Apple steps on rake in FCP X strategy blunder
For a company that knows more about cultivating fanatical advocates than perhaps any other, Apple has really come a cropper this week.
Their really clever software engineers have been busy with a ground-up re-write of one of their 'halo brand' products - Final Cut Pro.
Final Cut has a huge following of semi-pro and professional video editors. It was among the leaders in bringing broadcast quality video editing to the desktop - and away from high end Silicon Graphics workstations running software that cost tens - or hundreds - of thousands of dollars.
Apple could conceivably have continued developing Final Cut Pro incrementally, but there were big gains in speed and usability to be gained by re-writing the software as a 64 bit application. Ability to access more RAM and handle many processing tasks in the background (allowing the user to keep editing while the application was rendering, for example) were key drivers in the decision.
With a more or less blank sheet of paper, the Apple engineers did what they should. They stopped thinking about making the software replicate the current video editing paradigms and started thinking about how video might be edited given the capabilities of modern processing power.
The resulting software dispenses with the idea of multiple tracks on a rigid timeline, adopting a much more organic approach to crafting an edit.
Now this in itself would usually give rise to some angst amongst professionals who have learnt a particular program and have been using it day in and day out as their livelihood for some years. I have watched video professionals at work in the old days of 2" tape machines, and their expertise was amazing to behold.
But the main problem is that the new software omits some tools that the true professionals find absolutely critical. Multi-camera support, the ability to view output on a broadcast quality reference monitor and the ability to import previous projects into the new software are chief among these.
There has been near universal condemnation for the new software from the professional video editing market for whom this software is supposed to have been built.
So what's gone wrong?
Until last week Apple had three video editing products. iMovie which was engineered for the home market to be the simplest way to create and share quality home videos; Final Cut Pro for the professional video editors including news departments and even some feature films (The Social Network, as just one example, was edited using Final Cut Pro); and Final Cut Express - Pro's little brother with a cut down feature list and commensurate price.
Apple has called the new product Final Cut Pro X - and this is where the main problem lies. For in doing so, Apple has created the not unreasonable expectation that this is the next iteration of the product intended for the professional market. But as the professional market has so vociferously (and in many cases, viciously) responded: "No it isn't!"
The most common label applied by professionals to the new app is 'iMovie Pro' - a reference to how in simplifying the workflows and omitting key capabilities the product has been 'dumbed down' to suit the consumer market.
It seems clear from all the ruckus that Apple has done way too little beta testing amongst real professional users of Final Cut Pro, leading many to wonder whether Apple is deliberately abandoning the professional market in order to focus on the broader consumer or 'prosumer' space.
Apple says it is not, and that many (but not all) of the missing features will be added back progressively. But that's little solace to the professionals who are feeling abandoned right now.
The risk here goes way beyond the value of software sales of a single product to a single niche market.
Final Cut Pro was a 'halo' product for Apple. A high end, serious professional tool that helped define Apple's credentials in the creative industries. Just as the real world feedback from a Formula 1 program helps Ferrari (and the auto industry generally) build better road cars, the video editing community contributed much to the development of Apple software.
The close relationship with Hollywood must also have played a part in Apple's phenomenally successful product placement strategy. Look at how many movies and TV shows have their characters using iMacs or MacBooks - it's many multiples of Apple's actual market share so Apple really shouldn't want to piss this market off.
So Final Cut Pro X is more than iMovie but less than Final Cut Pro. Here's what I think Apple should have done:
1. Release the new application as Final Cut Express X. This would have correctly positioned expectations of features, capabilities, and - most importantly - intended target audience of the initial version.
2. Ironed out the bugs, incorporated extended experience feedback from the professionals and added back the important missing features required for full Pro use.
3. Release the expanded version in 3, 6 or 12 months time as Final Cut Pro X.
Had Apple done this it would have delighted the Prosumer market (who will love the new App but are now terribly confused by the negative comments from the Pros), given the professionals a taste of what was to come (but in a non threatening way), gained the same feedback that they are getting now (but as constructive input rather than vitriole) and avoided the 'debacle' tag that has been forever attached to the launch of what is fundamentally an extremely good piece of software.
It will be fascinating to watch how Apple digs itself out of this hole.
Their really clever software engineers have been busy with a ground-up re-write of one of their 'halo brand' products - Final Cut Pro.
Final Cut has a huge following of semi-pro and professional video editors. It was among the leaders in bringing broadcast quality video editing to the desktop - and away from high end Silicon Graphics workstations running software that cost tens - or hundreds - of thousands of dollars.
Apple could conceivably have continued developing Final Cut Pro incrementally, but there were big gains in speed and usability to be gained by re-writing the software as a 64 bit application. Ability to access more RAM and handle many processing tasks in the background (allowing the user to keep editing while the application was rendering, for example) were key drivers in the decision.
With a more or less blank sheet of paper, the Apple engineers did what they should. They stopped thinking about making the software replicate the current video editing paradigms and started thinking about how video might be edited given the capabilities of modern processing power.
The resulting software dispenses with the idea of multiple tracks on a rigid timeline, adopting a much more organic approach to crafting an edit.
Now this in itself would usually give rise to some angst amongst professionals who have learnt a particular program and have been using it day in and day out as their livelihood for some years. I have watched video professionals at work in the old days of 2" tape machines, and their expertise was amazing to behold.
But the main problem is that the new software omits some tools that the true professionals find absolutely critical. Multi-camera support, the ability to view output on a broadcast quality reference monitor and the ability to import previous projects into the new software are chief among these.
There has been near universal condemnation for the new software from the professional video editing market for whom this software is supposed to have been built.
So what's gone wrong?
Until last week Apple had three video editing products. iMovie which was engineered for the home market to be the simplest way to create and share quality home videos; Final Cut Pro for the professional video editors including news departments and even some feature films (The Social Network, as just one example, was edited using Final Cut Pro); and Final Cut Express - Pro's little brother with a cut down feature list and commensurate price.
Apple has called the new product Final Cut Pro X - and this is where the main problem lies. For in doing so, Apple has created the not unreasonable expectation that this is the next iteration of the product intended for the professional market. But as the professional market has so vociferously (and in many cases, viciously) responded: "No it isn't!"
The most common label applied by professionals to the new app is 'iMovie Pro' - a reference to how in simplifying the workflows and omitting key capabilities the product has been 'dumbed down' to suit the consumer market.
It seems clear from all the ruckus that Apple has done way too little beta testing amongst real professional users of Final Cut Pro, leading many to wonder whether Apple is deliberately abandoning the professional market in order to focus on the broader consumer or 'prosumer' space.
Apple says it is not, and that many (but not all) of the missing features will be added back progressively. But that's little solace to the professionals who are feeling abandoned right now.
The risk here goes way beyond the value of software sales of a single product to a single niche market.
Final Cut Pro was a 'halo' product for Apple. A high end, serious professional tool that helped define Apple's credentials in the creative industries. Just as the real world feedback from a Formula 1 program helps Ferrari (and the auto industry generally) build better road cars, the video editing community contributed much to the development of Apple software.
The close relationship with Hollywood must also have played a part in Apple's phenomenally successful product placement strategy. Look at how many movies and TV shows have their characters using iMacs or MacBooks - it's many multiples of Apple's actual market share so Apple really shouldn't want to piss this market off.
So Final Cut Pro X is more than iMovie but less than Final Cut Pro. Here's what I think Apple should have done:
1. Release the new application as Final Cut Express X. This would have correctly positioned expectations of features, capabilities, and - most importantly - intended target audience of the initial version.
2. Ironed out the bugs, incorporated extended experience feedback from the professionals and added back the important missing features required for full Pro use.
3. Release the expanded version in 3, 6 or 12 months time as Final Cut Pro X.
Had Apple done this it would have delighted the Prosumer market (who will love the new App but are now terribly confused by the negative comments from the Pros), given the professionals a taste of what was to come (but in a non threatening way), gained the same feedback that they are getting now (but as constructive input rather than vitriole) and avoided the 'debacle' tag that has been forever attached to the launch of what is fundamentally an extremely good piece of software.
It will be fascinating to watch how Apple digs itself out of this hole.
Comments
Post a Comment