One of the problems of being in the middle is that I can see both sides. I don’t necessarily agree with them, but I can appreciate their point of view.

My blog this morning – Who’s Accountable – touched a nerve because, in addition to the people that commented directly on the blog, I’ve also had several private conversations with Apple and people who are very, very upset with Apple.

What’s become obvious over the last week, is that the way the Final Cut Pro X launch was handled has totally overshadowed the features of Final Cut Pro X.

Over the last several days, I’ve been consumed with trying to decide what to do – stay with Final Cut or move to another platform. If I switch, what do I switch to? What advice should I give to others trying to make the same choice?

As my office will attest, all this internal debating has not made me a pleasant person to be around.

Let me share my thinking with you — then, you can decide for yourself whether you agree or disagree.

First, let me say that I think the launch of Final Cut Pro X was very badly handled. As I’ve written, I don’t think Apple needed to cancel Final Cut Studio (3) as abruptly and coldly as they did. They should have given us more time to make an orderly transition. They were thinking as a technology company, not as editors managing a decade of assets.

Canceling Final Cut Server, even though it was incompatible with Final Cut Pro X, has unnecessarily jeopardized companies building a business on that platform.

Apple never does things accidentally, so they will disagree with me. Probably strongly disagree… I remember a remark one of the people at Apple told me before the launch, in that they were expecting a lot of controversy over the new version of Final Cut Pro.

Well, we can certainly agree about that.

I also think that Apple seriously erred in not providing a conversion utility between Final Cut Pro 7 and FCP X. The one-two punch of canceling FCS (3) and an inability to convert old projects dominated the discussion far more than the merits of FCP X.

Apple will disagree, but the launch did not take the feelings and passion of editors properly into account. And damage was done.

On the other hand, there are some very cool new features in Final Cut Pro X. Some editors are writing and telling me how much they are enjoying the new program. (Just as other editors are writing to tell me, at length, why they are moving to Avid or Adobe.)

There’s a lot of passion on both sides. And both sides have some truth behind them.

But, let’s look at a few more points:

* Apple said in their presentation at NAB that FCP X redefines video editing for the next ten years. There is lots of additional development planned.

* Apple told me that because FCP X is distributed via the App Store, they can update the program much more frequently than when it was sold as a package on DVD.

* Apple wrote in their FAQ that they are already working on adding new features, such as XML and multicam, to the product and releasing updates quickly.

* Apple has stressed that FCP X is designed to provide a feature set for professionals, and not just as an upgrade for iMovie. (I am not saying they MET the needs of professionals, but a look at the architecture of FCP X reveals features that no iMovie user would ever need.)

* However, it is also self-evident that Apple needed to provide a clear and consistent upgrade path to iMovie users who were totally lost trying to understand how Final Cut Express works. Apple feels that it is possible for one product to meet both needs.

As I wrote in an earlier blog – Moving Forward – the first rule of business is to stay in business. All of us should keep an eye on our options. Check out what Avid, Adobe, and Media 100 are offering. If you feel you can’t wait, then switch.

But I would also suggest that many of us would benefit by taking a deep breath and giving Apple a chance to live up to their promises for the program.

Final Cut Studio (3) still works.

It took Avid, Adobe, and Apple many years to evolve their programs to their current feature set. I’m willing to give Apple a few months to get their act together and fix what’s broken with FCP X.

I’m going to stay with Final Cut Pro for a while. Work at learning the new version. Give feedback to Apple on what they need to do to improve things. And share what I learn with you.

Final Cut Pro X has a lot of exciting potential – but, for many of us, that potential is not yet realized.

The burden is on Apple to deliver on their promises, update the program quickly, and repair the damage they did during the launch. The proof is in the program.

If they succeed, great. If not, Avid and Adobe will still be around in six months.

Larry

Like many of you, I’ve been losing sleep this last week trying to figure out what’s going to happen to my business after the debacle of the Final Cut Pro X launch.

I read in a blog last night that Steve Jobs has gotten involved in this mess and that “really great things will be happening really soon.”

So my first question is: “Why does Steve Jobs need to get directly involved in what is essentially a straight-forward upgrade to one of their well-established products?”

And this led me to a bigger thought: “Who’s Accountable?”

As I woke up this morning, I had a day-dream of Phil Schiller, VP of Worldwide Marketing, appearing on my podcast, the Digital Production Buzz, to answer questions from listeners.

(In reality, this will never happen. Apple stopped giving on-the-record interviews, with the exception of Mr. Jobs, many years ago.)

So, imagining that Mr. Schiller were on the program, here are the questions I would ask:

1. What was the benefit to Apple of immediately canceling Final Cut Studio (3) with the release of a brand-new and untested product; when there was no technical reason (according to Apple) to do so?

2. Why did Apple feel it was necessary to alienate one of their most passionate fan bases with this release; were professional users that expendable?

3. What responsibility does Apple have when canceling a product to companies that built businesses around those products in terms of notification and support?

4. Conversely, what does Apple require of its vendors, when a supplier to Apple decides to modify a manufacturing method?

5. What is the benefit to Apple for assuming a strict rule of silence whenever something goes wrong? (A short period for research is understandable, but not when it stretches for weeks. The number one rule of PR is communication – but, apparently, not for Apple.)

6. Conversely, what would Apple’s reaction be if one of its vendors, say FoxConn, refused to talk to Apple when something went wrong, such as an explosion?

7. Why is Apple unwilling to provide a general roadmap to those products it considers “professional”?

8. Conversely, what would Apple’s reaction be if Intel refused to tell it about new chips it was developing?

9. Trust is a very tricky thing. It takes time to create and can be destroyed in an instant. Does Apple perceive the extent to which it has breached this trust and what will Apple do to recover from it?

Not one of these questions deals with the features of a product. They deal with the moral character of a company.

As consumers, we are held accountable through license agreements, laws, and regulation.

But who holds corporations accountable?

The sad part is that no one holds corporations accountable. We will never learn these answers. And the damage that’s been done will be irreparable.

Larry

Well, the last two weeks certainly have been tumultuous. But this weekend is a good time to take stock and figure out where we go from here.

Over the years I’ve learned that Apple does not follow the market, it tries to lead the market. And, with megahits like the iMac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad, it is impossible to ignore their success.

However, it isn’t always successful, which is why we find ourselves in the position we are in now. And, keep in mind that it is US, not Apple, that are in a difficult position. Apple’s DNA (and vast bank account) insulates them from clamor and controversy in the marketplace.

Yesterday, as I was thinking about this blog, I sent an email to my contacts at Apple asking if they would either announce a timetable of when we could see the next “major release” of Final Cut Pro X, or whether Apple was considering re-releasing Final Cut Studio (3) to the market.

Apple did not respond to my email; which I’ve also learned is an answer in itself.

So, the decision is not up to Apple, they have already told us what they are going to do. The decision is up to us – how will we respond?

THE MARKET

Apple has opened up a huge new market to video editing – I call it the “middle market” – people that need more than iMovie, but don’t need the vast capabilities of Final Cut Studio (3).

This is a good thing, I think, because ultimately it will give many of us work as these users push up against the barriers of FCP X and need to accomplish tasks that can’t currently be met with FCP X.

I remember the desktop publishing wars of the 1980’s. Graphics designers did not go away when our computers starting displaying fonts and images. What happened was that the graphics design tools got better and designers with creativity and skill got more work.

The situation is the same today. Creativity and story-telling are still in demand, but the audience and tools continue to evolve.

OUR CHOICE

As I see it, we all have three choices:

1. Convert to Final Cut Pro X
2. Do nothing, at least for a while
3. Switch to a different editing program

CONVERTING

For single editor shops that work exclusively with tapeless formats and principally output to files, Final Cut Pro X is very attractive.

I am getting many emails each day from people that are working with it and are pleased with their results.

For non-mission-critical projects, the current version of FCP X may meet your needs.

ABSTAINING

As I’ve written for years, however, even if Apple released an all-singing, all-dancing, rock-star of a program, I would still counsel waiting until a dot One release.

This is especially true for large shops, edit houses with massive amounts of existing material that they need to repurpose, or editors working on deadlines that cannot be missed.

Apple’s emphasis on secrecy during development in order to maximize surprise at launch means that the initial release of a product is almost never stable enough for serious use.

As examples, FCP 4.0 didn’t stabilize until version 4.0.2, FCP 5 took until version 5.0.4 and, some would argue, 5.1.4 to become solid. FCP 6 took until version 6.0.2 (with four more versions after that), and FCP 7 is currently sitting at version 7.0.3. (And the sordid history of QuickTime releases and bug fixes is best left for a mature audience…)

As I’ve written many times in the past, waiting before upgrading is never a mistake. I tend to wait a few months before upgrading my production gear. However, at the same time, I will upgrade my testing gear to the latest version – and start to learn it – as soon as it is released.

There is no harm in waiting until FCP X starts to stabilize.

SWITCHING

The wild card in this whole equation is the cancellation of Final Cut Studio (3). Our decisions would be a lot easier if Apple had not forced our hand.

First, I am deeply saddened that Apple’s vaunted engineering prowess is unable to code a conversion utility from FCP 7 to FCP X. However, they say they can’t, so I believe them. (And, even if they can, they won’t; which works out to the same thing.)

This means that if you have a large number of FCP 7 projects that you have even a remote possibility of needing in the future, you would be foolish NOT to purchase a product that can read them.

Whether you go with Avid Media Composer and Automatic Duck, or Adobe Production Premium, you, your company, your media and your projects have a far greater priority than the political and emotional issues of supporting, or not supporting, the latest release of Final Cut Pro.

Protect yourself first.

Pick the software you are most comfortable working with. Hire an assistant editor to have them do tests to see how well your projects transfer from FCP 7 into it.

Both Avid and Adobe are running “Switcher” campaigns — which doesn’t surprise me. If I were doing their marketing I would do exactly the same thing. Take advantage of this special pricing – protect your assets.

Apple says FCP 7 will run on Lion. However, it would be foolish to expect it to run on every operating system in the future. At some point, you will need to convert your assets. The best time to do so is now while all your projects, media, and the software you are using is current.

Whether you want to convert your whole operation to a new platform depends upon many different factors; cost not the least of them.

But the first rule of business is to stay in business. Protect yourself. Make sure you can get access to your assets in the future.

LARRY’S RECOMMENDATION

For new Final Cut users, purchase FCP X and enjoy it. It has many good things to recommend it.

For existing Final Cut 7 users, it is too early to know what FCP X is really going to be. But it is also way too risky to bet the ranch on it.

Download FCP X and learn it, but be very cautious putting it into serious production.

I recommend you create a system for converting your FCP 7 assets to either Avid or Adobe.

Then, wait and see what Apple does with the next release of FCP X. For me, the next release, not the current one, will set the direction for the future.

But protect yourself now.

CONCLUSION

This event gives all of us a chance to stop and reflect on who we are and what we do.

The core of what I do, personally, is to train, teach, and inform. I do this across a wide variety of products and using a wide variety of media. My core value does not change with this update.

What changes are the subjects that I teach. And, as we all know, technology is a constantly evolving mix of old and new products.

Think about what YOU do – are you a Final Cut editor, OR are you an editor that uses Final Cut? Are you defined by the technology you use or the stories that you tell?

As you are deciding whether to convert, abstain, or switch, spend a few minutes thinking about who you are, what you do, and how you want to earn a living.

In the past, religious wars were fought over Apple vs. Avid. The new war is FCP 7 vs. FCP X. Like all wars, these battles create a flurry of impressive fireworks, but leave a bloody trail of destruction in their wake. And very rarely do they settle anything. Old tensions still simmer.

So, let’s slow down and take stock. Apple has given us an opportunity to make a choice. They aren’t going to change their direction, so we need to decide if we are comfortable where they are taking us.

And that choice is different for each one of us.

Let me know what you think.

Larry

I’ve been inundated with comments on my two most recent blogs on the release of Final Cut Pro X:

#1: Ain’t Nothing Like It in the World

#2: Apple’s Challenges (with FCP X)

Late last night, Apple published an FAQ answering some of the questions that have been raised during this discussion. Notice that for the first time, they are using words like “not yet” and “coming this summer.”

I recommend you read this.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/faq/

Also, yesterday I heard a reasonably substantial rumor that Apple has decided to re-release Final Cut Studio (3) back into the market. I checked with my sources at Apple and was told this was NOT true.

I still think this is a serious mistake and urge Apple to reconsider – it does not hurt the launch of FCP X to also sell Final Cut Studio (3).

By the way, I want to reiterate something I said last night at the LAFCPUG meeting – it is way too early to make any final decisions on Final Cut Pro. FCP X is in its infancy. Apple IS listening to the discussion. To my way of thinking, Apple totally blew the launch of FCP X and needs to move quickly to fix things. Before you make any final decisions for yourself or your company, wait a bit. My suggestion is a month.

At the end of that time, passions will have cooled, Apple will have time to respond, and we will all have time to think. It is always better to make decisions with a cool head after thinking about it for a while.

The situation many editors find themselves in is difficult, but not hopeless. Give this a little time to play out.

I’ll have more later this week – still trying to wade through all the email — thanks to everyone for writing.

I am always interested in your comments.

Larry

P.S. By the way, I read every email and every comment, but I am just buried in trying to answer them all. I’m sorry if I haven’t gotten to yours yet.

Since Apple launched Final Cut Pro X last Tuesday, I’ve had more than 3,500 emails that range from “I’m enjoying FCP X and creating useful projects,” to “FCP X will destroy my ability to make a living.” (And, ah, far worse, I’m sad to say.)

When I first saw Final Cut X, I was excited by its potential, but warned Apple that this release would be intensely polarizing to the editing community. It does not give me pleasure to see that I was right.

Worse, Apple has alienated the very people who can make a very visible statement as to the inadequacy of the program. No clearer example can be found than the public ridicule of FCP X on the Conan O’Brien show.

Or, as David Pogue wrote in his New York Times blog: “…let me be clear on this point — I think Apple blew it.”

With the possible exception of the launch of MobileMe, I can’t think of an Apple product launch which has spun more wildly out of control than this one. Apple did not just blow this launch, they went out of their way to alienate their key customer base.

Which is a shame, because FCP X has such great potential — but now, Apple has to concentrate on damage control, rather than getting people excited about the new program.

After the launch, Apple compounded their problems with three extremely poorly timed moves:

1. Canceling Final Cut Studio (3) and pulling all existing product from the market. This is devastating to shops that can’t use Final Cut Pro X. The two applications can co-exist on the same system — killing FCP 7 will not boost sales of FCP X to those shops that can’t run it. All it does is set up a black market for FCP 7.

2. Not providing – then publicly stating (thru David Pogue’s New York Times blog) that they do not plan to provide – a conversion utility from FCP 7 to FCP X. Not only does this render a HUGE number of past projects inaccessible, it sets up the obvious conclusion that if Apple is willing to discontinue support for legacy applications with no warning, what’s to prevent them from doing so again in the future? Every time you watch a movie that is more than 6 months old, you are dealing with legacy assets. Not providing a conversion utility is completely inexcusable.

3. Leaving the support for interchange formats – XML, EDL, OMF and others – to third-parties; or not supporting them at all. Yes, the video and film industry needs to move into the current century. However, Hollywood is very reluctant to change what works. Meeting deadlines is far more important than adopting new technology. Apple’s walled garden approach is totally at odds with the nature of post-production, where the editing system is the hub around which a wide variety of other applications revolve. On any editing project I routinely run 5-10 other programs simultaneously — only three of which are from Apple. I am constantly moving data between programs. This, combined with a lack of support for network-based storage, highlight grave development decisions in determining what features to include in the program.

NOTE: Apple told Pogue that they are working on providing the specs for their XML API. This is essential for any third-party developer to access conversion “hooks” in the program. David didn’t report that they mentioned when this would be available, however.

When I was talking with Apple prior to the launch, they told me that they extensively researched the market to determine what needed to be in the new program. In retrospect, I wonder what people they were talking with.

As I was working with the program, developing my FCP X training series, I often felt that the program was developed for two different audiences. Some features, effects for instance, are clearly geared for the iMovie crowd, while others, like trimming or 4K support, are geared for pros. The program sometimes felt like it wasn’t sure what it wanted to be when it grew up.

In FCP X, Apple got some things amazingly right. But they also got key features amazingly wrong. And if they don’t change course, this software, which has significant potential, is going to spin further and further out of control. At which point, its feature set is irrelevant, its reputation will be set. We’ll be looking at another Mac Cube.

Apple does not normally ever comment on future products – though they did this year, prior to WWDC, because they needed to reset expectations. Because of the visibility of this product into an audience that can cause extensive PR damage to Apple, I suggest that Apple break its usual vow of silence and do three things:

1. Immediately return Final Cut Studio (3) to the market. If it is not compatible with Lion (and I don’t know whether it is or not) label it so. But put it back on store shelves so consumers have the ability to work with the existing version until FCP X is ready for prime time.

2. Fund the development of a conversion utility – either at Apple or thru a 3rd-party – and announce the development with a tentative release date.

3. Publicly announce a road-map for FCP X that just covers the next 3-4 months. Apple needs to be in damage control mode and the best way to defuse the situation is to communicate. Answering the question: “What features will Apple add to FCP X, and when?” will go a long way to calming people down.

I have written in my earlier blog (read it here) that FCP X has a lot of potential, and, for some, it meets their needs very nicely. I still believe that.

I was also pleased to provide training on FCP X so that new and existing users can get up to speed on it quickly.

I don’t mind helping a product develop into its full potential. I enjoy providing feedback and helping people to learn new software. I don’t even mind that FCP X is missing some features; this is to be expected in any new software.

But I mind a great deal being forced to adopt a product because other options are removed, forced to lose access to my legacy projects, and forced to work in the dark concerning when critically needed features will be forthcoming.

This launch has been compared to Coca-Cola launching New Coke – resulting in a humiliating loss of market share.

With Final Cut Pro X, however, the situation is worse — with New Coke, only our ability to sip soda was affected. With Final Cut Pro X, we are talking losing livelihoods.

Let me know what you think,

Larry

There are about 85 emails in my in-box this morning with links to a speech I gave at the April Final Cut Pro User Group about my reactions to Apple’s presentation of Final Cut at NAB.

While I stand by most of my remarks, there was one unfortunate moment where I said, with a special dramatic emphasis for the crowd, that Final Cut Pro X was not ready for professional use.

I believed that then. I don’t believe it now.

When I made that presentation to the LAFCPUG, it was the week after NAB; a week after Apple presented the new version of Final Cut to the world. When I watched that presentation, I was watching it through the prism of my experience with Final Cut Pro 7 and all I knew about the application was what Apple showed on stage in their demo.

How could anything that radically different equal what we already had in Final Cut Pro 7?

I knew this new version was far more than iMovie – but, at that time, I didn’t think it was Final Cut Pro, either.

Its no secret that Apple gave me rare access to the software by inviting me to a demo of an early build of the software in February this year. However, what is not known, is that they also gave me permission to contact their development team to discuss the new version.

After NAB, and after my presentation at that April LAFCPUG meeting, I finally had time to follow-up on Apple’s offer. And I did. A lot.

I peppered them with questions:

• Why did Apple decide to totally reinvent the interface?

• Why did Apple feel they couldn’t simply do an incremental improvement to what we already had?

• Why did they only talk about Final Cut Pro?

• Why did they add the features they did?

• Why did they not mention others?

• What did they view as the future of editing, and who did they see doing the work?

While I can’t tell you what Apple told me until after the NDA lifts with the release of the product, I can tell you that what I learned during those conversations has completely changed my opinion.

Because so many of us base our lives on this software – both creatively and financially – there is a lot of stress whenever a new version comes out. Especially a radically different new version.

I understand, I feel the same stress.

But I no longer feel, as I once thought, that this is a step backward. Based on what I learned during my conversations with Apple, I believe this release provides us with an opportunity for a large step forward.

Now, we just have to wait and see what Apple ships.

For many of us, this will be a giant leap into something truly exciting. There is a lot of news to share and I can’t wait to tell you more about it.

That day can’t come soon enough.

Larry

I’ve been reflecting on all the hype surrounding Cloud-based file storage recently.

To hear some industry pundits describe it, the Cloud – where we store our data on servers located outside our office or home – is the most incredible event to hit technology since the invention of the microprocessor.

This may be a bit exaggerated, but in looking at the recent press, there is a strong feeling of “jump to the Cloud now, or die!” My point is that jumping to the Cloud could kill you.

THE CLOUD HAS SOME SERIOUS HOLES IN IT

The Cloud is an attractive idea. By storing all your media on a central repository “out there,” you can access it safely from anywhere, without duplicating media.

Attractive, that is, until it doesn’t work. For example, the Cloud failed spectacularly for Amazon this last week, shuttering access to dozens of websites around the world, locking up data in an outage that lasted for days.

Or when it gets hacked. As happened to the Sony Playstation Network, with the theft of personal, and perhaps credit card, data for tens of millions of users.

Or when the vendor goes out of business and takes your data with them when they fail.

These are not small companies with an immature IT staff. These are among the biggest, most technically savvy companies in the world.

As David Chernicoff wrote on ZDNet: “The choice [to store your media in the Cloud], of course, is [up to each company], but it does beg the question. I might choose to bet my business future on a cloud provider, but if it’s up to me, there had better be a very effective plan B in place.”

Now, more and more companies are jumping on the bandwagon of providing access to technology, or storage for our data, from the Cloud. The problem is that you have far more to lose than they do.

Cloud-computing is totally unregulated. Each vendor has it’s own proprietary system for storing and protecting your data. There are no standards, regulated levels of service, or penalties if standards are not met. In other words, if a vendor doesn’t live up to their promises, the person that suffers the most is you.

Clearly, as researchers at Princeton University wrote in a recent report, “One potential solution to this issue is strict regulation and standards within the realm of cloud computing. Measures need to be put in place, ranging from mandatory breach notification laws (which eighteen states currently lack) to stringent security enforcement requirements. These regulations and standards already exist in the world of e-commerce (which processes millions of credit card numbers a year without much incident). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) just needs to update their regulations to keep up with the cloud computing craze. This fact has not escaped the Senate, which has recently motioned to push the FTC to begin regulating both security and privacy in the cloud.”

Driving this concern home is that, if you believe the rumor sites, Apple is working on integrating the Cloud with the next version of Mac OS X. I would like to see Apple take the lead in establishing a system of standards to help us judge the quality, security, and availability of our data on the cloud.

Or, at a minimum, look at what is being done by the Cloud Security Alliance.

A LOOK BACK AT THE CLOUD

As readers of my monthly Final Cut Studio newsletter know, I’ve been skeptical of the Cloud for a long time. My biggest concern when we move critical data to the Cloud is that we lose control over it. We can access it, but it also becomes far easier for others, unapproved by us, to access it as well. However, in spite of the risks, I’ve realized that it is time to modify my opinions and I wanted to share my thinking with you.

It could be argued that Cloud computing began with email. Today, almost none of us could survive for long without access to email from wherever we are.

As has become obvious with the explosive growth of Twitter and Facebook, the world is rapidly moving to virtual connections. Rather than meet in an office, we are increasingly meeting on-line. Rather than direct, face-to-face communication, messages are increasingly electronic, remote, and terse.

Whether this is good or bad isn’t the issue. It is clearly where the world is headed.

The only way social media sites like Twitter, FaceBook, and Linked In can function is via the Cloud – where all messages are aggregated on remote servers.

Or, take Google Calendars or Google Docs. These web-based services make it easy for individuals who are widely scattered geographically to work together on a project.

There has to be recognition by vendors providing Cloud storage that the value of the assets stored on their Cloud services are greater than the cost of the access fees they are charging.

If you are unable to meet the delivery date for your movie because your cloud-storage vendor is unable to provide you access to your media, as happened last week with Amazon, the actual damages you suffer are far in excess of the access fees you pay per month to store your data. The vendors lost a few servers, we lose projects, credibility, deadlines, and clients.

In the recent case of Amazon, their offer to provide a refund of ten-days access fees is laughable, considering the total loss of business their crash created. Storage providers, for obvious reasons, are totally unwilling to assume this level of liability. The only way we’ll figure out what constitutes “adequate compensation” is through the courts. Is the value of your media that is stored on a remote server, the cost of the server, the cost to access the server, or the cost to replace the media that was lost?

These are very thorny questions.

REVIEW VENDOR ASSUMPTIONS

Being able to access media assets from the Cloud makes several assumptions which you need to evaluate to determine if they are true for you:

Assumption 1: You are always able to access the Internet at reasonable speeds.

Fallacy: Last week, I was in a smaller-sized city in Wisconsin for several days with no wireless or wired access to the Internet. I didn’t plan it that way, but that’s how it turned out. Are you always going to be in a place that provides high-speed Internet access?

Assumption 2: There is great convenience in accessing your media from anywhere.

Fallacy: Your ability to access, or upload, media to the Cloud is totally controlled by the speed of your local Internet connection. Each week, I need to transfer 4 GB of data from Point A to Point B. Even files as small as this take several hours, assuming the transfer goes right the first time. Using the Cloud for storing source media provides virtually unlimited storage, which is totally gated by the speed of my local Internet connection.

Assumption 3: Your data is secure in the Cloud.

Fallacy: As Sony made abundantly clear, 77 million people’s data would have been far safer if it were NOT stored on Sony systems. The chances of my personal data getting hacked on my servers is far smaller than if I put my data in a vast pool with everyone else. As Willie Sutton said when asked why he robs banks, “because that’s where the money is.”

Assumption 4: Your data is safe on the Cloud due to redundant systems.

Fallacy: Again, look at Amazon, or Cloud Foundry, or Sidekick/Microsoft. Extremely experienced IT staff, redundant systems, well-capitalized companies; yet each had a total system collapse lasting multiple days resulting in both business and data loss.

As you evaluate what materials to store in the Cloud, ask yourself the following questions:

1. What happens to my business if the files I’m storing in the Cloud get lost?

2. What happens to my business if the files I’m storing in the Cloud get released into the Internet, outside of my control?

3. What happens to my business if I am unable to access the files I’m storing in the Cloud?

4. What compensation will you receive if something goes wrong and is it proportional to the damage you will suffer?

Cheap is not the best option when the files you are risking are so very expensive to create.

THERE IS ROOM FOR HOPE…

There are some interesting experiments in Cloud-based computing that I am following with interest.

For me, the power of the Cloud lies in sharing information easily between partners, while the data remains safely stored locally.

Scenios is one. They provide “Cloud-based software that helps you manage your productions more effectively… and more profitably.”

DropBox is another. Here you are using the power of the Cloud to transfer files, but not permanently store files. While you can, leaving files stored in your Dropbox, this exposes you to the same risks of data loss or data breach that I was talking about earlier.

I’m interested in hearing about other Cloud-based services that you are pleased with. Share your comments with the rest of us.

Ultimately, most of our file storage will be Cloud-based. But, for those of us storing massively large files that are very difficult to replace, take the time to ask yourself these four questions and make sure you understand the answers.

My key point is to be skeptical of all the marketing claims and keep in mind that it is rarely a good idea to get lost in a Cloud.

Let me know what you think.

Larry

[Image courtesy Apple Inc. Click for enlarged view.]

Apple this evening provided a “sneak peek” at the next version of Final Cut Pro – now called “Final Cut Pro X” at the NAB SuperMeet in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The new Final Cut Pro is a bold move – a totally redesigned interface, 64-bit memory addressing, multi-processor support, tight integration of metadata in the project file with metadata stored in the clip not just in the project, heavy use of automation to simplify tedious tasks, and a rethinking of the entire concept of what it means to edit.

I can’t think of any other company that could so totally redefine what a non-linear video editor is than Apple. Since the release of Final Cut Pro 1, each version of FCP has contained incremental improvements. This is a complete restatement at every possible level.

As Phil Schiller, senior VP for world-wide marketing for Apple told me after the presentation, “This is a total rethinking of how we tell stories visually.”

Love it or hate it, our editing life won’t be the same again.

Oh, and did I mention — it has a ship date of June, with a suggested retail price of $299, and will be sold through the App Store (more on that in a bit).

TAKING A STEP BACK

But to look at Final Cut Pro in terms of its features or spec list misses a much bigger point that I want to reflect on for a bit. And it all revolves around a term I used in my first line – this was a “sneak peek.”

This is why you won’t see anything about the new Final Cut on Apple’s website – this is a preview, not the launch. There is still much work that needs to be done on the software.

Understanding an Apple event is like understanding a meeting of the Federal Reserve Bank. It is essential to concentrate on both what was said, and what was not said.

After the presentation, I spoke with Richard Townhill, Director of Pro Video Product Marketing for Apple (who served as the host for Apple’s presentation) who told me that “the purpose of today is to focus exclusively on Final Cut Pro, highlight some of the new features, and give people a chance to see and comment on the new interface. We will have much more to say about both Final Cut and our other applications in the future.”

Final Cut has been rewritten from the ground up and borrows a lot from other siblings in the suite. The audio cleanup and processing borrows heavily from Soundtrack Pro, primary and secondary color correction tools are taken from Color (see the screen shot below), and some of the motion effects techniques are taken from Motion.

However, this does not mean these other applications are dead – simply that Apple is not talking about them… yet.

I was reading posts this evening on IMUG and Twitter, where users were saying: “is it iMovie on Steroids?” I think this is a premature question.

[Image courtesy Apple Inc. Click for enlarged view.]

THIS IS A PRO APP APPLE DESIGNED FOR PROS

After the presentation, I went down front to talk with the folks from Apple about what I saw. And I asked Richard directly: “Explain to me why this isn’t a big version of iMovie?”

Richard replied: “We designed this to have professional features for the professional user. The reason we chose to present it here at the Supermeet was that we wanted the professional user to see it and understand what we are doing.”

As one attendee said to me after the event: “Both a Ford and a Ferrari have an accelerator, but that doesn’t make them the same car.”

Also, what viewers in the audience did NOT see was who from Apple was attending the presentation that did not appear on stage.

Somehow, I managed to sit in the Apple executive section of the hall. In front of me was Phil Schiller, Senior VP for Worldwide Marketing. The head of PR was sitting to his right. The two lead engineering directors, or VPs, were sitting on either side of me. I was surrounded by top-level executives from engineering, PR, marketing, product management — literally a dozen extremely senior executives were sitting in the front two rows.

Apple would not send this level of executive talent simply to watch the roll-out of a product that they did not care about.

SIDE NOTE: I was sandwiched between two senior engineering executives who had as much fun as anyone in the audience watching the demo and applauding. I suspect it was because they were finally seeing the public result of years of behind-the-scenes work.

Another interesting data point. This presentation was almost exactly the same one that I saw six weeks ago in Cupertino. Apple used it then to get feedback from a small group; I suspect they are using this exact presentation tonight for the same reason — to get reactions from a much larger group.

LOOKING AT THE NUTS AND BOLTS

Based on tonight’s presentation several long-standing irritants with Final Cut Pro disappear:

* Rendering is now in the background and much faster because it harnesses the power of the GPU.
* The 4 GB memory limit is gone – FCP will use as much RAM as you have installed on your system.
* FCP X now uses all the processors on your system, not just one and a half.

In addition, a flock of new features were added:
* It supports editing video image sizes from standard definition up to 4K.
* It uses fewer tools from the Tool palette (which is no longer there, by the way) by making the cursor smarter. WHERE you click something determines WHAT you can do with it.
* A lot of existing features are jazzed up (linking and grouping are replaced by the much more elegant Clip Connection and Compound Clips)
* While new features like the magnetic timeline, permanent audio sync and auto-metadata generation are flat-out stunning.

NOTE: Nothing said, or implied tonight, indicated that you would need any special hardware. My guess is that any Mac you buy now will run FCP perfectly. Also, contrary to some rumors, I spoke with Apple engineering about Thunderbolt. This is a system level I/O connection. If your Mac has it, ANY version of FCP – or any other Mac application – will take advantage of it.

[Image courtesy Apple Inc. Click for enlarged view.]

THINGS I WAS STRUCK BY

While the slide show was identical to the February meeting, the demo was not. Randy Ubillos, who did the demo, added more features and additional explanations on effects (see the screen shot above). However, I was told later that the build that was demoed was the same build that was shown in February – and that the application has moved significantly forward since that time.

In other words, what we saw tonight was nowhere near the final form of the application.

I was also very impressed that audio was not treated as an unwelcome step-child. First, the demo paid a lot of attention to setting and maintaining audio sync, however lots of little details were also obvious:

* Sample rate precision in scrolling an audio clip
* Pitch corrected audio scrolling in slow motion
* Displaying waveforms at a size big enough to see what they look like
* Displaying audio levels within the waveform that are approaching clipping (as one engineer near me remarked, “And THAT took us a LONG while to figure out.”)
* Displaying audio peaks for the entire mix that are approaching clipping
* Improved audio cleanup controls, which can be applied or ignored by the user (these look to be borrowed from Soundtrack Pro)
* Adding fades with a keystroke, or by pulling in the top corners of a clip, with four different fade shapes, rather than the limit of two inside FCP 7; these, too, borrow interface ideas from Soundtrack Pro.

THE CROWD’S REACTIONS

In brief, the crowd was loving it. Granted, many of them got well-lubricated at the no-host bar before the event, but nonetheless, everyone seemed to have a good time.

The new interface drew applause, 64-bit support and background rendering had people drooling and the new price of $299 received a standing ovation.

MY REACTIONS

I’ve been thinking hard about this since I first saw the software six weeks ago.

And, truthfully, I’m very torn. There are some features here that I really like a LOT. There are a few that I don’t like at all. But there is a great deal that has not yet been said.

And that, I think, is the key point. The devil is ALWAYS in the details.

Apple has done its usual magnificent job of previewing a new product. But this is only the preview.

I met Randy Ubillos, Chief Architect for Video Applications at Apple, after he presented the demo of the software. I told him that parts of what I saw I liked a lot and parts had me quite concerned. And I asked if Apple was interested in our feedback. He immediately said that Apple is VERY interested in our feedback, that they are listening and want to make this application something that all of us can be proud of using.

I believe him. And I also believe that it is way too early to make any final decisions about this version. There are too many unanswered questions. For example, here are some questions the answers to which are still unknown:

* The retail price for FCP is $299 – but what is the retail price of the other software parts of the Suite? Are we back to ala carte pricing?

* The application will be sold through the Mac App store. What happens to all the great data files that were available with the suite in earlier versions?

* How does FCP X work with existing FCP 7 projects?

* What other applications ship with Final Cut and how do they integrate?

* How many of our existing plug-ins, peripherals, hardware, and other gear need to be updated to work with the new software?

* Editing does not exist in a vacuum, how do we share files, clips, metadata, and project information with other software tools?

* How does it handle media?

* How has QuickTime changed to support what Final Cut Pro X can do?

* Real-time, native video processing is great for editing – however, we still need to encode to get files on the web. How?

As of tonight, Apple hasn’t provided answers to these, or many other questions. As they do, or as I’m able to find them out, I’ll share them with you in this blog and my newsletter.

As one engineer told me at the Cupertino meeting in February, Final Cut Pro is still a work in progress. We’ve seen the outline of the work – the rough cut, if you will. Now we need to give the engineers time to listen to our feedback, polish it up, and deliver the final cut of Final Cut.

ONE LAST THOUGHT

I’ve made a promise to myself to provide training on the new version of Final Cut Pro as soon as possible after the release date.

If you are interested in getting up to speed quickly on the new version – please sign up for my free monthly Final Cut Studio newsletter. As I learn more, I’ll be sharing it with you there.

And as I make new training available, I’ll announce it there first.

For now, I’m going back to the drawing boards. I’ve got a lot of new work to do.

Larry

UPDATE – April 13, 2011

I just posted an eight minute audio review and commentary on the new version of Final Cut Pro X, with Michael Kammes. You can hear it here.

‘TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE SUPERMEET

I’m writing this at 9:50 PM from my hotel room at the 2011 NAB Show (National Association of Broadcasters) in Las Vegas, Nevada.

In less than 24 hours, we will know what the next version of Final Cut Pro will look like. If we are lucky, we may also learn the future of other software in the suite – Apple certainly has enough stage time to tell us.

What I am intrigued by is not what Final Cut Pro looks like – unlike most of the world, I’ve already seen it. What I am curious about is how much it has changed since Apple first revealed it.

When Apple presented the software to the group, they asked us to provide feedback. I provided a great deal, and I’m sure others did as well. I’m curious as to how Apple responded to what they heard.

I will be at the SuperMeet tomorrow, listening and taking notes. And, I’ll do a second NAB blog posting after the meeting about what I learned. But give me a few hours — initial reactions are not always accurate. I want to hear what Apple says, then allow myself some time to think about it.

Nonetheless, I’ve been reflecting about tomorrow night’s blog for almost two months. I’m looking forward to sharing my thoughts and – even more importantly – getting your reactions.

Tomorrow night is going to be … a jaw-dropper!

- – -

NABSHOWBUZZ.COM — LIVE FROM NAB!

My podcast – DigitalProductionBuzz.com – is at NAB, recording interviews and creating shows. Our first dozen interviews are online – we are posting interviews as fast as we get them recorded and edited. Then, we gather the highlights from our interviews and post a new BuZZ every night.

If you want to hear the newsmakers themselves, explaining what they are doing – in-depth interviews you can listen to quickly — take a listen to our NAB website: www.nabshowbuzz.com.

We haven’t done anything like this before and we are very interested in your reaction!

We hope to create about 20 interviews a day for the next three days, then create NAB Show Specials for the next week.

You’ll find everything posted here: www.nabshowbuzz.com.

- – -

LARRY IS A TWIT!

Well, ah, maybe that’s overstating things a bit. Let’s not get carried away.

Still, Leo Laporte invited me to be his lead guest at the start of his NAB coverage this morning on TWIT.TV. I was on for 15 minutes.

Plus, I’m invited back for an hour-long discussion on media this Wednesday morning on MacBreak Weekly. It will start sometime between 10:45 AM and 11:00 AM – Las Vegas time – this Wednesday.

See you then!

P.S. Thanks, John Stealey, for the screen-shot!

- – -

ARCHIVING UPDATE

I spoke with the president of The Tolis Group yesterday during our setup at NAB and discovered that they have an LTO-tape-based archiving solution, called BRU, for less than $4,000.

I told him that I could not find it easily on their website, at which point he and his webmaster and I are going to meet later this week to discuss this further.

However, I promised in my recent blog that if I discovered anyone with a reasonably-priced, LTO-based archiving solution that works on the Mac, I would mention it here.

BRU is highly-regarded and I’ve received many positive reviews of their gear from readers. Feel free to check it out for yourself.

The Tolis Group: www.tolisgroup.com

- – -

ADOBE’S BIG ANNOUNCEMENT

Adobe announced new upgrades today – they are releasing CS 5.5. But what really caught my attention was their announcement that they were now allowing you to rent their software.

Suspecting this was yet another ploy to get our data in “the cloud,” I spoke with Scott Morris, senior marketing director for Adobe.

What he told me was that when you rent software, your data stays on your system. “This is not software as a service,” he said. Instead, you are buying the full-featured software and installing it as usual. However, when you activate the program, it contacts an Adobe server to find out if this is a purchase or a rental.

If it is a rental, then each time the application starts, it pings the Adobe server to see if the rental is still valid. If it is, the program launches. If it isn’t, the program doesn’t launch.

In all cases your data is safe. If you send your files to someone who has the full program, the files can be opened, modified, and saved. If you stop renting for a few months, then start renting again, your files open exactly as they were last saved.

To me, this is a very elegant solution for people that need the power that Adobe software provides, but can’t justify the upfront cost of the purchase price. What I REALLY like is that our data remains “our data;” it is not forced to be stored somewhere “on the cloud.”

Weblink: Adobe Systems – www.adobe.com

For more details, listen to the Scott Morris interview.

- – -

AVID’S BIG ANNOUNCEMENT

Avid didn’t announce any new products – except for a technology demo of much tighter 3D integration within Media Composer which makes the process of handling 3D materials much more seamless.

However, what did catch my attention was that Avid announced a cross-grade for all Final Cut users to the latest version of Media Composer for only $999.

For more details, listen to the Maurice Patel interview.

- – -

HD IS THE NEW SD

It seems the video world is moving to higher resolutions.

Both Blackmagic Design and AJA announced support for 4K resolution playout. RED showed their Epic camera shooting 5K images. And Sony announced a new F65 camera that shoots 8K.

Clearly, the lesson is buy stock in companies that make or sell storage. These file sizes are going to be massive… And when you add stereo 3D, all your file sizes double!

Just as a rough guide, a 4K file is 4 TIMES bigger than a 1080p file. An 8K file is four TIMES bigger than a 4K file.

For more details, listen to the Nick Rashby interview.

- – -

THUNDERBOLT IS STARTING TO APPEAR

We are seeing previews of Thunderbolt support from a variety of vendors — AJA and Blackmagic Design for image capture and playback; and Promise, G-Technology, and LaCie for hard drives — there are probably others that I didn’t make note of.

Thunderbolt is in the very early stages of adoption – the real roll-out will occur this summer. But it promises to be everything we could want for speeding up data transfers and handling the massive file sizes we are about to experience.

Sigh… Just watch. Someday, not that far in the future, we’re gonna say: “Boy! I wish there was something seriously faster than Thunderbolt.” We are never satisfied…

- – -

More later, I’ll write again after Supermeet.

Larry

[ The following article was taken from my FREE Final Cut Studio newsletter for February.
Subscribe here. ]

The release of any new hardware is exciting; as we saw last week with the release of the new MacBook Pros.

However, the stunning news is the new Thunderbolt (née Light Peak) I/O technology. The ONLY reason this exists is because of the Pro market. The greatest novelist, or spreadsheet junky, in the world has absolutely no reason to get excited about this. FireWire meets their needs perfectly.

But for people pushing pixels (or waveforms) this is a birthday present come early.

WHAT IS THUNDERBOLT?

Thunderbolt is a very, VERY fast I/O (input/output) communications protocol (10 Gbps or 1.25 GB/second) that supports both hard drives and monitors. This is faster than anything else on the market.

Apple’s Thunderbolt white paper states:

For time sensitive data, such as video and audio during creation and playback, data transfer can be critical to the success of the work. Thunderbolt technology was specifically designed with video and audio applications in mind with inherently low latency and highly accurate time synchronization capabilities.

Currently, Thunderbolt is supported only on MacBook Pros. However, I have every expectation that this connection protocol will be added to all future Mac systems. (I don’t see it being added to IOS devices simply because they don’t hold enough data to require these kinds of transfer speeds. Well, at least not yet.)

Today, Thunderbolt connects two devices using copper wires, but the protocol has already been developed to support optical fiber as well, which provides longer cable runs and faster speeds; though without the on-board 10 watts of power.

The great news is that, unlike FireWire and USB, the protocol does not slow down when you have multiple devices attached to it.

Additional features include:

• Dual-channel, each 10 Gbps
• Bi-directional, equally fast in both directions
• Dual protocol, PCI Express for hard disks and DisplayPort for monitors
• Daisy-chain-able, supports up to six devices per channel
• Woks with both copper and fiber cabling, fiber allows longer cable runs
• Low latency, very, VERY short delays in transferring signals
• Delivers up to 10 watts of power over copper wiring, but not fiber, to support bus-powered devices. (Though this is not enough for most hard disks)

In short, this is some amazing technology!

For those that want an overview, here’s the relevant page from Apple on the technology: http://www.apple.com/thunderbolt/

For those that want more technical details, here’s Intel’s website on the new protocol: http://www.intel.com/technology/io/thunderbolt/index.htm

Here’s an additional analysis from Storage Newsletter: http://www.storagenewsletter.com/news/connection/analysis-intel-10gbs-thunderbolt

HOW FAST IS IT?

Remember the first time you saw Han Solo go into warp drive in Star Wars? It’s THAT fast!

It is:

• 10 gigaBITS per second (10 Gbps)
• 1.25 gigaBYTES per second (1.25 GB/s)
• More than twelve times faster than FireWire 800
• More than twenty times faster than USB 2
• Faster than USB 3, mini-SAS, FibreChannel, and all flavors of SCSI.

It is dazzlingly fast.

(This chart was published on Apple’s website.) PLUS, the spec calls for speeds ten times faster – up to 100 Gbps – in the near future. (No, not next week.)

Keep in mind that the only way you can take advantage of this new system is using a RAID. A single hard drive, no matter how large, does not begin to provide the speed offered by this new protocol. To take advantage of all the speed, you’ll need to invest in a RAID system.

UPDATE – Mar. 3, 2011

Adam Lloyd Connell sent me the following link to an EndGadget demo using Final Cut Pro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw

WHAT SUPPORTS THUNDERBOLT NOW?

Apple’s three latest MacBook Pros.

That’s it. No other hardware is currently shipping that supports the protocol.

On the other hand, until Apple ships a device containing this protocol, there is no incentive for any hardware manufacturer to create devices to support a protocol that doesn’t exist. First, Apple needs to ship something, then, the rest of the technology world can start to support it.

As always, this will take some time before we see actual products ship.

WHAT WILL SUPPORT THUNDERBOLT IN THE FUTURE?

Both Promise and LaCie have announced new hard drive systems that will support this protocol and both will be shipping in a few months.

I also sent emails to friends in the hard drive industry and every single one of them is frantically studying the new protocol so they can add it to their product line.

My expectation is that we will see Thunderbolt support on hard drives – more specifically RAIDs – sooner than on monitors. With nothing from any vendor before NAB in April. I expect most shipments to start in the early summer.

As one hardware vendor wrote:

Thunderbolt is THE hot topic of discussion everywhere. What happened is that when it was being developed, Apple went to Blackmagic Design, AJA, Promise, Western Digital, LaCie & even CalDigit to see if they’d be interested in being 1st onboard the tech, so it’ll be interesting to see what AJA, BMD & the rest will come out with. We already know Promise has a 4 bay and a 6 bay TB product line called "Pegasus" which doesn’t ship till April and LaCie has a new TB 2 bay, that I know of.

I don’t think it’ll kill FireWire anytime soon & our mini-SAS 8 bay product is still selling very solidly and will continue to do so at nearly 1000 MB/s with the ATTO R680 card.

CAN THUNDERBOLT BE RETROFIT ON EXISTING COMPUTERS OR STORAGE?

No.

Based on what I’ve learned so far, support for Thunderbolt can not be retrofit into current RAID technology. It requires a new chipset from Intel on both the computer and RAID to support the protocol. Also, the chipset does not look like it can be added via a PCIe card into a MacPro.

WHAT DOES THUNDERBOLT MEAN FOR THE FUTURE?

Thunderbolt is absolutely, and only, designed to meet the needs of the Pro market. No consumer needs speeds this fast – they can use it, they can appreciate it, but they don’t NEED it. Pros do.

To me, this is a strong indication that Apple has not forgotten the needs of Pro users. Which is a very good thing — for all of us.

Larry