Jump to content

History of FinalCut Pro


Recommended Posts

Fascinating and illuminating article with some real insight into the history of FinalCut Pro. Written by someone who really knows the story. It is not a review of the new application, FinalCut Pro X but a reflection with an historical context of Apple's release of the new software.

Quote from the article: "Remember, when FCP was released, Apple stock was at $11 and they were largely considered to be on their way out. FCP 1.0 was released only a little more than year after Michael Dell famously answered the question about what he would do were he in charge at Apple with, “What would I do? I’d shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders”. At that time, FCP 1.0 was not in any way a foregone conclusion. It could have come and gone faster than Avid Liquid."

Read the full article HERE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating and illuminating article with some real insight into the history of FinalCut Pro. Written by someone who really knows the story. It is not a review of the new application, FinalCut Pro X but a reflection with an historical context of Apple's release of the new software.

Quote from the article: "Remember, when FCP was released, Apple stock was at $11 and they were largely considered to be on their way out. FCP 1.0 was released only a little more than year after Michael Dell famously answered the question about what he would do were he in charge at Apple with, “What would I do? I’d shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders”. At that time, FCP 1.0 was not in any way a foregone conclusion. It could have come and gone faster than Avid Liquid."

Read the full article HERE

FCP is the greatest success story in the history of post production techno stuff. Way beyond anything Avid, ProTools, etc, more on the level of Sony, but with much great numbers of units out there. Which is why people are....oh, never mind.

phil p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I'll bet you guys didn't know this..

FCP was originally developed by Macromedia. Thats right, the same people that did Flash and Dreamweaver. After spending many years on the development cycle, at the last moment Macromedia decided that they didn't want a Video Editing software in their product line-up, and ended up selling the whole thing to Apple for a song.

Just think.. FCP was almost an Abode product!!

-Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cut_Pro

"Randy Ubillos created the first three versions of Adobe Premiere, the first popular digital video editing application.[7] Before version 5 was released, Ubillos' group was hired byMacromedia to create KeyGrip, built from the ground up as a more professional video-editing program based on Apple QuickTime. Macromedia could not release the product without causing its partner Truevision some issues with Microsoft, as KeyGrip was, in part, based on technology from Microsoft licensed to Truevision and then in turn to Macromedia. The terms of the IP licensing deal stated that it was not to be used in conjunction with QuickTime. Thus, Macromedia was forced to keep the product off the market until a solution could be found. At the same time, the company decided to focus more on applications that would support the web, so they sought to find a buyer for their non-web applications, including KeyGrip; which, by 1998, was renamed Final Cut."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bet you guys didn't know this..

FCP was originally developed by Macromedia. Thats right, the same people that did Flash and Dreamweaver. After spending many years on the development cycle, at the last moment Macromedia decided that they didn't want a Video Editing software in their product line-up, and ended up selling the whole thing to Apple for a song.

Just think.. FCP was almost an Abode product!!

-Richard

Yes, I do know, I was there!

phil p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's kind of stunning that the lead design guy on the original Final Cut Pro, Randy Ubillos, was also the lead guy on Adobe Premiere. And he was the guy who completely changed FCP into FCPX.

Some users are screaming for Ubillos to be burned at the stake:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/5537

--Marc W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The killer is, a few years after Apple bought and reworked FCP, they also bought Emagic Logic. I figured "Great... they'll give it the same postproduction upgrades and careful workflow thinking they gave to FCP!"

A year or two later I made an appointment at an Apple store to speak with their Logic/FCP/film/video expert. I asked the guy some very simple questions about native timecode (as opposed to MIDI) or multichannel/stamped bwav. He gave me a blank look: "No, Logic is designed for musicians..."

Just think: Logic could have been the PT/Nuendo killer in our industry...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched an interesting presentation about FCPX from Tekserve today, you can check it out here:

And Apple released an update to Logic Pro yesterday, which makes me feel like they're not turning their backs on the pro users. I feel like we're in a transition period right now, and that there's a good chance that FCPX will remain relevant amonst pro editors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched an interesting presentation about FCPX from Tekserve today, you can check it out here:

And Apple released an update to Logic Pro yesterday, which makes me feel like they're not turning their backs on the pro users. I feel like we're in a transition period right now, and that there's a good chance that FCPX will remain relevant amonst pro editors.

Ah, Evan my man, a good client of mine. Was wondering what his opinion was on this new software.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is probably the single best article I've read to date on FCP versus FCP X and and how Apple's thought processes work. Ron Brinkmann, a former Apple insider, shares from a unique and candid perspective:

http://digitalcompos...06/28/x-vs-pro/

Excellent article with very clear insight into how Apple operates. I will quote a small excerpt for those who might not read the whole article:

"So if you’re really a professional you shouldn’t want to be reliant on software from a company like Apple. Because your heart will be broken. Because they’re not reliant on you. Use Apple’s tools to take you as far as they can – they’re an incredible bargain in terms of price-performance. But once you’re ready to move up to the next level, find yourself a software provider whose life-blood flows only as long as they keep their professional customers happy. It only makes sense.

ADDENDUM. I suppose I should make it clear (since some people are misinterpreting a few things) that I’m not complaining about Apple’s decisions with regards to either Shake or FCPX. (As a stockholder I’ve got very little to complain about with regards to Apple’s decisions over the past several years :-))

And, in spite of the fact that MacRumors characterized this post as saying “Apple Doesn’t Care about Pro Market” I don’t believe at all that ‘professionals’ should immediately flee the platform. As with anything, you should look at the feature set, look at the likely evolution, and make your own decisions. My perception of the high-end professional category is informed by my history in feature-film production, which is a large, cooperative team environment with a whole lot of moving pieces. Yours may be different."

I will add that there are lessons to be learned with regard to a lot of the tools we use everyday. There are good reasons why we rely on companies like Zaxcom, Sound Devices (and of course Nagra for so many years) and pay a premium over a mass market item like a Zoom recorder. We need Zaxcom, Sound Devices... they need us as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple looked at its core users, individual private citizen-users of cool technology, and made an ALL NEW editing app FOR THEM: FCPX. Whether or not Apple decides to add in all the stuff that current pro users want is up in the air. They certainly COULD do all that if they wanted to, the real question is whether or not they think the tiny pro market (compared to phones and pads) is worth the trouble (pro users are a cranky, mouthy bunch). I guess we'll see. Prosumer types really like FCPX a lot, and the sales have been brisk. If you want a professional application made by a less inscrutable company that is more focussed on pro users as its core market, well, you know where to look! But whoever makes the apps you end up using, be sure that they will be following Apple's lead in interface design etc, if not now then soon!

phil p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

product development is often driven by how well things can be demoed

Makes me think of their Garageband for iPad app. When it was announced the demo of it felt like a seductive infomercial. I'm sure gobs of people gobbled it up on the App Store for $4.99 (it was available immediately following the announcement, of course). I know some people who bought it, and they never use it. I tried it out on a friend's iPad and it was sort of fun, in a goofy kind of way, but it didn't strike me as something I would actually use, so I never bought it for my iPad. I wonder how many iPad DAW developers watched that announcement and saw untold numbers of coding hours evaporate into Apple's $4.99 wonder tool?

Anyhow, I don't want to derail the topic. I'm kind of warming up to the idea of maybe buying FCPX someday, but then I remember that I have a working copy of FCP7 and I chuck the idea right out the window. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...