SandmanX82:

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.

I remember working with a Sony digital switcher, maybe 15 or 16 years ago. It had two channels of DVE! WOW! Pricetag for the switcher alone: 100K plus. A complete system like the Symphony Nitris DX for $35K complete? A pipe dream.

Brickwad:

SandmanX82:

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.

I remember working with a Sony digital switcher, maybe 15 or 16 years ago. It had two channels of DVE! WOW! Pricetag for the switcher alone: 100K plus. A complete system like the Symphony Nitris DX for $35K complete? A pipe dream.

Yea, but were there alternatives back then that for all intents and purposes did the same thing, only for a fraction of the price?  I don't think the main discussion is so much about the absolute cost, so much as the relative cost to other products.

SandmanX82:

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

The fact that you don't understand is crystal clear.

Despite multiple posts from Andrew, Blackdog, Terrence and others you can't seem to wrap your head around the simple idea that Avid costs more but for many users it's well worth the extra money.  You continue to harp on the price point.  If low price is your only consideration in the products you purchase, I think you might have better luck at Wal-Mart.

Haze:

SandmanX82:

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

 

The fact that you don't understand is crystal clear.

Despite multiple posts from Andrew, Blackdog, Terrence and others you can't seem to wrap your head around the simple idea that Avid costs more but for many users it's well worth the extra money.  You continue to harp on the price point.  If low price is your only consideration in the products you purchase, I think you might have better luck at Wal-Mart.

I keep "harping" on price point because whoever created this thread in the first place made it for discussing PRICE.  Please enlighten me as to what I should be discussing in this PRICE-RELATED/VALUE-RELATED THREAD.  Why don't you make that "crystal clear" to me....

Obviously it's worth the price point to some.  I can see that here when people clearly say that it's worth it to them (I'm sure that's a pretty good indicator).  I'm addressing whether it's worth it to Avid.  Obviously the people on Avid message boards are in the minority, or else FCP wouldn't have a roughly 50% stranglehold on the market and Avid only around 20% (last I read anyway...and probably shrinking).

And don't act as though I said price point was the only consideration.  Unless you're living under a rock, price point is a consideration for all people, and to most a very important consideration.  So yes, while we all feel that Avid is obviously the superior product, there are still price restrictions that dictate things for people no matter how much they prefer the product.  I imagine that's a big part of the reason why Avid lost so much business in the first place.  But I guess all those people are just shopping at Wal-Mart now as you so eloquently put it.

Ok, let's keep this civil or I'll send you both to the corner of the internet!

SandmanX82:

or else FCP wouldn't have a roughly 50% stranglehold on the market and Avid only around 20%

What you need to understand is that this is a percentage of the ENTIRE NLE market. Of which Avid has ALWAYS had a lower share than just about everyone. Premier has been the top selling NLE almost since its inception and sells more than FCP and Avid combined. Avid, however, has almost and 80% share of the professional broadcast NLE market. Meaning studios, broadcast outlets, etc. Though their share of this market has been nibbled at by lower cost solutions, they are still  the dominant player.

As I said before, though Avid would love to have more of the independent and boutique market, they just are not currently structured to provide products in it. Like a lot of our business, you are commoditizing a tool and expecting it to fall in line with the rest of the off the shelf products out there when, in reality, Avid provides a full business solution to post production and not just a box of software.

BLKDOG:

Ok, let's keep this civil or I'll send you both to the corner of the internet!

Always the peacekeeper Blkdog!

BLKDOG:

Avid provides a full business solution to post production and not just a box of software.

Sometimes I wish Avid would provide just a box of software.  That way they can concentrate on making Avid better, and people like AJA, who sell much more and therefore can still profit while keeping prices in line, can provide hardware solutions.  Wishful thinking, I know.

SandmanX82:

Sometimes I wish Avid would provide just a box of software.

Right, that's the whole "not positioned to compete in the lower end market" part. Like I said, maybe the new execs will position the company differently, we'll have to wait and see.

ShowBUSINESS

MovieBUSINESS

PostproductionBUSINESS

Make the NITRIS DX box earn its price.

These Avid tools are designed for business users not 'film-makers' working on no/low budget projects.

SandmanX82:

Sometimes I wish Avid would provide just a box of software. 

They do, it's called Liquid and it's really cheap.

TCurren:

SandmanX82:

Sometimes I wish Avid would provide just a box of software. 

They do, it's called Liquid and it's really cheap.

I'm fairly certain you know what I'm getting at, and it sure isn't Liquid.

' ...and it sure isn't Liquid.'

Media Composer?

Everyone has a threshold of pain for pricing, and I think to insinuate a lack of professionalism because someone else's is lower than yours is a bit pompous.  Some people can bill $100/hr. for MC some can bill $500 - and it isn't just about the editor's skill set.

I've seen pricing comments that range from “they hit the nail on the head,“ to “will I have to pay $500.00 for the AXP upgrade to MC 2.8 and then AGAIN for 3.0?!!!”  My threshold of pain was under 10k for a comprehensive BOB with software.  I probably will spring for the Nitris box, but I was really hoping to have the budget to do 2 full seats.  Now it will be one NDX and a Mojo.

My concern with the pricing, apart from my own wallet, is; will enough people embrace this gear at these price points to make further development economically feasible for Avid?  Without a basic HD I/O box, what was the point of dropping the software price.  Additionally, if I owned a bigger facility with 10 or 20 seats, I'd be insulted that I have to pick up the tab for the software development through these hardware costs.  Why not just have the software cost 10k and keep the hardware reasonable.  After all it's the software that makes it an Avid.

NICKB:

' ...and it sure isn't Liquid.'

Media Composer?

Yes, that's what I was getting at.  I wish that Avid would just concentrate on software (ie. Media Composer).

SandmanX82:

Yea, but were there alternatives back then that for all intents and purposes did the same thing, only for a fraction of the price?  I don't think the main discussion is so much about the absolute cost, so much as the relative cost to other products.

There was. It was the "Video Toaster." It was pretty cool. A switcher on an Amiga (Commodore) Computer. It also had paint, a character generator, lightwave 3D, and the bewitching "Kiki wipes!" Unfortunately, it didn't quite produce an output that was good enough. Then Pinnacle came out with its version of the Toaster called "Alladin" better output quality, but still not as good as the Sony. By today's standards, these were primitive tools indeed. But at the time, they were also considered primitive. None of my clients would have even considered having their spots done on a Toaster.

Today, I have six Avids and One FCP. The guy who does my stop frame clay animation likes to cut his own stuff, and FCP's what he's familiar and comfortable with. I'm cool with that, the final product looks fine. We produced a DVD for POP promotion for a chain of retail stores that combined stop frame and live action, and he cut it together on FCP. Then one day, the client arrived and he wanted to edit out some dialogue, and cover the jumped video frames with some B-roll footage. Two minute deal on the Adrenaline. But on FCP, with the client sitting behind him, he clunked around trying to trim the audio, couldn't play back without rendering after every edit, and had the client tearing out his hair over having to wait so long for something he's seen me do in a matter of seconds in the other room. This client does not want anything else done on FCP.

I do a LOT of work, thank God, and I don't usually have clients sitting behind me. But if I had to do everything on FCP I would lose money - pure and simple. I can't afford the extra time, and I can't afford to alienate clients who know what Avid is and trust it. To me, Avid to FCP is like the Sony switcher to the Toaster. Kind of like the comparison on another post in this thread: FCP to Liquid. For me, Avid is the most cost effective way to go - despite the lower price tags on the other stuff. But that's just me . . .

Brickwad:

SandmanX82:

Yea, but were there alternatives back then that for all intents and purposes did the same thing, only for a fraction of the price?  I don't think the main discussion is so much about the absolute cost, so much as the relative cost to other products.

There was. It was the "Video Toaster." It was pretty cool. A switcher on an Amiga (Commodore) Computer. It also had paint, a character generator, lightwave 3D, and the bewitching "Kiki wipes!" Unfortunately, it didn't quite produce an output that was good enough. Then Pinnacle came out with its version of the Toaster called "Alladin" better output quality, but still not as good as the Sony. By today's standards, these were primitive tools indeed. But at the time, they were also considered primitive. None of my clients would have even considered having their spots done on a Toaster.

Today, I have six Avids and One FCP. The guy who does my stop frame clay animation likes to cut his own stuff, and FCP's what he's familiar and comfortable with. I'm cool with that, the final product looks fine. We produced a DVD for POP promotion for a chain of retail stores that combined stop frame and live action, and he cut it together on FCP. Then one day, the client arrived and he wanted to edit out some dialogue, and cover the jumped video frames with some B-roll footage. Two minute deal on the Adrenaline. But on FCP, with the client sitting behind him, he clunked around trying to trim the audio, couldn't play back without rendering after every edit, and had the client tearing out his hair over having to wait so long for something he's seen me do in a matter of seconds in the other room. This client does not want anything else done on FCP.

I do a LOT of work, thank God, and I don't usually have clients sitting behind me. But if I had to do everything on FCP I would lose money - pure and simple. I can't afford the extra time, and I can't afford to alienate clients who know what Avid is and trust it. To me, Avid to FCP is like the Sony switcher to the Toaster. Kind of like the comparison on another post in this thread: FCP to Liquid. For me, Avid is the most cost effective way to go - despite the lower price tags on the other stuff. But that's just me . . .

To me that sounds more like the guy wasn't as familiar with Final Cut as he should have been.  I know Final Cut is in no way as real time as Avid, but if your settings are set up correctly, and you know what you're doing (as in not having to clunk around to do something like trimming), then it should probably not have been such a problem.

I rarely do anything on Final Cut, but I've seen other businesses use it, with clients sitting behind them and all, and things are never as bad as most forum people make them out to be.  If it was really THAT bad, these companies wouldn't be in business.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say you're lying or anything, but I think a lot of the problems are more often than not user error.  I know what you're getting at though.  I guess it all comes down to different strokes for different folks.