bradbell.tv

lonelysandwich:

…assume that there are many, many smart people on the team responsible for this product, people who have likely been obsessing over it for many years. Assume that there is a roadmap many years long in either direction. Assume that at least most of the backlash over the release of Final Cut Pro X was anticipated, and that Apple probably believes quite firmly they have in mind the best interests not only of the editors who use their software, but also of the medium as a whole. It’s not hyperbole to say that Apple writes history with their products. So let’s take it as read that some interesting thought has gone into this process.

Final Cut Pro is like a soap opera and Apple is the network. You’ve had a character, let’s say Luke and Laura, who’ve been around, developing their storyline and their romance for a decade. The show’s viewers are heavily invested in Luke and Laura. But the network decides that Luke and Laura represent an old, outmoded character type, and that the new way is young, hip, lean…

Apple created iTunes first as a tool for collecting one’s “own” media, and THEN evolved into a platform for distributing external media (very valuable content) through the store. With Final Cut Pro X, Apple aims to establish a platform through which users can generate content internally and therefore become even more accustomed/adaptable to the mechanisms of media consumption. A solid example of this: the new Motion embraces a new grammar of effects publishing rather than just rendering. Meaning the tool is becoming one of authoring reproduceable effects to be hooked into FCP X with adjustable parameters, rather than rendered out with parameters baked in.

Read the whole article…

I think Adam Lisagor is on the right track.

However, I wonder if the content Apple ultimately wants to sell will instead be made and sold by professional creators to other professional creators, who in turn make and sell movies to organisations and businesses who ‘sell’ content to the public. Perhaps the studio system is dying. It has more in common with the record companies than computer companies, after all. Making and selling content which can’t easily be reproduced in a world where everything can be easily and cheaply reproduced does not a business model make :-)

For the rest of us, we can shoot, and edit, and buy motion graphics templates, and buy visual effects templates, and in fact buy conventional story templates to create better work for our clients faster. And of course, sound effects, music, and so on. Our collaborators are out on the network. No elements are bespoke. Movies are made by nearly bespoke templates. Maybe Apple is right about digital media in the networked economy. Digital efficiencies make costs decline. Everything is geared for the little guys. We’re the long tail. It’s an internety world.

If that sounds goofy, think of it as developers and the App Store. Why not? That’s how I’d like to work. (That’s how web design works now, although often inelegantly. Why not making movies?)

I have to assume Apple have not gone insane. This has paid off many times in the past. Imagine they are smart. In that case, my tiny investment in the big vision is far more interesting and likely to pay off than investing in the status quo.