Apple Back Selling Old Version of Final Cut Pro

[Guest]

1 Apple 8-core Mac Pro with 6 GB RAM, 1TV HD,ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB $3500
FCP 1,000
total $4500 for an underpowered twit.

650.00 New AMD 8 Core Bulldozer, Asus or Gigabyte Mobo,
230.00 128 GB SAMSUNG Solid State Drive
119.00 1TB Seagate Barracuda 64MB cacheive
200.00 16GBG.SKILL Ripjaws X Series F3-17000CL11D-8GBXL 8GB
(2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2133 (PC3-17000)@RAMExperts
250.00 box, pwr supply, cooler.
750.00 NVIDIA Quadro® 4000 oh yeah baby.....
250.00 Windows 7 Ultimate

1449.00
1000 Avid Media composer 5.5 AND for a bonus....
1099 Adobe CS5 upgrade from After Effects CS3

$3548.00 A thousand bucks less for a better machine. I rest my case Screw apple

 

[jecastej]

Final Cut X = Consumers happy/professionals angry. Apple messed up and should had better realease FCPX when it was ready for both markets.

Actually the old FCP was/is again $900 while the new FCPX cost $300. Those here and there arguing rip off specifically about money are wrong.

The problem with the new version is that it is lacking about 3 mayor Pro features "Apple promised to add later". And the reaction began immediately when current professionals working in the industry discovered this peculiar "omission".

All in all new massive consumers buying the new FCPX are very happy because of the much lower price and because of the new features and the interface. Apple went nots and popularized FCP but forgot pro users.

 

[jecastej]

gorgo54

FCP works on an iMac and on a Mac Book too, So tell it like it is. Compare a dual Xeon with another dual Xeon, and a desktop with another desktop. By the way the new FCPX is $300 not a $1000.

The top model iMac 2600K (27' IPS monitor and thunderbolt included) = $2200 the new FCPX = $300. Total = $2500. That is a thousand less than the system you are proposing to add storage and memory. And you did not included a decent monitor.

What is your point mixing those components on your list? Apple produce the drivers so FCP works fine with a commercial ATI card on a Mac. Because of this a Quadro is not even required.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]Ditching old features just speaks of irresponsibility on Apple's part. I'm sure there are millions of people with older projects that have been jeopardized by the new Final Cut.[/citation]
it pains me to do so, but i will defend mac a bit here.
version 10 was a complete rewrite, you cant get every feature back on a total do over of software...

ok i looked up the wiki, did they got from 7-10 with no version in between...

the time between the two releases was almost 2 years. how many projects are still stuck in development for 2 years, and that said, how many people upgrade mid project?

id say you have to be a moron to upgrade mid, and if it took you two years, there is also something severely wrong there too.

can you not install 7 and 10 and use 2 versions? its how i handle software on my pc.

 

[Guest]

Final cut studio 5 was/is worth the $900-1000 for any professional editor. The new Version FCPX is just imovie on steroids it is worth its price point for non-professionals. People who call scam or apple this or that are just unaware of what is required of editors actually working in the film world, it is either FCP or Avid and apple did make a mistake.

 

[legacy7955]

I'd love to see Ubuntu become a real player in the OS marketplace. We need a third player, I like a lot of what I know about Ubuntu but it doesn't have enough of a following to make sure that things like drivers and software patches are kept completely current. A bigger user base would make it viable, now how to accomplish this?

Oh and Apple only making that app available by phone?
....YOU'RE DIALING IT WRONG!

 

[Wish I Was Wealthy]

Looks like Apple only likes the tried & true way of dealing with trouble. That is to keep it as low key and as far out of sight as they can.

 

[belardo]

[citation][nom]doron[/nom]Can you visualize a world where Microsoft never invented Windows and Mac was widely adopted and is now the leading platform? I would have stuck to MS-DOS.[/citation]

- MS never invented Windows. They developed a GUI shell to run ontop of MS-DOS. Just as Apple didn't "invent" the GUI / mouse. Before the Mac, there were a dozen such systems that costs about $20~50,000.

- If MS/PC DOS died in the 80s like it should have (Pretty much the worst OS ever made for mainstream), you'd be using Amigas. Since 1985 - The Amiga had: Color Graphics, stereo sound, played games and a thing called MULTI-TASKING. Playing music (that didn't sound like crap) and doing work on my 80s era Amigas were impossible on DOS and Mac. Windows 3.x was actually usable - but still, not an actual OS and still garbage.

- So no, you wouldn't be using DOS for these past 20 some-odd years. Amiga-OS also had a CLI (Command Line Interface, which is what MS-DOS is) which would run circles around MS-DOS. Why? First, you could run several CLI windows (again, this is the 80s) at the same time... until you ran out of memory. They had scroll bars, they were not FIXED size (such as in Win 9x, NT~4).

Hell, command window in Windows7 can resize the window only vertically. But since most people don't actually use it much - its not a biggie anymore.

- Nope... if there was no MS-Windows and Amiga still became a dead platform, you'd go Linux.

 

[belardo]

People should keep this in mind about this product.

Apple will include the important missing features. What they tried to do was stupid, even thou it was somewhat understandable.

FC-X was a replacement for both FC-Pro ($999) and FC-Express ($300~200). So Apple was trying to streamline the product into one and was ditching the much older FC-express first.

They should have continued with two versions... Perhaps $300~500 for the "Pro" version and $200 for the regular folks who just need the basics.

[citation][nom]legacy7955[/nom]I'd love to see Ubuntu become a real player in the OS marketplace. ~ A bigger user base would make it viable, now how to accomplish this?[/citation]
Agreed. Ubuntu is making it easier for newbies to join Linux. But I'm not seeing anything going on that will make Linux a major player for the desktop market. Remember, world-wide - Apple has about 7.4% world-wide market share (2011 USA, Mac-OS-X sales is about 15%!)

Number as they stand (roughly):
XP = 37%
Win7 = 20%
Vista = 13%
OS X = 8%
iOS = 3%
Linux = 2%

Linux will ALWAYS continue to struggle because of the nature of Linux. For Linux to take off, it would have to go with a desktop standard (such as Ubuntu) and have desktop supported software. When Macintosh was NEW, Apple paid developers to MAKE software for the Mac.

IBM and others, pouring a little bit of money in Linux does nothing. If they want to make a stand against MS... they NEED to pay for the software. With Windows gaming dying (still - most games are for consoles grrrr), the need for a Windows based computer shrinks. So why buy a Windows box if you don't really need it?

So what software does Linux need?:
- MS Office (This is NOT going to happen, unless Linux somehow captures 10% of the desktop market - MS isn't going to help Linux grow anything)

- Adobe products (ALL of them) Yeah, there is some great free software... none of them up to standards for professionals.

- Turbo Tax and Quickbooks

- Peach Tree, Corel and other serious software makers.

But still... that doesn't mean it'll make a dent to MS of Apple. Linux is made by techies for techies. Its the Amiga type mind-set. Many of them like being the "black sheep", like a club of computer experts who know how things really work.

But in the world of avg. intelligent humans... two choices makes it easy. And when it comes to the business world, spending $2000 for a Mac Desktop and $1000 for software is a drop in the bucket. When they hire John Doe to work that video editing suite or office suite - John Doe has been trained and/or experienced with those systems. It would be too costly and troublesome to setup a Linux box, hope they can find enough techs to work on it, etc.

I'd love to see Linux own 20~30% of the desktop market! I'd most likely be a Linux user - for sure. But what I want to use or need to use - doesn't run on Linux. Windows 7, even thou its still an ugly OS under the hood - works fine for most people, including myself. Its reliable, its responsive, its easy to use. Its a bit over-priced at $100 for an OEM/Upgrade version or $200 for retail. MS should always have the 3-licence family pack edition for $150 or less.

I think Win7-Home should be $100 retail. Win7Pro at $150 retail. Dump the public OEM versions and have an upgrade version for $50. That would only happen if Linux was taking away their market share. Open Office HAS caused MS to sell Office-Home edition for $100~130 for a 3 user license. Much better than spend $300+ like for Office 2000/XP. So yes, I - like anyone else can download several different flavors of Linux for free... And when it comes to servers, I'd trust a Linux server over MS any time. But for my desktop - other than to play around... I won't bother.

MS will charge what they know the market will pay. Most Joe Blows will buy their desktop computers from WalMart or Best Buy for $350~600 which works out of the box without a question "Can I run XYZ on this?".

I'd love to see Apple sell OS-X as a legit box for non-Apple hardware. Just that (A) a company cannot sell pre-loaded or included copy or multi-purchase (bulk) OS-X.
(B) Sell it for $100, single computer - retail version for NON Apple hardware.
(C) that price would help cut down piracy of "apple clones".
(D) Limited support.

I think Apple would get more market share. But Apple is a highly profitable company. If they doubled their user-base over night, it would be very painful. They don't have worry about non-apple hardware. So for them to change their business could be hurtful. I still don't see myself buying a Mac computer any time soon... I know I can do a hack-intosh setup, but no real reason to do so.

I predict in 5 years. Apple will have 30% of US PC sales, 15% world-wide sales.
Linux will have 3% desktop market. Vista will have 0% market, XP will be down to 10% (in poorer countries) Windows 8 will have 40%, the rest is Windows7. Quad-core CPUs will be the standard $40 entry level CPU... vs 8~12 cores for power users.

 

[jerrspud]

After Using Premiere and Final Cut in school, Premiere CS5 can do just as much (and more) as Final Cut. Yet, it was impossible to get other students to admit that. This is great new for Adobe ;-)

 

[del35]

If you have a dumbed-down gullible fan base, you can get away with murder. Apple proves this over and over. The sad part is that the US media does not hold this decrepit company accountable for its fleecing of the people. Not only does Apple sell junk hardware infected with drm issues in nice casing at exorbitant prices, they continue to steal from its technologically preliterate fanboys. Sad sad commentary.

 

[nikkidpartypooper]

Come on,some people just like to buy their apple gear legally & make that apple man even more wealthier.

Hey man you're so right and these people are just Apples loyal followers. :lol:

 

[nikkidpartypooper]

Looks like Apple only likes the tried & true way of dealing with trouble. That is to keep it as low key and as far out of sight as they can.

Hey,we meet once again. Another time that I have to agree with you. Good One. :lol:

 

[Guest]

This article is incredibly misleading though in broad strokes it got the story right. the old FCP was bundled with 4-5 other pieces of software that made one hell of a good editing suite, the new FCPX dropped all the other software (hence the only $300 price tag) and claimed that it integrated them into one program when in actuality it didn't and dropped 95% of the features. Also the new FCP lost more than backwards compatibility, it also lost features such as basic deck control functionality (99% of the industry still uses decks for various tape formats), the ability to customize quicktime settings for digital output (if you're pushing for a tapeless workflow make your digital workflow full functioning for Christ's sake), the ability to separate out and isolate audio tracks (100% essential for archiving and delivering of final pieces both domestically and internationally because of needing to create stems alone), the lack of support for file types such as OMF/AAF files (and hence a complete loss of communication between FCP and things like ProTools), and the list goes on.

In short, it's no wonder they started selling the old FCP again, anyone who is even close to being a professional editor would never use FCP X.