The biggest YouTuber in tech switches to Apple’s Final Cut Pro X

“There’s a significant movement of change happening behind the scenes of the tech’s biggest YouTuber,” Jeff Benjamin reports for iDownloadBlog. “Marques Brownlee — better known as MKBHD — a professional YouTuber with more than 3,000,000 subscribers, has taken his talents to Final Cut Pro X.”

“Brownlee used Adobe Premiere Pro before making the switch, Apple’s biggest competitor among non-linear video editing systems,” Benjamin reports. “Even more significant is the reason why he switched — Final Cut Pro X results in quicker turnaround time — it allows him to export videos much faster, which allows him to keep his subscribers updated with new content more often.”

Benjamin reports, “In fact, some of the most popular YouTubers in tech use Final Cut Pro X due to app’s export efficiency, rendering, and playback, among other things.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take:

Is all the noise we’re hearing today really coming from Final Cut Pro users who still have their previous Final Cut version(s) and already know how to properly and rationally submit feedback to Apple?

Or is it coming from non-Final Cut Pro users who see the $299 writing on the wall and realize that they’ll soon very likely have to learn something dramatically new and different from outside their comfort zone? Apple’s previous Final Cut Pro versions have not stopped working, nor has Apple stopped work on FCP X – in fact, they’ve just started working with a paradigm-shifing, extremely strong and powerful foundation upon which to build. Have a minute of patience, please. I heard the same sort of whining when we went from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X and some had to be dragged kicking and screaming. People stopped crying over Mac OS 9 in short order, too.

Or who perhaps some editors feel a little bit threatened that “non-pro” users will be able to edit so well for so little? And/or perhaps it’s coming from Apple’s now price-demolished competition who simply cannot crunch their numbers and make them come out profitably if Apple is going to offer Final Cut Pro X for $299?SteveJack, MacDailyNews, June 24, 2011

The BBC adopts Apple’s Final Cut Pro X – September 4, 2014
Happy 3rd Birthday, Final Cut Pro X – June 20, 2014
Pushing Apple’s new Mac Pro and Final Cut Pro X to the limit (with video) – March 21, 2014
The first 24 hours with Apple’s new Mac Pro and Final Cut Pro X 10.1 (with video) – December 20, 2013
Apple aims to win over video editors with new Final Cut Pro X marketing push – March 28, 2013
Ultimate Mac: Building the Final Cut Pro X dream machine – November 9, 2012
Final Cut Pro X gets significant update with new features and RED camera support – October 23, 2012
PC Magazine reviews Apple’s Final Cut Pro X 10.0.3: Editors’ Choice for high-end video editing – February 7, 2012
Apple significantly updates Final Cut Pro X – January 31, 2012
Editor Walter Murch is feeling better about Final Cut Pro X – November 8, 2011
Apple releases major Final Cut Pro X update; debuts free 30-day full version trial – September 20, 2011
Film editor: Apple’s Final Cut Pro X is flexible, powerful, incredibly innovative software – September 12, 2011
IT Enquirer reviews Apple’s Final Cut Pro X: Very much a professional’s tool – July 8, 2011
Former Avid employee on Final Cut Pro X: Only Apple seems capable of pushing boundaries – July 5, 2011
Why Apple built Final Cut Pro X – July 1, 2011
PC Magazine: Apple’s Final Cut Pro X makes serious leaps and bounds past its predecessor – June 30, 2011
Apple revolutionizes video editing with Final Cut Pro X – June 21, 2011


  1. I’ve worked on them all; splice-editing, CMX tape editing, Quantel, Flame, Shake, Avid, Premiere, FCP7 and I’m here to tell you, FCPX is the most impressive, easy to use while fulfilling post production around. Those that bash it haven’t taken time to understand it’s underlying concept. Reminds me of when tape-based editors were faced with switching to digital based non-linear.

    1. I worked in the ProApps group for a while, and as I recall, one of the gripes against FCPX that people kept flogging was that it dropped support for a bunch of older tape decks. 😉


  2. Now if they would show the Mac Pro some love and make it competitive again (along with NVIDIA) support so it has more flexible options for professional users. Can’t let the professional line lag like an iPod. I can’t tell you how many die hard Mac guys prefer to build a PC than buy a Mac Pro and wish Apple would fix the situation.

    1. Are you fixated with specs? Exactly how many seconds a day would you gain if the Mac Pro had the latest cutting edge video cards in it? I get really tired of people who always want the ‘best’ and the ‘fastest’ to do their work but they almost always blame their equipment for their lack of productivity.

      Have you ever considered that it might be you who could improve your work flow and could be better organized and could be more proficient with the software you have? Let’s see some real world data that shows real professionals with a measurable increase in productivity with a higher specified computing platform.

        1. you are missing the point.

          The point is not that current Mac Pros can do stuff faster than higher spec Pcs because PCs have a bad OS but :

          MAC users can beat the PCs EVEN MORE if Mac Pro’s had higher specs. High end PCs nowadays can have more ram, you can change the PC video cards to speciality cards etc. If Mac Pros can do that they would be EVEN BETTER.

          if people are still not getting it: here’s another illustration
          if a Mac beats a PC by half an hour now on a job wouldn’t it be better if Mac Pros had better specs and beat the PC by a full hour?

          1. The point you seem to miss is that even if the computer had 100 times the RAM it does now and the world’s most awesome video card, you still have to know what you want to do and how to go about it. The computer speed isn’t the impediment.

            1. ?????

              when you judge something like hardware you have to look at it with people with EQUAL skills.
              (you are making stilted ASSUMPTIONS in your argument that the person is NOT skilled otherwise you whole argument will collapse).

              if a person is fantastically skilled won’t a HIGHER powered machine be BETTER than a lower powered machine?

              assume that I’m very very good at what i do, don’t you think I would be BETTER off and do even better with a high powered Mac then a low?

              say you own a Nascar team and you own the best driver in the world do you try your best to put him in the best car possible or do you say hardware don’t matter?

              ALSO when you are doing stuff like RENDERING 3D when you LEAVE THE STUFF ALONE TO RENDER, does SKILL MATTER OR HARDWARE POWER? (I’ve left stuff to render overnight for example, don’t you think I would like to shave off a few hours?)

              your arguments are so stupid I feel I’ve wasted time trying to refute it…

            2. In Rally Racing, anything over 500 HP is a waste because there is not enough traction. In computing, more RAM makes a difference up to a point but if the software isn’t written to take advantage of it, it will not give rise to any improvement. All you have to do is study some real world tests on computers to see. There are so many objective ways to measure spec advantages and the real limiting factor is you, the operator.

              Rendering can be very time consuming and is better done by a distributive network of low cost computers overnight.

            3. you’re so stubborn refusing to admit you’ve made a mistake in your argument, I lose even more respect for you.

              you keep going back to ” the real limiting factor is you, the operator.”
              like I’ve said repeatedly you are making a unwarranted assumption that I’m NOT skilled and your arguments collapse if i was. if I was very skilled won’t a more powerful machine be better? (you can’t answer that can you?)

              another assumption “In Rally Racing, anything over 500 HP is a waste because there is not enough tract” that’s a ridiculous assumption that the PC limit has been reached !! Dude has Mac Pro reached the ‘limit’ ? Several NEW 12 GB video 3D specialized cards available now is not better for me than the two 2 year old 3 GB cards in the the most powerful Mac pro?

              “better done by a distributive network of low cost computers overnight” so I’m supposed to set up a different system — spaghetti all over and buy a bunch of machines – because the Mac Pro doesn’t give me what I want? (again you are making assumptions , this time about the size of the studio etc, suppose I don’t have space, I’m supposed to buy a bigger office? Suppose I only do a handful of big renders a month, I’m have to get a big freaking nest of machines $$$ and keep then sitting around doing nothing for days? I’m not saying distributed networks is necessarily bad but that’s a cop out if we HAVE to do it if the Mac Pro is not powerful enough and it’s not the answer for all situations as I pointed out. )

              What about TEST renders? 3D artists might do dozens or hundreds a day, you test render as you make an object or scene, a test render that is 5 seconds is way better than one that is 30 seconds if you do dozens or hundreds.

              Lastly if Hardware performance means nothing as you say THEN WHY DID APPLE TOUT THE MAC PRO PERFORMANCE WHEN IT FIRST CAME OUT? (it’s not that I say it’s not powerful TWO YEARS ago but it’s not been upgraded and overtaken by PCs). So why do they upgrade their macs at all if hardware according to you means nothing? So Apple building the super powered A series chips with superior GPUs for iPhones is USELESS? as (by your logic) ” the real limiting factor is you, the operator.” ? so why does apple bother to upgrade the A chips every year?

              (Note people, I love Macs and OSX , I’m all mac now, I’m just saying Apple has not kept it’s eye on the ball and upgraded the Mac Pro as it should)

              of course skill of an operator counts, I’m not denying that but like I’m saying AGAIN when evaluating hardware you have to use equal skill people.

              Dear god almighty……

      1. I think you’re really missing the point here.

        Apple has some great tools, a fantastic OS, and of course all kinds of “bests” when it comes to consumers.


        If I’m rendering and encoding something that is going to take hours instead of minutes, the advantages of having a shiny trash can like Mac Pro as opposed to a standard open box don’t really matter much.

        As pretty as the Mac Pro is, it’s clearly form over function and that’s quite the opposite of what pros are looking for in a work environment.

      2. When you’ve got a huge amount to render, an hour here and an hour there really racks up and can save your bacon. We all know clients are perfect and are never pushing things to you at the last second.
        Professionally, I used to leaved my computer over night to render and occasionally it’d still be rendering next morning. If I can save 3 hours of rendering time, that’s enough to make a case to my boss for better hardware.

        1. How about using a few old Macs as a render farm and leave them to do the tedious work overnight? Rendering is not an excuse to have massive computing power for your general work. Your average MacBook Pro can easily do all of your other work quickly an leave the grunt work to a render farm of old used Macs.

      1. Why be pedantic over a rhetorical phrase? The issue is not so much which one is faster but at what cost? When the Pro came out you couldn’t build a faster box any cheaper. Now you can. And some NVIDIA cards are tuned to certain applications that makes a big production difference.

        And while the Pro has essentially stayed the same the world has not.

        Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think I could ever buy a PC – to me the Windows tax is too high. But there are a lot of professional businesses that are doing the math on a $12k Mac Pro vs a $4k DIY project with similar performance.

        1. Trashcan is $8.5K if you buy the 4 core and upgrade yourself to 12 core and 64 gb ram (700 cards and 1tb flash). You won’t come anywhere close to the trashcan’s specs for 4k on a PC, you won’t get the small footprint or quiet operation. You won’t have the mac OS. The Pro is a work machine, not a render server. Nothing has changed about that in the 30 years I’ve been buying Apple computers. What also hasn’t changed is Apples reliance on 3rd party chips and technology that they have no control over. So a 2 year wait for an upgrade is unfortunately status quo. They have NEVER made an inexpensive render machine. If that is your goal you are better off setting up an S3.

          1. Agree with all your points except: the Xserve was a pretty inexpensive, powerful render machine, in terms of FLOPS per $. That’s why people used them in render farms and in best-of-breed supercomputers.

    2. Here’s why the Mac Pro has been delayed — Thunderbolt 3 . . . I have been researching Intel’s roadmap, and Thunderbolt 3 is really where everything is going to come together . . . The USB-C port will be the conduit for Thunderbolt 3 (whereas today it’s the Mini Display Port) . . . Thunderbolt 3 allows for 40 gigabits per second (5 GB per second), and allows you to run 4K displays, transfer data, etc. . . . you can also connect PCE Express cards externally . . . the next Mac Pro will be a video editing beast.

      1. Expect to see every mac refreshed or updated to USB-C in the very near future. I also believe that Apple has a few more ASIC’s to be released that will widen the gap between the Mac Pro and a DIY PC.

  3. Come on, APPLE, change the Mac Pro so power users can add stuff to it.

    Make a version that uses the old box form. One about the size of the old box and one but about 1/3 the size. As before, the side drop down so users can easily gain access. Encourage users to do what they like with the extra space. It doesn’t need to be black and cool looking like the trash can, we can live without that. Use the silver aluminum look. That’s okay. Encourage scientist who have the grants to build their own supercomputing number crunching demon. It’s not a large market but it will generate a lot of talk at NIH, NASA, DoD, EPA, NOAA, etc. and among university geeks who fantasize about such things hiding under the desk in their office. lol

    Give the power users the ability to drop the door and add to their new supercomputer. They will love it. And keep the box around for a long time. Who cares about its shape? If you like, just reissue the old box with new guts. A lot people wouldn’t mind.

    Three models: Trash Can, SuperComputing BigGuy, SuperComputing Mini.

    Easy Peasy on the engineers, and cheap.

    1. Do you know why nearly 95% of the first 500 most powerful supercomputers are Linux…none run anything from Microsoft or Apple.

      And it will be noneas long as Linux is as modular, generic, scalable and in particular, as open source and free as it, as well has the scope of community support and cost virtually nothing, for Apple to venture into this realm of SuperComputing as you suggest would be ludicrous.

      1. Super computing clusters have already been built using Macs running OS X. It was not ludicrous as you say. Virginia Tech loved their Mac and it made it into the top 100 in the world at that time. It was followed by one named Mach 5, if I remember correctly, which also was a top 100.

      2. What I wrote was not an attack or knock against LINUX. I’m aware of just how much runs on that OS.

        Nonetheless, there are many users who prefer to do their work on OS-X and as such could use a box that allows them the flexibility to add and subtract components as they see fit. Apple’s “trash can” option is just not all that friendly when it comes to this.

        Again, LINUX is great. But I prefer what OS-X gives me and as such want as many options as I can get in that environment.

        Apple should see this as an opportunity and not simply as a criticism. The market is small but it is an important one. Don’t give it up just because you are not going to make goo-gobs (that’s a Wall Street financial term) of money. The scientific niche is a good one to lock in to your very high end technology solutions.

        Give them a box. Does it have to be cool? Well, not that much since the software and components you and others will offer to go along with that box will define the user’s experience.

    2. I just happen to have one of those old aluminum Pro’s, paid $250 for it,+ $150 for 3 internal drives only have a total of 2TB of storage in it for now, but its great knowing I have the cheapest and most flexible reliable backup storage for the work I do on a Mac Mini.

      It’s the equivalent of a truck and I love it. Think society can function without trucks? Yeah, right, dream on.

      1. I’ve got a couple of those with the Xeon processors.
        bought one used (professionally refurbished) as well.
        threw in a 3GB PC Video card in one which cost a $100 + (cheaper at today’s prices). Doesn’t do the proper Mac start up routine but other then that works perfectly . Use it Adobe, 3D, Games etc.

        unfortunately there’s no Mac today with an upgradable card option. Lots of non pros don’t realize when they defend the current Mac line up how much video cards mean — I was shocked by the performance difference between even a 1 GB and 3 GB card. Many macs today have integrated graphics or if discreet they are MOBILE video cards even in the iMac vs a true desktop card. My card with it’s fans etc is thicker than an iMac screen. Also cards come in a variety of flavours for different functions: gaming, 3D rendering etc. I run two large screens one a Cintiq with no problems.

        those cheese graters are awesome.

        firewire, ethernet, multiple drive bays, PCI slots. and you can get them for the price of a new Mac Mini.
        (note to newbies, the older cheese graters can’t run the newer Mac OS versions. I think you need the 2010 or later)

        I agree with everybody that:
        Macs with OSX are generally better than Windows but there’s something MISSING from the pro lineup.

  4. There was a lot of whining about Final Cut Pro X when it first released, and some of that whining was well founded. Over the last several updates, Apple has largely righted the wrongs done by the first version of Final Cut Pro X. Those who still complain about it are mostly people who never bothered to keep up with Apple’s progress on the app. I have had to almost force it on some editors who, when they finally took the time to look at Final Cut Pro X in its current version, they changed their tune.

    1. True, there was a lot of pushback – – which was 100% Apple’s fault, because of leadership which was blind to business needs for operational continuity. In simple terms, they pulled the plug on the current system before its replacement was anywhere even close to ready. The customers rightfully screamed bloody hell and Apple relented by bringing back the old FC licenses … but note that this sort of poor management is precisely why business customers have become untrusting and reluctant to switch over to whatever Apple claims is the “latest and greatest”: Apple isn’t adequately managing the downside risks of their changes.


      And this hasn’t been the only time that Apple has done this. Proceed to 2013 and we watch as Apple replaced their highest end niche hardware, the Mac Pro, with an even MORE niche application machine.

      Sure, it is optimized for FCPX video, but for all of the other high end customers who bought it, the “trash can” design resulted in a big step backwards in capability and value. For example, looking at my own personal use case (which is local high performance storage intensive), to build a nMP to the same configuration I presently use on my cMP’s will cost me $2000 **per seat** more ($7500 vs $5500): that’s a 36% *erosion* in product value.


      Nor was 2013 the last time. Apple still hasn’t learned from their mistakes: look at what they did to still photographers with Aperture & iPhoto being supposedly “superseded” by Photos in 2014 … which now over a year later **STILL** hasn’t even have an industry standard 1-5 Star rating system restored to it.

      If Apple was looking for a corporate strategy to reduce their Mac business by driving their higher end customers over to Adobe (et al), they did a good job here…particularly since those alternatives are OS agnostic, so the next Mac Pro can be replaced a Windows workstation.


      Unfortunately … and quite disturbingly … the list goes on and on. What comes next? Don’t worry: they’re too busy chasing after the iPhone tech bubble and, oh, probably also an electric car while gas prices have fallen to below $2/gallon and the battery tech is still ten years out (a fully ruggedized 80kW-hr battery pack still costs $100K from SAFT).

  5. I have tried, and tried, to like FCP Pro X but I have largely switched to DaVinci Resolve which is free unless you need the extra functionality of the Studio version. I still use Pro X for those functions not handled by DR – which doesn’t support my older Sony cameras and doesn’t handle multicam synch on my long clips.

    Colour grading is DR’s major strength, but I switched to avoid the nuisance of the magnetic timeline, the keyword (rather than bin) organisation and the fiddly sub clip selection function in Pro X.

    I should say that my workflow and material is probably different to that of most editors – I work more or less exclusively with long clips from static cameras for interviews of 60-90 minute duration. I fill in with hand-held or tripod-or-slider mount footage from a Blackmagic Compact Camera with shorter clips and B-roll, or separately filmed interview material

    I like to assemble an episode by positioning segments at predefined times with specific sequences placed in the timeline around which I assemble the material. This might be possible in FCP but it requires turning off the magnetic timeline which leads to other problems.

    Marking sub clips of short duration in a 45-60 minute clip is fraught with problems – it is very easy to forget to hold down CMD and erase all the marked subclips.

    Keywords would be useful to me, perhaps, if this was an optional feature on top of the normal bin selection. It may be my IT background, but I like structure and order and I like to keep the same structure in FCP as I have in the file system.

    Because my control is often the separately recorded audio, I like to start the assembly process with the single, continuous audio clip – I cannot do this in FCP.

    It is also very tricky to slip-synch audio in FCP without inserting gap clips to prevent the video from being truncated.

    The connected-clip feature is just a nuisance and I often find I trim a clip past the connect point and lose the connected clip altogether – well, undo will put it back, but in a complex timeline I do not always notice that a connected clip has disappeared.

    Assembling title overlays in FCP’s “movable feast” of connected clips is often quite difficult when there are several video layers which take on a life of their own and I have to try and figure out how to stop clips moving from one layer to another.

    I also find The FCP interface unintuitive, but I feel that is because I am not using it every day.

    But contrast, DR is easier to use, has vastly superior colour grading features and, most importantly, does not require me to go to elaborate lengths to stop it doing things I don’t want it to do.

    FCP has its fans and some reviews I have read say that, at its best, when you really understand it and you don’t fight it, it is the fastest production editor. But for this to be true, your material must lend itself to the FCP “way” and mine just doesn’t. More to the point, perhaps, I have a workflow which works very well for me (and I learned on FCP before Pro X was released). Pro X imposes a different workflow and way of thinking requiring me to change my systems of organisation and assembly of material.

    I started life as a programmer and I have worked with databases all my working life. I like precision and order where FCP is laissez-fair in its approach to file structure and inflexible on subclips – you really have to decide upfront how to split up your clips, when I often find myself looking for specific material to fill in with while assembling and ordering the material.

    As a software developer I strongly believe that an application should not impose a workflow and respect the user’s requirements. It is FCP’s breach of this standard which I believe continues to generate controversy. I have other minor gripes – one being the consumer-oriented terminology which has me hunting for the export function which is standard across all other Mac software, but become “share” in FCP. If I haven’t used FCP for some time I always forget this.

    There is a philosophy at Apple that complex functionality should be made simple for users. And while this works to Apple’s advantage most of the time, it can make complex task unbelievably more difficult. The most egregious example is Apple’s use of bundles rather than a simple file structure. Recovering from sparse bundles, for instance, can be very difficult when you have no visibility of the actual content, and I have several such chunks of data which, perhaps because they are old, are no longer readable – and no way of knowing what they contain. In a nod to this, Apple relented and now allows FCP users to store material directly in the file structure but the default remains the bundle.

    For me, the restoration of a formal clip structure (bins), the option of a traditional multi-layer timeline and the ability to turn off the magnetic timeline while still allowing magnetic assembly when clips are close to each other, and the ability to lay an audio track first would remove just about all my objections. However I have been warned that “hell will freeze over” before able concedes these points and, for me, FCP is now relegated to an ancillary function and the free DaVinci Resolve 12 is now my primary editor. is where you will find DR12 if you are finding FCP awkward to adapt to your workflow.

  6. Apple threw the baby out with the bathwater BIGTIME with FCPX. 2nd only to maps launch. An absolute debacle. It’s sad and disheartening the amount of hearts and minds Apple has lost in the Pro community since.

      1. Having to rebuild from the ground up is a fair statement …

        … but that observation has utterly *nothing* to do with how management then chooses to roll out the new replacement.

        The legacy of FCPX is that it wasn’t ready for prime time when Apple leadership chose to curtail FCP.

        And that’s precisely why Apple *did* restore sales of FCP licenses when the customers screamed bloody hell. That reversal is proof that Apple leadership screwed up: they failed to provide the means of a smooth transition path to their customers.

    1. “Apple threw the baby out with the bathwater BIGTIME with FCPX. 2nd only to maps launch.”

      Thank heavens!

      Otherwise, we would still be spending enormous amounts of monies on up keeping old and tired fixtures, working enormously long hours and faced with ridiculous short time lines.

      Sure, products like FCPC that Apple builds, require a newer understanding of the paradigm. And as creatures of habit, it does take prodding, and for some, a lot.

      But, for products like FCPX, realizing the reduction of hardware/software and time, effort and monies that can be or have been achieved in the final run, are signifiant. And this has been exampled by both the older and younger generations of studio editors.


  7. I think MDN’s take was off on this.

    Apple screwed the pooch on FCPX in many ways. The “whining” as referred to was actually in many cases professional users of FCP explaining why they simply couldn’t use FCPX and how they were being screwed in this transition.

    For example, one thing Apple didn’t do was provide an adequate method of importing projects from FCP to FCPX. For studios and agencies like mine, this was a huge problem since we have a very large archive of projects that we need to frequent revisit and make edits to. Others have projects that span multiple years, meaning that they may need to maintain FCP.

    Remember initially that Apple dropped FCP altogether when FCPX was released. And while FCP could still run, that’s not a solution where you have studios/agencies that need to constantly purchase stations and move projects from editor to editor.

    FCPX lacked a lot of other features that professionals needed and while slowly Apple has been adding them over time, these features were already present in competitive products.

    In many professional situations, it didn’t matter how slick, easy or fast FCPX was, if it couldn’t do the job, it couldn’t do the job. And it initially couldn’t do many jobs.

    So what happened is that most professional FCP users went to the competition. And while there are some TV shows and movies that have been produced with FCPX, it pales to the number that were done in FCP or the competition.

    What Apple should’ve done is gotten more feedback from professionals early on outside of their own internal editors. Feedback from studios and agencies would’ve let them know that there was a serious gap in what they were delivering.

    Also, they should’ve released it as a long preview release with more significant tools for migration.

    When one looks at FCPX, the Mac Pro, and Aperture, it becomes very hard to give Apple the same credit for professionals as it deserves for consumer products and services.

    1. “Professional user”? And what is that to you? People throw out statistics based on nothing but anecdote and their own limited experience. Do you have statistics for all professional applications of a NLE or just a specific set of users. Are you the sort of person who classifies a YouTube producer as an amateur? How about a webcaster? Wedding videographer? Public access television producer? I am none of the above, some of my work appears in cinemas across the country on a regular basis, I make documentaries for BluRay extras, I produce weekly programming for broadcast. Many of the one-person camera editors I know have moved to FCPX because it makes their lives easier. But I also know many places where they moved to Premier out of fear of changing how they think of editing. FCPX actually takes eating to the next functional step. Is it perfect? No but neither is Premier or AVID and both of those are working in a twenty year old interface.

      1. “Professional user” is just shorthand to avoid having to write a much longer comment. The point is, you can classify users (or rather usage) by agencies and studios with bigger projects, teams of people and significant investments versus smaller indie stuff. If you’re a major film or TV studio, you’re going to have different needs than if you’re one person going mostly straight from camera to YouTube… and then there’s every person in between.

        “where they moved to Premier out of fear of changing how they think of editing”

        That MDN line is such tired BS. It has nothing to do with “I earn my income using tools that change all the time anyway but somehow I can’t wrap my head around using a new tool that takes a day or two of training” and more to do with this tool has absolutely no way of importing the archive of projects we’ve developed over the years. This tool doesn’t show the commitment from the developers as tools from the competition for those of us (however you want to define big studios/agencies, etc…). This tool lacks the features and functionality that we absolutely need, and is present in tools from the competition.

        Call them whatever you want, but those that were using FCP for films, tv shows and agency work have largely moved more to the competition as opposed to from the competition to FCPX.

        They did this because the day or two of training was better spent training for using tools from the competition that better met their needs.

        Enjoy FCPX all you want. It’s an absolutely fine program. I actually use it myself for my personal stuff. But the producers and editors at my company moved to the competition and it has nothing to do with how decent FCPX is now, it has to do with how Apple handled the transition, which was incredibly poor.

        Not a single person at our company “had a fear of changing how they think about editing”. They all, like me, looked at FCPX and were attracted to it. However, when they were faced with having to redo template projects from scratch or an inability to import archived projects, as well as other features and functionality that was missing, they looked at the hours required to transition and FCPX lost.

        “Many of the one-person camera editors I know have moved to FCPX because it makes their lives easier.”

        Right, and I know people who have used iMovie for broadcast because it made their lives easier… but in neither case can these people come close to relating to the needs of a larger studio, agency or whatever you want to define if the word “professional” isn’t appropriate.

        1. First of all, a ‘professional’ is simply defined as “…of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one’s main paid occupation rather than as a pastime.”

          And if you can take a few minutes, I would suggest that Larry Jordan’s “Is FCP X Ready for Professional Use? video is worth watching.

          1. “First of all, a ‘professional’ is simply defined a…”

            Right and in this context it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. I don’t know how I could be anymore clear about this. I don’t care if someone gets paid or not, my point was to differentiate the needs of some users versus others. Likewise, I don’t care if every time someone launches FCPX they get both an Emmy and an Oscar, there are studios, agencies and other institutions that have needs… such as collaboration, importing of archive projects, etc… that were disrupted in the transition from FCP to FCPX. This is why so many of these people migrated from FCP to the competition.

            My point is that Apple could’ve handled this differently from day 1, and guess what? Apple agrees with me which is why they reversed some critical decisions, such as bringing back FCP to retail.

            “I would suggest that Larry Jordan’s “Is FCP X Ready for Professional Use?”

            Hey, that’s great. Now can you point me to the video that shows how to import FCP projects into FCPX? Can you point to the video that shows how someone could’ve purchased FCP from Apple when Apple stopped selling it? Can you point to the video that shows how to add the functionality that was in FCP and was in the competition, but was missing from FCPX (and in some cases still is)?

            1. Did you watch it? Where exactly does it show that you can import FCP projects into FCPX?

              Importing XML (which they added much later and demonstrates my point that Apple blew the introduction) isn’t the same as importing full FCP projects.

              You may not know or appreciate the difference, but again, for those with these needs when FCPX was introduced and lacked even XML import while at the same time taking FCP off the market, the path was very clear… move to the competition, which many studios, agencies and other professionals did.

              The “new paradigm” and “new ways of thinking” had jack all to do with anything. If you can’t access your projects or tools you need don’t exist, it doesn’t matter if the “new” is better.

              That’s how Apple blew it here.

          2. Disclaimer: I’ve not watched the whole video.

            …but I have watched enough to see that this video was made over two (2) years after FCPX launched – – and the industry was still debating if it was ready for prime time yet.

            It is now 2016 … and its 4.5 years after FCPX launched … and this MDN article is essentially trying to brag that _someone_ has finally adopted this ‘new’ software package.

            Which satirically means the answer to this 2013 video is: “Yes Virginia, in 2016 we can now safely say that FCPX is _finally_ ready for professional use”.

            Now sure, there’s always going to be early adopters, but that’s also why we call bleeding edge technology to be ‘bleeding”: the real question for most Enterprise is if the risks inherent to the new tool have been adequately managed and mitigated so as to not be a cure that’s worse than the disease … and sure, “better the Devil you know” applies here too.

            The bigger question however is if Apple has learned to become more accommodating of Enterprise needs & concerns. Time will tell … but the evidence here is that one should contemplate waiting until the “Dot 2” release before even bothering to assess.

            1. You’re exactly right, but for many people there was no waiting as an option.

              Had Apple committed to maintaining FCP until FCPX was “ready for prime time”, and had the ability to have at least some level of import functionality on day 1, they wouldn’t have had as many people going to the competition.

              I’m not sure they really learned much from there mistakes here either as seen from Aperture->Photos. There’s a difference here in that Apple actually did intend to abandon the high-end photo management software market, but their lack of communication has spooked off many who may have been fine with Photos (at some point).

  8. Apple dropped the ball with FCPx not in the redesign of the new product but in handling of the transition. They should never have dropped FCP7 so quickly since production houses that need to add another workstation can’t just switch on a dime. They should have also communicated up front that the intent was to bring back all the features. It took months just to get that out of them.

    Businesses aren’t just going to switch because it’s the next shiny object. Heck, I used to upgrade to the newest OS all the time on my personal Macs and would just deal with whatever issues arose. But now that I use one in my business, I have to validate every application before I can upgrade and every needed function.

    1. They also needed to find a way to import projects. It would’ve been understandable if the projects weren’t 100% perfectly imported, but if there was at least some import capability on day one that would’ve been a huge help.

  9. What is Apples Killer app these days? They don’t have one.
    Meca and Sunbeam are spot on.

    I work with nothing but pros and none of them use FCPX. NONE, out of thousands of editors of Features, music videos, commercial spots, documentaries. It is possible to use it for pretty straight forward YouTube style family “ultimate Fail” type Youtube videos, with cheezy graphics, cheezy color grading, cheezy effects.. There is simply horrible file management.. and the audio control is for soccer moms…

    So with the utter resistance for Apple to have actual PRO applications, they lost an entire market,, the market that every smart kid aspires to become part of..

    Apple should have the pro version for every possible application, and the pro hardware to go with it. It would make the company feel cutting edge once again.. Nobody turns to Apple for that anymore, and Apple has ensured that they are not the go to company for anything pro.

    Why does Adobe even exist? What is Apples CAD application? Why do MOST people use Microsoft office, Excel, and anything Microsoft? (believe me, Microsoft office is just simply better than Mail, Pages, etc. ) Where is Apple software in the medical field? Law? Insurance? Retail? Business? Accounting?

    What is Apples Killer app these days?
    There isn’t one.
    Sad but true.

  10. @md8mac: the file structure change happened 2 years ago – it was an improvement but all the problems I mention remain. But you remind me of another gripe – the odd terminology of events, projects, libraries – the old iMovie paradigm. What exactly is a project? Or an event? Perhaps if you are making a home movie of a holiday it makes sense, but not otherwise.

    I read somewhere that Apple acquires FCP along with the development team. When they moved to FCP Pro X they fired the FCP team and handed the project to the iMovie team – hence the lack of support for professionals.

    Apple has become a consumer company – anyone with a Mac will have been acutely aware of this over the past couple of years when OS/X became increasingly unstable and apps like Mail, which should have been rewritten years ago, became increasingly clunky, unreliable and hard to use. Mail on my notebooks generally collapses when the MacBook lid is closed and i often have to reboot the Mac to recover.

    So there is only a slim chance that Apple will rework FCP Pro X to earn the “Pro” designation – professionals are not really on Apple’s radar these days.

    I made similar comments about FCP Pro X in response to a post in Apple discussions – and my post was instantly removed by the moderator. I was surprised by that – it suggests Apple is overly sensitive to criticism. The Chinese government does this all the time, but Ito my mind it’s a bit silly, and more than a little fascist, to delete a critical comment in an FCP user discussion. And it does suggest that Apple is STILL not listening!

    1. “…professionals are not really on Apple’s radar these days.”


      Perhaps you could take a moment to view the “…replay of the Final Cut Pro X Virtual User Group where the crew talk about the future of FCP X and what they gathered from the FCP X Creative Summit.” at

      Or check out some of the “Professionals Using Final Cut Pro X” at

      1. > > “…professionals are not really on Apple’s radar these days.”
        > FUD!

        Kindly provide the citation to where Apple’s Professional grade replacement for Aperture is, for it sure as heck isn’t “Photos”.

        And even if you do want to claim that it is Photos, kindly provide the citation for where Apple offers iCloud accounts larger than 1TB…at any price.

  11. The main reason not to use FCPX, besides the fact that it’s best suited for a closed system workflow rather than a shared or group workflow, is that Apple has shown that they will completely disregard industry standards for the sake of giving the customer “what they didn’t know they wanted.”

    For a singular editor, this may be ok. For a larger facility, this is a nightmare. Apple will drop programs and overhaul software, leaving no upgrade path with little notice. Most larger facilities in NYC have either gone to Premeire or Avid because they know that those programs will at least be here in five years.

    Apple is a consumer company and they made FCPX to appeal to consumers as well as professionals. But th consumers will always come first

  12. yes…but a new update with CONSISTENT NEW OPTIONS ?!?!

    no audio mixer…no personalized workflow.. only 2 littles updates in the last 6 months…with few bugfix and nothing another…

    meaby little more support… is benefict also for FCPX “spot”…

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.