My contention is that the imposition this places on users and developers alike will most likely dissuade pro media software developers from participating in the Mac App Store to begin with, thereby depriving Apple of potential income, depriving developers access to useful features like iCloud file sharing/mirroring, and exposing users to the very risks this policy is intended to shield them from.
  - LaGrange 15y ago
    I'm suggesting that every single application prior sandboxing was not safely distributed. It's not like anyone had a choice, there was an age before airbags. I also disagree that extensibility is in conflict with sandboxing. As for pro media software developers, I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of time and polishing of the platform. AutoCad LT is already in.
    - Ryanmf 15y ago
      I'm not sure why the Mac App Store represents the high water mark for safety (as opposed to a secure server maintained by the people who actually developed the software or MacPorts/Fink/Homebrew) but whatever. Many popular audio plugins are themselves plugin hosts (just off the top of my head, Native Instruments' Reaktor, Maschine, and Guitar Rig and Five12 Numerology match that description). In this context, wouldn't that require nested sandboxes? You're sure you don't see any potential conflicts there?
      - LaGrange 15y ago

by Ryanmf 15y ago

smacktoward 15y ago

> For the duration of the company's existence, one of their biggest customer segments has been the creative industry I would have thought the Final Cut Pro X debacle (http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/professional-video-editors-weigh-in-on-final-cut-pro-x/ http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/professional-video...) would have served adequate notice to those folks that Apple doesn't consider them an important market segment anymore...

Ryanmf 15y ago
Maybe. I hope not. All the filmmakers/editors I know still use a previous version of Final Cut, many of them really like some of the features of Final Cut X (syncing is apparently dead easy, nearly automagic), and remain hopeful that Apple will pull it together and address their needs in future updates. I don't know if you have used/use Final Cut 6/7, but it is a phenomenally ugly, often poor performing, generally unintuitive piece of software. I can see where the motivation for a full reboot would stem from. Now, a reboot that involves consolidating formerly modular panes into a single window when the target market typically works on two, three or more displays is just dumb. A reboot that was, as a practical matter, 0% backwards-compatible may have been necessary, but if it could have been avoided, it should have been. But buried under all the mistakes, I think there was some genuine good intent (yes, I know I'm grasping at straws). I primarily work with music, and you don't need to be as involved as I am or attend as many shows as I do to know that for any artist/band that uses a laptop on stage, the MacBook Pro is the de facto standard. The same applies to Mac Pros in studios (although those boxes may be going the way of the Dodo as well). None of this necessarily makes a difference to Apple; the new features in Mountain Lion which focus on Chinese web portals and social networks serve as a reminder that the emerging Chinese middle class is likely as important a segment to Apple as any, and the number of potential customers in that group already dwarfs the ranks of every DJ, producer, sound engineer, and electronic musician on earth. Still, it would be a great disappointment to me and many others if Apple were to abandon such a loyal group of customers who helped them reach this point.
- jesseendahl 15y ago
  FYI, the latest update to Final Cut Pro X was a major update, adding impressive multicam support which uses "audio waveforms from the different cameras to sync them together. The audio doesn't have to be the final production track and can be used for syncing purposes only,"[1] chroma keying, media relinking, import of photoshop layered graphics, support for XML 1.1, and beta broadcast support. This new update has an average review score of 4.5 stars Mac App Store.[2] While Final Cut Pro X started out weak, it looks like it's becoming very solid. [1] http://www.tuaw.com/2012/01/31/apple-updates-final-cut-pro-x-with-multicam-more/ http://www.tuaw.com/2012/01/31/apple-updates-final-cut-pro-x... [2] http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/final-cut-pro/id424389933?mt=12 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/final-cut-pro/id424389933?mt=...
batista 15y ago
It's the opposite. Taking the time AND money to rewrite the old Final Cut Pro codebase from scratch is an indication that Apple is pretty much dedicated to their Pro apps. Unlike, say, Adobe, that merely piles incremental bloat upon incremental bloat, and calls it a "new version of the suite". The complains are from people that: 1) see a black interface as some kind of iMovie-fication (iMovie is black, so they have dumded down FCP). 2) Think professional software means convoluted GUI (they made things simpler, so they have dumbed it down) 3) Expect a rewrite of a 10+ year old codebase to have feature parity with the old version from day one. 4) Expect a rewrite of a 10+ year old codebase, with the intention to support modern movie making practices, to also cater for obsolete practices that the old version covered (like tape editing).
- Ryanmf 15y ago
  As I indicated above, I think the reboot of Final Cut was well intended. Having said that, I've had far too many conversations with far too many professional filmmakers and editors (I'm talking "multiple all-nighters every week editing multicam RED; invitations to Cannes; contracts to produce music videos for multi-platinum selling artists and promos for Fortune 100 companies" professional) about the weaknesses of Final Cut X to have much regard for the opinion you've shared here. Ultimately, if the intended users are dissatisfied, then Apple missed the mark, any rationalizations from armchair analysts notwithstanding. By the way, you left a complaint off your list: Zero compatibility with project files from previous Final Cut versions. Hope you've got some free time to recapture everything you've ever shot.
  - batista 15y ago
    Ultimately, if the intended users are dissatisfied, then Apple missed the mark Not really. System 9 Users also complained about OS X 10. How it wasn't like OS 9, how it missed some features, how it was unstable etc. But putting a nice foundation down is better than giving instant gratification to your users in the long run. By the way, you left a complaint off your list: Zero compatibility with project files from previous Final Cut versions. Hope you've got some free time to recapture everything you've ever shot. Or just use the old version for your old projects, and only move to the new one for new stuff? What kind of Pro jumps to a new version of a core tool anyway as soon as it it released? Most actuals Pros keep their setups steady for many years. Which is why I think most of the noise is from low production tinkerers, that already use both FC and Premiere etc.

feralchimp 15y ago

MAS applications are not disallowed from supporting plugins.

Ryanmf 15y ago
You're technically correct. They're just disallowed from supporting plugins in the manner that they have been on every platform for 20 or 30 years.
- feralchimp 15y ago
  Providing deep platform-specific support in a cross-platform codebase is a pain; believe me I get that. But platforms evolve, and frankly the ways they've been evolving recently is likely much tougher to keep up with than "loading plugins from a new location, or with a new security context", especially for a time-based media application. Wholesale changes in OS or environment runtime? Changes in underlying processor architecture? Forced update to full 64-bit support? Customers wanting to operate on files that are an order of magnitude larger? If these apps have any claim to being worth hundreds or thousands of dollars per seat, and charging hundreds of dollars for basic compatibility updates, their developers should Pro-up and deal with this change like they've dealt with others. And given the motivation for the change, I think they should skip the complaining step and lean into the work.

LaGrange 15y ago

Actually, the sandbox seems like a requirement for safely distributing apps that allow plug-ins.

Ryanmf 15y ago
Are you suggesting that every pro media application released before March 1, 2012 was not safely distributed? I guess I should step back a bit and make my argument more clear. I'm not opposed to the concept of sandboxing, I recognize the benefits of these policies as Apple's user base grows and malware becomes a greater concern. My contention is that the imposition this places on users and developers alike will most likely dissuade pro media software developers from participating in the Mac App Store to begin with, thereby depriving Apple of potential income, depriving developers access to useful features like iCloud file sharing/mirroring, and exposing users to the very risks this policy is intended to shield them from.
- LaGrange 15y ago
  I'm suggesting that every single application prior sandboxing was not safely distributed. It's not like anyone had a choice, there was an age before airbags. I also disagree that extensibility is in conflict with sandboxing. As for pro media software developers, I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of time and polishing of the platform. AutoCad LT is already in.
  - Ryanmf 15y ago
    I'm not sure why the Mac App Store represents the high water mark for safety (as opposed to a secure server maintained by the people who actually developed the software or MacPorts/Fink/Homebrew) but whatever. Many popular audio plugins are themselves plugin hosts (just off the top of my head, Native Instruments' Reaktor, Maschine, and Guitar Rig and Five12 Numerology match that description). In this context, wouldn't that require nested sandboxes? You're sure you don't see any potential conflicts there?
    - LaGrange 15y ago