Initial Final Cut Pro X reviews negative, citing missing features

Apple's Final Cut Pro X, released only yesterday, has already received backlash from users who need certain cut features from the last version. In particular, the absence of multicam support has caused a stir in the community, with some users going as far as to dub the new release "iMovie Pro".

Final Cut Pro X currently holds a 3-star rating in the Mac App Store, the only place the software is available from. The majority of reviews are 1-star, including the highest rated review. Complaints range from the inability to import previous Final Cut Pro projects, missing SDI-out support, a forced single-window interface, and a lack of multicam support.

Reviewers have also noted the similarities between iMovie and FCPX. While users can't import older FCP projects, iMovie projects will import fine. The interface also sports a look not too far removed from iMovie. FCPX's new Events media management system is also reminiscent of iMovie's workflow.

There may be light at the end of the tunnel, however. Reactions bear a striking similarity to that of initial releases of Mac OS X and iOS. Philip Hodgetts has stated that multicam support will come in a later update, along with an improved replacement for the XML workflow and an import tool for Final Cut Pro 7 users. Despite all the missing features, yesterday's initial release has rebuilt the foundations of Final Cut Pro that had begun to show its age recently.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Hulu launches Android app for several smartphones

Next Story

TechSpot: QNAP TS-412 Turbo NAS Review

27 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Gaaah !! Just tried it out. They need to polish it a lot more. The missing features are quite a deal breaker. Though I can definitely see a lot of home users migrating to this (if editing is their cuppa tea).

"you all should hate yourself for failing each other", Jobs to MobileMe team.
I think they are also going to get something similar.

FMH said,
"you all should hate yourself for failing each other", Jobs to MobileMe team.
I think they are also going to get something similar.

I never mentioned i use a mac... I bet you are one of the people who said vista was rubbish because microsoft make changes to their os and i don't see vista lacking features that was in xp... If the are rebuilding fine but don't bring microsoft and adobe in this to justify the lack of features fcpx has.... I think microsoft must have rebuild their office software several times... Office is so easy to use for both professionals and people who are not just like me... I dont really have to learn to use office and i have to press F1 anymore since they used the ribbon.

FMH said,
"you all should hate yourself for failing each other", Jobs to MobileMe team.
I think they are also going to get something similar.

same can be said on itunes how the software gives windows bsod so that people will get ****ed with windows... And why do u expect microsoft to make their somewhere better on mac? Its a simple market strategy... They encourage you to use windows on your mac. There is no way microsoft is going to give offices a reason to use mac over windows with their own softwares. Apple should improve their own alternative to microsoft office so people on mac can stop using ms office. If its as bad as you say why people prefer it to apples product. I know office and photoshop are in the top 5 must used software in mac...

benzema said,

I never mentioned i use a mac... I bet you are one of the people who said vista was rubbish because microsoft make changes to their os and i don't see vista lacking features that was in xp... If the are rebuilding fine but don't bring microsoft and adobe in this to justify the lack of features fcpx has.... I think microsoft must have rebuild their office software several times... Office is so easy to use for both professionals and people who are not just like me... I dont really have to learn to use office and i have to press F1 anymore since they used the ribbon.
What does this has to do anything with what I said? I dont understand you.
And no, I'm not one of those people who thinks Vista was rubbish. It was all exaggerated.

FMH said,
What does this has to do anything with what I said? I dont understand you.
And no, I'm not one of those people who thinks Vista was rubbish. It was all exaggerated.

sorry man am commenting for the first time with opera mini and the site is displayed in mobile view... I really wasn't replying your post... It was for some blind isheeps who try to direct the fingers pointed at apple towards adobe and microsoft...

It seems to be in the same state as Quicktime X - it would be nice except it lacks features.

There will always be people who will cry when a new version replaces a user interface they've spend ages to learn. But sometimes you just have to throw the old crap away and start over. It worked great for OSX. I wish Microsoft and Adobe had the audacity to do this too instead of just adding more stuff on top of their old stuff without properly considering how it fits in the user interface.

Some also seem to have a hard time accepting that programs could be easy to use instead of the complicated behemoths most editing software is. I remember even reading an article on how Bloomberg's customers didn't want them to upgrade their terminals because it would make them seem less professional if people didn't have to spend a long time to learn to use them.

LaXu said,
It seems to be in the same state as Quicktime X - it would be nice except it lacks features.

There will always be people who will cry when a new version replaces a user interface they've spend ages to learn. But sometimes you just have to throw the old crap away and start over. It worked great for OSX. I wish Microsoft and Adobe had the audacity to do this too instead of just adding more stuff on top of their old stuff without properly considering how it fits in the user interface.

Some also seem to have a hard time accepting that programs could be easy to use instead of the complicated behemoths most editing software is. I remember even reading an article on how Bloomberg's customers didn't want them to upgrade their terminals because it would make them seem less professional if people didn't have to spend a long time to learn to use them.


Ddi you not see what they did with ribbon? Are you on kool aid? Microsoft change interface and added loads of features without taking any... Improve stability, loadtime etc... Why wdo you try to make adobe and microsoft look bad because apple is doing something useless.

benzema said,

Ddi you not see what they did with ribbon? Are you on kool aid? Microsoft change interface and added loads of features without taking any... Improve stability, loadtime etc... Why wdo you try to make adobe and microsoft look bad because apple is doing something useless.

Adding a new interface layer isn't the same as completely rebuilding an application from scratch. If you haven't noticed FCPX has had loads of backend improvements which it needed if it was to stay competitive in this field over the next 10 years.

All the other features professionals want will come eventually, if they don't like it they can keep using FCP7 until FCPX is mature enough?

benzema said,

Ddi you not see what they did with ribbon? Are you on kool aid? Microsoft change interface and added loads of features without taking any... Improve stability, loadtime etc... Why wdo you try to make adobe and microsoft look bad because apple is doing something useless.

Have you seen Adobe & Microsoft Software on OS X? Have you tried to use anything other then changing fonts?

Have you seen the load times and/or lack of stability that kicked in at times, or Microsoft back-peddling with the ribbon approach in Office 2010/Office 2011? And also to be fair - the ribbon locked away much of the functionality available in the Toolbars/Menu to all but advanced users that knew how to bring it back. Hell - they can't even get Outlook 2011 to export back to Outlook 2010

While I agree they should have an import function in FCP X - look into your facts first please when you consider Office 2007 & the ribbon an improvement in all aspects.

While there are improvements - I dislike having to boot into Windows 7 and either Office 2007 or Office 2010 simply because Microsoft can't get Office 2008 or Office 2011 to successfully inter-operate with documents created in Office 2007. And I am not talking Macro's - I am talking protected fields and drop down lists.

I would put up with longer load times in some extents - if it meant the programs operated correctly.

LaXu said,
...

Rewriting code does not make it more efficient.
When rewriting code, there is a 100% chance you'll need to fix it later because the original code contained bugfixes which you didn't remember.

(however, I think - or, rather, I hope - Microsoft has some plans to rewrite Office in .NET...it would make sense)

LaXu said,
It seems to be in the same state as Quicktime X - it would be nice except it lacks features.

There will always be people who will cry when a new version replaces a user interface they've spend ages to learn. But sometimes you just have to throw the old crap away and start over.

Agree completely...

It worked great for OSX.

OS X wasn't new, the core OS technology is bandaids and duct tape on an OS from the 80s that had even more duct tape and band aids added when it was XNU, and then released to the open source community to cobble together even more pieces to try to make them fit.

And to make it so magically revolutionary, the graphics model they used was the same 1980s display postscript, now called display PDF, and other than adding in a Windows like 'taskbar/dock', kept the same Menu and outdated GUI concepts that even Xerox had abandoned in the early 90s.


I wish Microsoft and Adobe had the audacity to do this too instead of just adding more stuff on top of their old stuff without properly considering how it fits in the user interface.

Ok, so you haven't used Windows 7, or Office recently. Windows 7 and Office both shoved a new UI paradigm at users without them even fully noticing. With Vista and Windows 7, they took out 'menu bars' and 'menus', replacing them with more advanced GUI concepts. Office 2007/2010 not only removed menus, but also the nested UI concepts of dialog boxes. Thus allowing users access to all the functionality of complex software, without taking the user 'away' from what they are working on. This is also why the 'live' previews that the Ribbon interface also offers works and works well as the user and the complex options and things that would have been buried in menus and application locking dialog boxes are now a part of the document creation process.

Menus are just a list of words/commands that were a kludge for GUIs in the early 80s as there was no way offer all the functionality in a limited pixel based display back then. Things change, somehow Apple still hasn't gotten away from making their users memorize word lists (menus) though. I WISH APPLE WOULD HAVE THE AUDACITY to give up a 1970s GUI kludge like menus which are a hold over of a textual interface design.


Some also seem to have a hard time accepting that programs could be easy to use instead of the complicated behemoths most editing software is. I remember even reading an article on how Bloomberg's customers didn't want them to upgrade their terminals because it would make them seem less professional if people didn't have to spend a long time to learn to use them.

This I agree with, and it does describe Adobe software, especially illustrator, when other illustration software has demonstrated far better and more intelligent ways for users to interact with graphical design/drawing.

This doesn't fit Microsoft though, especially when you look at Media Center, TabletPC, Surface, ZuneHD UI, WP7 UI, and Windows 8's upcoming UI changes. They are always pushing the envelope and taking simple and solid UI tested designs and radically moving them in a positive direction.

DomZ said,

Adding a new interface layer isn't the same as completely rebuilding an application from scratch. If you haven't noticed FCPX has had loads of backend improvements which it needed if it was to stay competitive in this field over the next 10 years.

All the other features professionals want will come eventually, if they don't like it they can keep using FCP7 until FCPX is mature enough?

Ok, up front this is going to be a rant, and it directed at everyone that seems to think Apple is good at doing this type of development and UI design right, not just at your misguided constructs of what Apple does vs what Microsoft does..

Microsoft has rewritten a ton of software from the ground up, without people even noticing when it wasn't necessary for them to notice. For example, Microsoft added an entire new video subsystem to Vista, that not only created a new video driver model, but kernel level advancements, a complete new rendering system and a vector based composer on top of it.

Yet people didn't even notice because all the software from the last 30 years still ran and looked the same even though it was being completely handled and rendered and displayed using new code and a new model.

Microsoft does stuff like this all the time, but people don't always notice because they do make it work so seamless that people think it is the same underlying code base, when it is new.

What this gave Windows is a lot of graphical tools that just don't exist in ANY OTHER OS, and would require a major rewrite because other OSes like OS X and Linux and OpenBSD have rigid non-object based kernel architectures and are contrained by their fundament UNIX OS model that breaks really easily with change as the IPC is generic parameter based instead of an Object Based OS model like NT. (Which is why the NT designers and Microsoft RAN from UNIX when designing NT, as they did not want an OS that would be locked into an inflexible model that was designed in the 60s.)

PS A couple things this gave Windows that no other OS can do is the ability to manage GPU thread and pre-emptively multi-task GPU operations, handle GPU SMP, and implement features that only a vector composer can properly handle. All of which are important for more GPU processing, multple 3D rendering applications on screen without waiting on application yielding or even much of a performance hit to them, and the ability to create the new UI model in Windows 8 that is capable of merging the best of Windows 7 with the best of a whole new way to interact with a computer.

So people really think Apple 'rewrites' and 'innovates' and Microsoft just slaps crap together? Do people not pay attention?

Even the freaking GPU in ANY Mac and the GPU in the iPhone4 and iPad are based on Microsoft hardware engineer designs(and MS patents), as they created the original VS/PS GPU architecture of the early 00s, and they also created the unified shader GPU technology all computers use today. This is stuff people can read/research or just notice the XBox and XBox 360 and the news of their creation to know. With the 360 and the current GPUs we use, ATI worked to implement Microsoft's hardware designs, which Microsoft also gave to Intel and NVida so they could create GPUs capable of handling DX10 content. And yet people sit on their Macs using GPUs that come from Microsoft 'innovation' and very 'new' hardware designs, and talk about how Microsoft just copies crap and doesn't create and blah, blah... (Talk about throwing stones from a glass house, uh?)

I think Apple is an awesome company for a lot of things, but to portray them as something they are not, at the expense of Microsoft is just wrong and a bit annoying when it is specifically on topic of something Microsoft does well, and often so well, the world doesn't even realize it.

Microsoft sadly is not in business to get accolades, which they probably should do more often, especially from their marketing people and maybe the next time a Mac user wants to call Microsoft non-innovative, they will remember the GPU in their computer and go, oh wait, they do create really brilliant stuff, even beyond software.

LaXu said,
It seems to be in the same state as Quicktime X - it would be nice except it lacks features.

There will always be people who will cry when a new version replaces a user interface they've spend ages to learn. But sometimes you just have to throw the old crap away and start over. It worked great for OSX. I wish Microsoft and Adobe had the audacity to do this too instead of just adding more stuff on top of their old stuff without properly considering how it fits in the user interface.

Some also seem to have a hard time accepting that programs could be easy to use instead of the complicated behemoths most editing software is. I remember even reading an article on how Bloomberg's customers didn't want them to upgrade their terminals because it would make them seem less professional if people didn't have to spend a long time to learn to use them.

I think you are forgetting that OS X 10.0 was considered so bad and unfinished that they had to give 10.1 away for free and continued shipping OS 9 as the default booting OS with new Macs until 10.1.2.

thenetavenger said,

Ok, up front this is going to be a rant, and it directed at everyone that seems to think Apple is good....

I'm not going to bother reading all that as I can get the just by skimming it. My point is simple, Apple tend to release first versions of their software with limited features but (usually) done in a better, user friendly and approachable way than anything they've done before it.

GarageBand for iPad is a brilliant example. It's missing something as simple as being able to go higher up the feet board on smart guitar, but overall it's an amazing piece of software considering the effort they had to do to make the interface work on an iPad. I know more advanced features will come in time as apple has a history of doing software development this way.

My point is FCPX is essentially a new piece of software in apples eyes because of the massive overhaul that was done to it, it's now going to follow the same development cycle as all their other new pieces of software.

My mention of microsoft was only to point out you can't compare ribbon (an interface layer) with FCPX (a complete rewrite of the underlying backed and workflows).

Ribbon essentially just adds graphical awareness to all the menus and sub menus that already existed in office...

apple like to make bold moves ( PPC - Intel ) to accommodate the larger proportion of the market.
This seems to be another one of them, this product will be prefect for 80% of people that want to do more advanced editing than iMovie can do. So home, schools education marketing e.t.c. will be perfect.
I do wonder though what this will mean for the pro users and Mac Pro hardware ??

**** the critics. I think the new Final Cut Pro is much easier to pick up and learn to use, yet it has a lot of powerful features.

MrPink said,
**** the critics. I think the new Final Cut Pro is much easier to pick up and learn to use, yet it has a lot of powerful features.

thats the issue, FCPX have complete shunned over the professional users.

MrPink said,
**** the critics. I think the new Final Cut Pro is much easier to pick up and learn to use, yet it has a lot of powerful features.

I'm sure professionals would argue that it doesn't need to be easily picked up, and that's why it's a professional product (or at least should be).

Examinus said,

I'm sure professionals would argue that it doesn't need to be easily picked up, and that's why it's a professional product (or at least should be).


This. @MrPink if you want easy to pick up then use iMovie. Its a pro app for a reason.

The Protagonist said,

thats the issue, FCPX have complete shunned over the professional users.


Yes, but Professional ≠ Poor usability