I have to agree with Terry and Todd (a first!  alert the media.).  Support, performance, and stability, and what those give to me during client supervised edit sessions is well worth the extra dollars.  Even at the current prices, the DX offerings should pay for themselves very quickly and then its golden from then on out

Like Terry, I played "where did the renders go?" with a client in the FCP room yesterday.  Gladly would have paid the extra DX-dollars to avoid that heat crawling up my neck as the client begins to realize that things just ain't right in FCP-land...

That said, the DX name is a bonehead move by Avid marketing, but they have already locked that in...

I guess I don't understand some of the reasonings of what people are posting.

Blkdog I believe was talking about how Avid has better customer service (although AJA customer service is above and beyond almost anything I've ever seen).  A few people have been talking about media management and losing renders.  None of this has anything to do with the issue at hand!

The discussion should be on the hardware.  Avid's service will continue to be the same, whether you have a box hooked up to your machine or not.  Avid's media management will continue to be the same, whether you have a box hooked up or not.

The only way in which these type of things are relevant is in the fact that you can ONLY use Avid hardware on Avid systems.  If you want the better tech support, go with Avid.  If you want better media management and not having to worry about losing renders, go with Avid.  Now that you chose to go with Avid, they feel the need to gouge the price of hardware since you have no choice.

The fact that you get things like better media management should be rolled into the price of the software (which it is, shown by the fact that it's software is priced more expensive than the competition).  They should not continue to up the price of other things simply because they can.  That would be no different than Avid making an "Avid keyboard and mouse" and making their software only work with that keyboard and mouse.  Then they charge 1000% more than any other keyboard and mouse, despite the fact that it doesn't do anything more than what other keyboard and mice do.

Now granted, the Avid hardware apparently DOES do things that the competition doesn't...but it also doesn't do things just the same.  Do their benefits, despite its shortcoming, demand a premium compared to the competition?  Avid seems to think so apparently.  But these are the same people that think secondary color correction costs $20,000 and that their toolkit comprised of a broken DVD program, a crippled 3d program, and a decent effects package commands the same price as all of final cut studio or close to Adobe's collection of indespensible programs.

SandmanX82:

Avid's service will continue to be the same, whether you have a box hooked up to your machine or not. 

No, it won't. You are complaining about higher prices. Part of that higher price goes to give you the excellent service Avid has provided in the past and looks like  they are poised to do again. R&D at Avid is not subsidized by iPods and  their corporate structure is five times as large as AJA's. All of  that extra muscle behind the product costs money.

SandmanX82:

Now granted, the Avid hardware apparently DOES do things that the competition doesn't

Darn skippy it does. Leaving  Mojo out of the equation  for a minute (THAT, I grant  you, is a misplaced product) the Nitris box leaves everything else in the dust. The throughput is just light-years beyond AJA, Blackmagic or the Matrox box. No other system can perform as well for the price.

Again, you are correct. Avid is not positioned well to compete in the low-end of our business. However, in my little corner of the world, I think I really like what they've done so far and I look forward to the imprint that the new execs make on the company.

BLKDOG:

R&D at Avid is not subsidized by iPods and  their corporate structure is five times as large as AJA's

I always hear that Final Cut can be sold so cheaply because Apple makes its money from iPods, Macs, etc.  The problem is that users generally don't care WHY a product costs more or less.   When someone is at the store, and they see one product that costs X amount of dollars, and a product that is similar right next to it that costs significantly more and comes with less (in this case, all the extra programs), a consumer is not going to care about the logistics of the company and why they have to charge more, etc.

So I agree, Avid is in a horrible position to compete in the low-end, which is really too bad, because for straight editing, nothing beats it by a long shot.  Well, that is until you have to get into doing effects..... (I swear Avid's effects are the bane of my existence!!!).  Maybe they should just start throwing studio toolkit in as part of the Avid package for everyone, and make it more of a "suite" like the other packages...then it will at least compete somewhat better with Adobe and Apple.  I can't imagine Studio Toolkit is wildly popular in the grand scheme of Avid (although maybe I'm way off base), so why not try to attract new business you may have lost to the others looking for "the complete package" by making it a standard addition?  (Sorry, this is kind of going way off topic )

SandmanX82:

a consumer is not going to care about the logistics of the company and why they have to charge more, etc.

I agree, if you are talking about the lower-end of  the business that only looks at software as a commodity and not as part of a business model. Professionals take a lot more into consideration like profit/loss ratios and downtime spent with inferior (albeit cheaper) offerings. A lot of people are willing to put up with FCP, etc because, for  the price, it is "good enough". I'm a believer in you get what you pay for. 

From your point  of view, I would guess that you may be in the part of the market  that Avid is not yet serving. So, if you look at just the number on the sticker, then you are right, Avid is not yet competing in that realm.

BLKDOG:

From your point  of view, I would guess that you may be in the part of the market  that Avid is not yet serving. So, if you look at just the number on the sticker, then you are right, Avid is not yet competing in that realm.

But I am in the area Avid is serving.  The place I work has 3 adrenalines, a symphony, and 2 DSs.  I'm just trying to make my Avid experience more enjoyable, and free upgrades to studio toolkit so that I don't have to jump to After Effects for every little thing all the time and can instead maybe use Avid FX more and stay within Avid would be the way to do it!

BLKDOG:

Darn skippy it does. Leaving  Mojo out of the equation  for a minute (THAT, I grant  you, is a misplaced product) the Nitris box leaves everything else in the dust. The throughput is just light-years beyond AJA, Blackmagic or the Matrox box. No other system can perform as well for the price

I totally agree with BLKDOG. The Nitris DX  is one impressive piece of equipment.

BLKDOG:

I really like what they've done so far and I look forward to the imprint that the new execs make on the company.

He's right. Let's give 'em a chance . .

Well Avid, as much as I love most everything about Media Composer, I could not convince the owners of a rapidly growing production company to make the switch from Final Cut Pro.

The main reason? The supporting hardware is still too expensive.  This company has already invested in several FCP systems with Kona 3 cards. They are not going to spend $12,500.00+ for the Avid hardware to do what they can already do now with AJA.  Yes, I know that you can do a lot more with Avid MC + Nitris, but they don't care.  All they know is that they can edit, finish and deliver HD programming with their current setup.  Oh yes, I know about the little Mojo thingy you guys have for less, but really, $7,500.00 for that?!  It looks so... well... impotent.  Just by having it in an edit bay.

Anyhoo, I hope you are "listening" because, despite having a better product, a full blown Final Cut system is still many thousands of dollars cheaper than even your lamest hardware options (Mojo SD).  And as many of tomorrows leading production companies gear-up, they will be using what is most economically feasible.  Additionally, as the base of Final Cut editors continues to grow, based on the ease of availability of FCP, Avid will continue to become less relevant in a professional environment.

So, keep playing "penny-smart, pound-foolish" Avid, and eventually, you'll run your editing base into the ground.  But hey, if that happens maybe Apple will offer to buy your NLE technology!

It's really sad, actually.  I just wish you guys would stop with all the half-measures and empty promises and realize that right now may very well be the turning point in the war of NLE's and Apple is winning.

I would suggest that it is the "owners of a rapidly growing production company" who are playing "penny-smart, pound-foolish"

Personally I do not think Avid needs clients who are so short sighted that they are unaware that the purchase price is the smallest cost of ownership.

In my small production company environment the difference in purchase price between Nitris DX to FCS 2 is recovered in a month, or two at the most, on a product with a 5 year plus shelf life. Incidentally the sums still showed in Avids favour when I worked the figures comparing the original Adrenaline HD price to FCP and AJA 5 years ago.

ntermini:

  I just wish you guys would stop with all the half-measures and empty promises and realize that right now may very well be the turning point in the war of NLE's and Apple is winning

There were many folks who thought this turning point happened  several years ago, but that was not accurate then.  I am really not sure anyone is really "winning".  With all the uncertainty in the market today, it's becoming more like a war of attrition...with the "no-mans land" being the gap between low and moderate-end work (and the tools that service it) and the more high end work...

What a few folks arguing here are missing is the element of scale and the value of time savings. 

Does the new hardware cost more than AJAs? Yes, but not much more in reality. To do what the Nitris DX does you would need both a Kona 3 WITH a K-Box AND an i/o LD at the least. And you still wouldn't have the RT performance. So you are still in the 2.5 times as much range for the cost.

Now flip that around and ask who sells more hardware? I'd be willing to bet AJA sells a heck of a lot more Kona cards. So they can have a lower price. Manufacturing costs are lower also if you actually look at the gear. So no, Avid can't compete on price.

But amazingly, Mercedes Benz can't compete on price with Hyundai either. But they are still in business.

So there is a place in the market for people who are willing to pay more to save precious time. If your time is cheap, and you have a lot of it to spare, certainly save a few thousand dollars and go the FCP route.

I for one am glad I have a choice.

Terry with respect you are working in Hollywood so your view while correct in your market may not be so correct across the rest of the planet.

Anyway the problem is not the Nitris box the problem is the silly pricing of the MojoDX and the price premium wanted for Symphony colour grading in my view.

NICKB:

Terry with respect you are working in Hollywood so your view while correct in your market may not be so correct across the rest of the planet.

Anyway the problem is not the Nitris box the problem is the silly pricing of the MojoDX and the price premium wanted for Symphony colour grading in my view.

I think that what a lot of people are not understanding about the pricing of Symphony DX is that it is a turnkey system with CPU, Monitors, speakers-etc.  thet pricing for just the Nitris DX advertised ($12,500) is only the box.  so saying "$20k more for 'just' Secondary CC" is not accurate. 

Symphony also offers other features BEYOND just Secondary Color Correction.  it offers RELATIONAL Color Correction.  you can correct one shot in the timeline, and apply it to a sub clip, master clip or a whole freakin' tape if you wanted to.  it also offers universal mastering so you can output your sequence in any format you want.  so start an NTSC project and output it as PAL.

Well, if you don't need those features, and all you need is Secondary CC... there are plenty of plugins that will give you secondary Color Correction.  you'll just have to render them. that might be "good enough" eh?

AndrewAction:

Personally I do not think Avid needs clients who are so short sighted that they are unaware that the purchase price is the smallest cost of ownership.

Whether you think they need them or not, in reality Avid DOES need them.  I'm not one to predict Avid is going to go out of business or go bankrupt or whatever else, but those type of rumors are obviously around and they have to materialize from something, some little hint of truth about them not doing well, or at least not nearly as well as they have in the past.  It's no secret.  Avid knows it...hence the need for this "new thinking" initiative.

I think the main problem of this whole new thinking thing is that they aren't going far enough.  The prices, while much lower than in the past, aren't low enough to persuade the majority of Final Cut or Premiere or Edius or whatever else users, to switch.  I doubt that Avid is going to generate enough new business from these people to make up for selling these products at lower prices.  If you're going to generate less money by selling for less, than you better make the price low enough to generate a lot of new business, which I don't think these point prices do.

And I'm not saying that Avid has to be the lowest priced kid on the street either.  If they're going to price their hardware significantly higher than the competition, than at least match the functionality of the other hardware in addition to offering more.   Don't just exchange one positive for another and then claim that your advantages are worth more than the competitions (whether they are or not).

With sooo many people in the Final Cut camp already, and with the majority of new businesses heading this way, there sure is a lot of "short sighted" people in this industry that Avid is losing its business to.

FunkyDragon:

I think that what a lot of people are not understanding about the pricing of Symphony DX is that it is a turnkey system with CPU, Monitors, speakers-etc.  thet pricing for just the Nitris DX advertised ($12,500) is only the box.  so saying "$20k more for 'just' Secondary CC" is not accurate. 

Symphony also offers other features BEYOND just Secondary Color Correction.  it offers RELATIONAL Color Correction.  you can correct one shot in the timeline, and apply it to a sub clip, master clip or a whole freakin' tape if you wanted to.  it also offers universal mastering so you can output your sequence in any format you want.  so start an NTSC project and output it as PAL.

Well, if you don't need those features, and all you need is Secondary CC... there are plenty of plugins that will give you secondary Color Correction.  you'll just have to render them. that might be "good enough" eh?

Secondary color correction, relational color correction, applying color correction master clips, sub clips, tapes.....it's all just Color Correction!  And charging that much for a different set of color correctors within the avid is just insane to me.  Universal mastering doesn't seem to be enough to close the gap either.  But that's just me.  If you absolutely need that kind of thing, well then I guess you're forced to pay that much for it, so people do.

For a lot of people though, I'm sure they'd go with "good enough" as you put it because, while the price is justified in being more, they don't necessarily feel that the price is justified in being THAT much more...whether we're talking about Avid's hardware or in this case, symphony.