@nirvana: "XML is a feature, not a creative feature."
Reality: XML is what allows creatives to work together. It represents the very core of collaboration. In collaborative arts, the collaboration is a driver of creativity. No creative team, no creative teamwork.
@nirvana: "I think its hilarious that you've dedicate yourself to bashing FCP X anywhere its talked about"
Reality: I've been relying on FCP based workflows since 2003. I bought my first personal copy in 2005. I have a copy of FCP X, and I like it very much. Indeed, in situations where it works, it works better than anything else I've ever used. Between the hardware and the software, I have spent thousands of dollars on my ability to edit in FCP. I have never dedicated myself to "bashing FCP anywhere it's talked about".
@nirvana: and you can't even respond honestly to people's points.
Reality: I can respond honestly, point by point, with this response being a case in point.
@nirvana: Not once in my life have I ever bashed an Avid product or Premiere, and I certainly don't jump into threads where they're discussed to do so, calling people "asshole", "nitwit", "moron", "dick", etc.
Reality: You introduced yourself to this conversation by denigrating the professional status of professional editors and post-producers, accused them of performing their jobs mindlessly, stated that they were simply luddites hostile to change, and that their inability to adapt to FCP X was a function of laziness, and NOT with any deficiencies in the product itself. In other words, you launched an unprovoked wave of personal attacks that had little bearing on the technical and business issues that have been central to the whole FCP X fiasco.
You were behaving like an asshole. And then you got upset when called out for behaving like an asshole. That's a quintessential dick move.
@nirvana: There exists a product called "7toX" that converts projects from FCP 7 to FCP X. It does the XML conversion.
Reality: Uncontested, but irrelevant. The concern with XML is not with the conversion of old projects to the new format (though that's certainly an issue). The concern is that a lack of native support means that FCP X cannot work seamlessly with industry standard software like ProTools, Maya, and so on. Given that a core function of an editor is compiling elements built in a variety of different systems, the inability to talk to those systems is a very big deal. Indeed, when people say "this is not a professional product" this is precisely what they mean; unlike its predecessor, it is fundamentally incompatible with the professional environments it's expected to manage.
@nirvana: Making convertibility easy is the whole purpose of using XML in the first place.
Reality: And that's why removing native support for XML is like going into an air traffic control tower and smashing the radios. How do you not understand this?
@nirvana: But if that doesn't work for you, then you don't have to transition to FCPX at all.
Reality: No one has to transition to FCP X, but they do have to transition. As noted elsewhere, ending sales of FCP 7 means that existing pipelines are frozen. No additional seats can be lawfully added. Firms wanting to grow legally will need to switch to a platform that will accomodate this growth. This is a non-trivial expense. Moreover, the announcement came with zero warning, which was ham-fisted in the extreme.
It is absolutely idiotic to say (as you did) that the "outcry" isn't coming from people faced with this unexpected and unnecessary cost, and that it's actually astroturf coming from Apple's competitors. In reality, it is coming from people who no longer have a clear roadmap from a primary vendor, can no longer plan their own operations accordingly, who were shocked by the ineptitude of the FCP X rollout, and who now have to assume the heavy cost of transitioning away from a suddenly untrustworthy partner.
@nirvana: So, what are you complaining about?
Reality: There is no question about what I, and many many others are complaining about. Only idiots who can't be bothered to read what they actually have to say (including, it seems, some within Apple itself).
@nirvana: A product you don't use doesn't have a feature you want, and so you're going to run around calling people names for the crime of liking that product?
Reality: See above. But just to reiterate, I use FCP X and I like it a lot. I don't think liking it is a crime. I never said anything that would suggest otherwise. Indeed, you'd have to be an idiot to respond to what I said with an assumption like this.