"But while premiere has the bad reputation of being a cheap, only-for-weddings application , FCP was well marketed by the masters of delusion at Cupertino

The idea of Premiere being a crappy App is as undeserved as the idea of FCP being a killer application."

Interesting that you would use the word "delusion," as it appears that you may suffer from it yourself.  How about backing up your assertions with some reasoning?

I have worked with Avid, FCP and PP, and PP is by far the inferior product.

FCP has strengths that Avid hasn't addressed:  peak audio and illegal video detection, faster and more fluid audio mixing capabilities, works with many native file formats without re-importing or transcoding, works with cheap third party i/o hardware, batch exporting, integration with mogfx, color-correction, transcoding and audio apps, non-proprietary plug-in architecture, and so on.

Avid has features that FCP needs:  killer media management, metadata, backwards and forwards bin & sequence compatibility, shared media solutions, ability to work with cheap third-party hardware, less clunky audio keyframe editing and mixing, value-pricing, etc.

Both Avid and FCP are killer apps.   They just have their own strengths and weaknesses.  FCP has evolved to being very competitive with Avid on many fronts.  But, they're suited to different customers.  Avid dominates in shared media environments.  But, if a sole operator wants to do all the editing, mixing, color-correcting, graphics on a single machine, without breaking the bank, FCS rules, and Avid pales by comparison.

PP has critical flaws that rule it out as a serious contender:  no RS-422 control (Mac), no "mark clip" command, audio-scrub is a user preference - can't be toggled, target track mapping is ridiculous, no AAF import (Mac), etc.  It's main strengths are integration with AE and Encore and native 5.1 audio.  And as you say, it has a nice title tool, but I would imagine that if you use PP, you use AE also, and you'd do your titling on that.  Avid should have a title tool as nice as PP's.  I wouldn't call PP "crappy," but it has some maturing to do before I'd start using it on big projects.

I realize this is an Avid forum, and some cult members may not like it when Avid gets criticized, but this is tough love.  Avid has spinach in her teeth, and it's in her own best interest to tell her about it.

This "new thinking" seems to me at this point to be a too-late and poor imitation of "think different."  But, I truly hope I'm wrong about that. 

Well whatever happens avid better get it together quick because apple is in hollywood courting editors at studios and giving major training and software away for free. To editors and there assistants. They seem really committed to having their software cutting feature films. Avid needs to show commitment to it's loyal users. 

Well i upgraded my XPRO last week and the upgrade cost has now been recovered.

The upgrade is a no brainer for those who EARN money from editing.

Something very wrong if you cannot justify $500 extra for Media Composer.

Excellent point NICK, for most editors I know that would be about 1 day of work (or less). 

NICKB:

Well i upgraded my XPRO last week and the upgrade cost has now been recovered.

The upgrade is a no brainer for those who EARN money from editing.

Something very wrong if you cannot justify $500 extra for Media Composer.

Nick, I acknowledge your valuable contributions to this forum, but I don't care for the suggestion that something is wrong with us or we lack brains if we don't upgrade to MC.  Maybe you think it's a "no brainer" if you plan to cut DV or SD the rest of your career.  But, most of us plan to move on to HD, and the fact is Avid has no competitive options there.  I grant that AXP and MC can work with some HD material, but there is no HD monitoring, hence color-grading solution for less than a king's ransom, which makes the whole exercise pointless.

You may have "recovered your cost" in one day, but how did upgrading to MC give you anything that you couldn't have done on AXP?  I detect a bit of smoke and mirrors in your post.  I do EARN a good living from editing.  And I don't need Avid to do it either.  Neither do you.  

IMO,

Jim

Avid 99:

You may have "recovered your cost" in one day, but how did upgrading to MC give you anything that you couldn't have done on AXP?

Hi Jim,

Maybe he's using Animatte, or Paint, or one of the $1800 worth of BCC effects he got with the upgrade.

I've been editing with Avid stuff for over 10 years, so I understand the suspicion surrounding the "New Thinking" initiatives, but nobody is making anybody upgrade, and you said yourself you don't need Avid, so if upgrading to Media Composer doesn't get you what you want, then buy whatever does.

good luck,
Carl

Alright, this is starting to turn ugly. I think what JDB started here and what a lot of the other writers have hit on is, "We like Avid's product line. We prefer it to the competition in many ways. We would like to keep using it. But Avid, by its own hand, is forcing us away."

I do everything I can to work on Avid. But I often cut on my clients' gear. And more and more of my clients are moving away from Avid. Betamax was better than VHS, but it died anyway. It is easy for me to believe that the guys behind the curtain in Tewksbury  have their hands over their ears and are going, 'La, la, la, can't hear you,' to all the clear and to the point comments from people like JDB.

"If you don't like it, don't use it," is not an apt response. I've built my career on Avid and I watched it grow into an elegant collection of software (and it made those strides by acting on the suggestions of its users). I would hate to watch it die a premature and pointless death.

True Martin but there really is nothing we can do about it past what we are doing here. If Avid cannot maintain a competitive posture with its competition, we have no choice but to protect our clients and move to a system that will.

The days of 20k for a decent HD online Software/Hardware combo are long over. If that's where Avid continues to position itself, I believe it won't be long before even its core constituency moves on to more realistic asset accumulations.

Martin in Chicago:

"If you don't like it, don't use it," is not an apt response.

Hi Martin,

I didn't say "If you don't like it, don't use it."  I said if it doesn't do what you want, get something that will.

I'm all for posting on here and letting Avid know what features and capabilities we want them to implement, and I'm all for letting them know when they're getting it wrong.  At the moment, though, we've got 4 or 5 threads all on the same subject, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth and threats to bail for FCP are getting tiresome.

good luck,
Carl

camoscato:

the wailing and gnashing of teeth and threats to bail for FCP are getting tiresome.

Aw c'mon Carl... I wouldn't say that those threats are getting tiresome. 

I would more accurately say that they have gotten tiresome.

camoscato:

Maybe he's using Animatte, or Paint, or one of the $1800 worth of BCC effects he got with the upgrade.

Maybe.  But, he positions himself as a "serious user." I do too, so I use Automatic Duck and After Effects to do masking, painting and effects work.  I can't imagine many "serious users" preferring Avid and Boris for those tasks.  But, to each his own.  I'll concede your point, Carl, with my reservations.

I'm not banging the drum for FCP.  I'm joining the chorus who are claiming that Avid is forcing us who need to work in HD into the arms of competitors.  If Avid doesn't have some amazing announcement as of NAB time, it's suicide.  The doors are closing.  Any sharp business person knows it's cheaper to retain the customers you have than to lure them back, once they've moved on.

IMO, Avid needs to do one of two things:  Either make it's hardware equal in quality and features to it's competitors, and price it competitively.  Or, just open the door to using third-party hardware.  They could even continue to price their software at triple the competitor's.  Then, I'll just shut up about it already, and continue to bang the drum for Avid.  It's their choice, really.  Not mine.

Martin in Chicago:

"We like Avid's product line. We prefer it to the competition in many ways. We would like to keep using it. But Avid, by its own hand, is forcing us away."

This is precisely my viewpoint.  I'd love to keep using Avid, but my concern at this stage has progressed to that of the original poster of this thread.  What happens to upgrades?  How much do I need to fork out in order to upgrade Quicktime (because I have to upgrade Avid to keep my QT up to date)?

To me, the AXP upgrade costs were acceptable (as is the $500 upgrade to MC from AXP).  What concerns me is the cost of future upgrades to MC. 

 If you get an Assurance contract, then upgrades are free during the contract period.

Yeah, lets not get started on the errant voyage that is Avid assurance.

It's going to be hard to know what upgrades are going to cost inthe future. In my 18 years on an Avid I think there have been 20 different upgrade cost structures (Exaggerating for effect).

I wouldn't expect the sub-$100 upgrades to continue though. Graham was great at getting us cheap upgrades while he fixed all of the inherent problems (not that they are all fixed mind you) but I don't expect those ridiculously low prices to continue going forward.

BLKDOG:

Yeah, lets not get started on the errant voyage that is Avid assurance.

Indeed.  It's a poor way to do business with the non-enterprise market.  I believe that Assurance is not an option for me.

Fortunately, I can wait to make a decision on the upgrade.  I'll just use other editing applications until then.  Perhaps that just made my decision for me.