Why can't Apple get a clock right?

With the clocks about to change again I thought I'd look at a problem every Apple user has an issue with, the clocks.

As a user of a lot of different Mac products, I find one problem amongst all of them.

When the clocks change in my time zone my alarms don't follow.  This goes for scheduled tasks as well. Eventually once the whole world has changed their clocks the majority of these problems fix but not all.

So I ask why can't Apple get clocks right?

I think the answer lies in its global ambition, as clocks around the world don't follow British Summer Times changes of Greenwich Mean Times Apple struggles to find a middle ground. But is that the real reason I don't know.

Personally I think they need to get their act together and find a solution quickly, I can't keep my changing scheduled tasks in Apple Remote Desktop or wake up late for work.

So here and now I ask Apple the simple task of getting their clocks right.

Music Social Media - The beginning of MySpace takeover.

In August 2003 a revolution was born on the internet, the real start of 'Social Networking' as Myspace was born. We all used to use Myspace until we fell out of love and moved to Facebook. I myself even still have an active Myspace account and over the last few months have found myself logging into it again and this week NewsCorp (owner of Myspace) started the work to sell off the flagging social network.

My personal love of Myspace was lost by its lack of development, we all moan and hate our favorite sites changing but if they don't we find ourselves moving away to more revolutionary sites. Which was the case with MySpace, as people started tagging friends in photos on Facebook, Myspace lost out.

MySpace has always been good for creative people with its Music section or Filmmaker section. This though is seeing more and more rivals against it, and less and less change to the site. Though it seems that is changing as slowly Myspace is bringing some new features and concentrating more on Music.

Apple recently launched iTunes Ping to bring a social aspect to buying and listening to Music. People have complained of its lack of Facebook integration but I ask what about Myspace. It seems some of Myspaces best features are migrating to Facebook and Myspace is now developing a closer affiliation with the 'Social Networking King'. 

NewsCorp has already said it is looking for either a merger or a sale of MySpace. I see both happening, if Facebook and Myspace merge users and Apple taking a financial stake to bring its Music Social Media functionality to the site, we could se a new revolution with MySpace.

I think MySpace could go even further and tap into the fan market in a way that saw thousands of Bootlegs sold in the 60's. Myspace is trying but I honestly think that it needs to embrace music in and entertainment from a fans point of view, something I believe Apple is trying to do with Ping.

If Myspace developed artist pages that are populated by content from fans as well as artists, it would improve on the traffic for advertisers. We could see interviews and performances from TV and Concert appearances posted from video channels. We could even see  some of these bootleg recordings posted, which could see these rare recordings re-mastered and released by record companies. You never know some unknown tracks could be found with posthumous releases as we have seen with Micheal Jackson. It could just see new exciting ways of exploring music that we would later buy from iTunes.

People could post memories of concerts (the biggest music payday currently) with fans tagging concert photos or videos. This would show tours over time and location as the fans bring back the memories for others. There could be chance meetings with artists, stories shared making it a real fan genrated appreciation of artisits.

Of course these can always lead to sales, with links to merchandise, downloads, adverts around posted video content. You can see this becoming a real money maker for these companies but also give fans a proper fan site for the 21st century. I'd rather explore musical tastes with friends and fans rather than go to a artists website that never gets updated.

This idea could go a step further and be extended to Films, Artwork, TV shows, and all the people involved. Add integration to sites such as IMDB and you can start to see endless possibilities. If Apple were to take Ping to the same level as Get Glue, you'll soon find your exploring more and more entertainment.

I for one love the idea of going to my next concert and posting pictures, reviews or even just sharing other peoples memories of the concerts I couldn't make. I love the idea of watching a TV show and recommending it to friends. I remember getting friends into '24', ten years later and my fondest memories are based around watching or talking about that show. In fact watching series chronicles a particular time in my life.

So I look forward to the next twelve months of MySpace, I really want to see it merge with Facebook in an original way. If this happens I believe we shall see Apple investing in MySpace and its vision for iTunes Ping taking leaps forward.

Final Cut Studio - Where Next?

It's been over a year since the last update to Final Cut Studio, and rumors have been flying around for months the update could be January. I personally think its more likely to be a summer release given the current twenty-four month cycle of the software and the release of new operating system Lion. Though there are changes to this cycle on occasion and the release of Lion could affect a cycle change.

What I thought I'd look at is what we could or should expect from a new release.

Final Cut Pro
The heart of the studio, Final Cut Pro is the industry standard edit program that is beginning to loose it's share to other systems such as Adobe's Premier Pro. Final Cut has been very popular but the code is written in several languages as apple has bolted on features to the original. Rumor is this is where the majority of work will have to take place. The software will need to be re-written entirely in Cocoa, this is a lot of work to keep the same functionality Final Cut users are used to, this though should make it a even stronger and more reliable product. The main benefit of this is the 64bit support many editors want and is already available in Adobe Premier.  It will also give the application a  fresh new look and feel.

One of the most requested features is native support of camera codecs, as more tape-less cameras come to the market, so do more format specific codecs. Its more than overdue that Apple provide these codecs as native way for Final Cut to edit. I personally think that if they can use Camera Raw for Photo editing its the same concept for video. I think in the long run it will allow less problems due to multiple conversions.

Once that's all been dealt with there may be little time to actually build new features, but I think that Final Cut needs to build this release as more than a interface refresh. Considering how little went into the last release.

It should defiantly look at supporting stereoscope editing (editing 3D movies) as this is becoming increasingly popular the need for the right tools is only going to grow so Final Cut should be the first at the table.

I'd like to see some additions to 'Scratch Disks', as someone who deals with tape-less filming amongst multiple users I find the need to set my scratch disks to a local external hard drive for editing but at the same time a duplicate to be sent to the shared storage. This is a big thing duplicating media in an age where tape is being used less and less, you find people get more paranoid about loosing data. Dual copying of media is a must for any professional.

Further to this and I've mentioned it in previous blogs, I'd like to see more integration with Final Cut Server as I can see this benefiting the shared storage environments and the idea of edit in place editing that most larger post houses are looking at.


All this is under the hood stuff, you expect final cut to do anyway. So what about the bells and whistles.
I think for that we need to look at other applications made by Apple. As with anything Apple does, if the consumer app does it well, the pro apps will do it better. So I see more integration with pro apps such as Aperture and Logic. I see features from the other final cut applications shared more, as some of the advanced abilities are made available in a limited way within Final Cut. I'm always looking for a way to blur out peoples faces or non broadcastable material such as adverts or car number plates. I want to able to do this in final cut in as few buttons clicks as possible but find motion having the better tools.

The biggest features though will come from iMove, I think the majority of their new features will make its way into some of the Final Cut pro suite. Personally I think Face detection will be good for metadata or for blurring out faces.  One step effects would be welcome to most editors especially if there are some extra parameters for them to tweak.

I think the share function will grow with the ability to create custom compressor droplets that will publish to youtube from with in Final Cut, meaning video producers can automate more of their process. We may even see integration with Vimeo, which is becoming the favorite video site for filmmakers to post on if they want to be taken seriously.

One feature i really want to see is the ability to bring master templates in with audio. There are some I've created in Motion that when I'm using in Final Cut require the audio as well as video.  Having to add the audio separate seems pointless when I've used it to create the graphics in the first place.

All in all I think the next Final Cut Pro could be the best but I have a feeling Apple will again hold back on major features in a bid to get the under the bonnet stuff working correct.


Motion
Motion is a program I have love, hate relationship with but its becoming increasingly powerful with each release and I think the next one may see the biggest changes.
Again iMovie features should be making it into Motion. I think the news and sport templates will make it across with the focus on providing real time graphics. Real time graphic support would bring a lot more power to the already bulging application but I think Motion will look to take on traditional news graphic systems with some new tools.

I also think iMovies unique way of creating trailer credits will filter across and extend to creating end credits. I think we will start seeing this auto filling from meta data available more often. Taking a long task of creating credits into a few easy steps.

If Apple were to make Final Cut Pro cope with 3D surely Motion would see stereoscope graphic capability.

I do think though that we will see many of Shakes capabilities filter into Motion. We could see better integration with CGI programs to embed 3D objects or environments. Who knows maybe Shake will become part of Final Cut Studio or at least a major part of Motions capabilities.

Soundtrack Pro
Sound track has a lot of work to do, its a wonderful program when it works. That's the problem it's not the most stable program in the suite, in fact I find freeware like Audacity more stable. Which is a real shame for a program with such potential.

So first thing I want to see in the next version is better stability, I want to have to try and break the program not see it quit of it's own accord.

Again I think we'll see some of iMovies new audio features being used as well as Logic and Garage Band bringing features to the table.

My biggest wish is for Soundtrack to get 64bit compatibility and really take on Adobe Audition as an audio editing program. I'm a big fan of Audition and love the fact there is a Mac version coming soon. Having tested the beta version of Adobe's software it seems to be beating Soundtrack Pro as an audio editor.

I'm a person who takes my videos and quiet often have to edit an audio only version for radio, Soundtrack pro would go a long way if it could export Wav files and give me the flexibility and reliability I get from Audition.

Apple take my advise pull your finger out and produce a program that fulfills the same level of functionality as Audition, then push it to match pro tools as your currently not able to match freeware  like Audacity in its current state.

Color
As someone who's only ever briefly used color all I can mainly say is it seems to have some stability issues, that desperately need addressing. On another note there are features I feel are missing or restricted that need to be expanded on.

At the end of the day you need to be a colorist to fully appreciate color and though I enjoy dabbling in the program, I am not a colorist and don't see me having the skill to do so. However I can see the benefits of the program and that Apple will bring some amazing features and development in the future.

Compressor
The most important asset in the suite, as it becomes a fully fledged outputting suite for digital production. Compressor defiantly needs to move to 64 bit support as well as the ability to support 3D conversion/output.

There are more features I want to see though, as mentioned earlier I want to be able to set me publishing output such as YouTube in compressor so that it becomes a simple share option in Final Cut Pro. I want to be able to publish to Vimeo. Audio conversion I think needs better support in compressor with publishing for not only podcast producer but for websites (HTML5) and to audio hosting sites such as ONM Voice or Mix Cloud. I dearly miss Visual Hub and Audio Hub for file conversion and feel Compressor just needs to meet this amazing program.

I love the fact I can add water marks to my video during compression but I want to take this a step forward and bring in a feature mostly found when printing to tape. That is the idea of slates or bumpers. As I export videos sometimes you want to put bars, slates or countdowns at the beginning as its going into a tape-less playout system. In my case videos I produce always need to be top and tailed with a short video bumper, this is normally a short motion video of the companies logo. Now I'm fine doing that in Final Cut but most of the time its a hassle to add to something just for a web output.

I think compressor is soon to become more important, as we move away from physical media into the digital world. We've already seen Apple introduce iTunes LP and iTunes Extra but there isn't a program that helps create that. Maybe this is what we shall see in future versions of compressor.

DVD Studio Pro
Lets be honest, DVD Studio Pro hasn't been updated in years and it probably won't be this time. With dwindling sales of DVD and no advancement in the technology the program is just waiting to die. I hear people shouting what about Blue-ray. Why its true that Apple could create more support for Blue-ray, in this version it's doubtful. Blue-ray has only been taken up as well as it has due to PS3 and the gaming market. I do see the advantage of having a disk that holds so much content and in my opinion its more to archive your material on a physical format rather than for watching it.

Apple feels the same way as they are pushing digital downloads, for me Blue-ray is the modern day Mini-Disk. A great technology but it came a little too late as digital downloads are already available. I feel we shall see a lot of the features reserved for DVD going to compressor for digital download creation. The only other option is for the whole program to get a radical overhaul and become a a one stop shop for creating menu based content for DVD, Blue-ray and digital media. Though again I doubt Apple would even waist the time unless they wanted to do a similar thing for a future version of iLife.

Anything Else
With Final Cut Studio Apple always try to bring something new, this normally means buying some existing technology and repacking it. The last time they did that they brought Color into the suite, which is now two versions ago. I think that the next thing will follow in Adobe's foot steps and copy Adobe On Location. This application is all about transferring your footage on location and meta-data. Now I think Apple will just start with the meta-data side seen as a lot of the functionality and future I've mentioned has meta-data underlining. I honestly see Apple using an iPad app to access and update meta-data on location and sync with files via something like Final Cut Server.

I doubt Apple would ever go down the script writing route unless they acquired a program like Final Draft. I think for now Apple would rather work with the company to create better integration.

As I've mentioned the big things for the next update is 64 bit and stereoscope support. This is Final Cut Studios big chance to fight critics and Adobe's closing market dominance. I guess we will have to wait and see what is the next big step for this Pro Apps Suite.

Is Apple going to cut loose Final Cut Server?

I recently wrote an article on 'Whats wrong with Final Cut Server' in the hope the great apple techs came across it and took some of my points on board for the next version.

Then disaster struck, the internet was awash with concerning rumors on the next OSX code named Lion. Little to nothing is known about this operating system until its release in summer 2011. That hasn't stopped Apple confirming that Flash will no longer be supported within the operating system. A positive in many peoples eyes, including Adobe who have complained about apples slowness to release flash security updates.

My concerns have come from two very separate rumors but ultimately ones that have a major impact on Final Cut Servers future.

First is Lion will also not include Java support, it's been confirmed that version 6 (the current version) will continue to be supported but version 7 will not  be distributed as part of Lion instead it will have to be downloaded. This is very odd considering Final cut server is actually built on Java.

The second announcement is the fact the Xserve will no longer be produced and there is no replacement planed. Now final cut server does work on Mac mini's and Mac pro's but I find for the scale of most education facilities (one of the reasons apple produce Final cut server) need more power as they have to contend with hundreds of users who need large amounts of storage.

I'm left wondering is Final Cut Server getting a major overhaul, maybe based through web pages or better Final Cut pro integration or is Apple about to pull the plug on this software before it fulfills its potential.

What's Wrong with Final Cut Server

It's been over a year since Apple released version 1.5 of Final Cut Server and I have to admit I like many are disappointed with the Apple Product. Apple themselves are wondering where they are going wrong and I though I'd take a moment to look at why.

First of all I think we should look at the fact the training book has only just been released and in fact my copy only arrived this morning. The old course was informative but not on par with other Pro Apps courses. I'm hoping the new training will start to rectify this but I have a feeling the program itself is where the problems lie.

Apple did not build Final Cut Server from scratch it was based on Proximity's artbox package. This means from the start it is very unApple. That is fine but when you start using it you start finding the problems. Yes its price point is great and it does meet some of my needs but the truth is there are products like CatDV that do the same thing better though with a larger price tag.

First thing I'd say is the problem of set up, everything takes too long to set up correctly. Its great it meets so many needs but there are no basic work flows to start you off. I need to see how it works before I can imagine how I want it to work for me. There are so few real world examples of Final Cut Server in use, it makes me wonder if it's used at all.

Set up is also awkward there are two places to setup, on the server or through the client application. I'll be honest I spent weeks trying both until I struck gold and got the thing working, this will turn away most users of apple products.

My biggest problem with Final Cut Server is it's integration with Final Cut Pro, it does it really badly. You have the client application but no integrated function in FCP. I can't share my final sequence with my FCS system. In turn I can't access video files within FCP and bring them into my project, I have to leave the program for the FCS app.

If I send assets or projects to other programs in Final Cut Studio, such as Motion it's done on that computer, I cant send it to Motion via Final Cut Server. My graphics editor is not going to be working on my computer, he will be on his the other side of the room.

This programs not all bad, when I get it working. Things do what their supposed to. I can create video archives of all my assets, though I can't look at proxy's for anything but video and audio. I can however put practically anything into it. I'm just waiting to be able to view any file.

I can set my own search parameters and meta data set, again these could be a lot better improved but do an ok job currently.

The big thing I can't see working well is how multiple editors can work on the same project. Either by checking in and out a project, or by working on it simultaneously on an Xsan.  The truth is this is partly down to your operation but more to do with FCP integration again.

I think lots of the output and management functions found in FCP need to also migrate to FCS so to take full advantage of it's potential and abilities found in the FCS app need to be integrated into FCP.

I like Final Cut Server, don't get me wrong its a powerful and handy tool. The problem is it doesn't work as well with Final Cut Pro as it should. I expect it to develop and grow very quickly over the next few years if it's to survive. I'd also like to see its potential integrated with news management systems. In the end FCS will hopefully bring ways of getting footage direct from the field into it's system, this could see future iPads with SD card slots and FCS apps in the app store.

What ever happens Final Cut Server is just at the start. The future could be amazing, only if Apple throw more weight behind its development.

Ustream and Facetime

I've been pondering this for a few weeks now. FaceTime is a potentially a great open standard but only if it's taken up by enough devices and companies.

We all know that eventually all Apple iToys will will support a version of FaceTime so we expect the iPod and iPad to get access within the next twelve months. We'd also hope iChat will get a update so that the Mac community are automatically FaceTime users.

We'd hope companies like Skype will take this new format on board bringing their reach further. I however have a different idea in the form of Ustream.

For those of you who don't know about Ustream its essentially a live video broadcast website. It broadcast live events, a lot of red carpets or conferences whilst also recording them for playback later. This isn't the important part I think the reason for Ustream being set up is.

Founded by John Ham, Brad Hunstable, and Dr. Gyula Feher, these men had a simple goal. To enable their friend in the Army, posted overseas to communicate with their families at home. Especially when time was limited in a war zone these soldiers could communicate to all their family.

I see the use of Ustream and FaceTime together doing what they both set out to do. That is bringing families together through video chats.

Wave Bye to Google Wave

Google Wave was announced in May 2009 as an email today. Their theory was email was about thirty years old, it hadn't changed much in that time but the digital world around it had. So the thought was what would email look like if it was invented today, the answer was Google Wave, a realtime instant messaging meets email known as waves. By the beginning of August 2010 Google decided it was time to pull the plug on this experiment.

Where did it all go wrong.

In first instance Email is the center of all our lives and is better in my opinion than Fax and even email hasn't killed off that. Second if email was invented toady it wouldn't be Google Wave in its current form, it would be Google Wave developed further down the line. Thirdly, email should be developed not a new technology so why wasn't email on steroids developed.

I'm a big fan of Google Wave, I use it for a number of different tasks and I'd even started moving a lot of long term planning conversations with colleagues to it. I was finding more and more ways to use it for my work.

What I found the biggest problem with Wave though, was the fact it didn't have a subject box, even an optional one. If I send an email it always has a subject box. It's the way I sort my message and search for them and I so wanted that in wave.

Though the extensions in Wave brought great expansion to its use, many of them didn't work as described. What I found though is many of the extensions I wanted available native in wave's. I wanted things like import and export documents. Countdowns to open and close wave discussions. Audio and video conversations that were recorded live then the recordings embedded like Ustream does for later review. Drawing boards, embedding waves in each other and externally, and even password protect part of waves. There could have been type what you say functionality or visual representations of links.

All of these functions would have made Google Wave what it was supposed to be and further more are already available technology, either used by Google or being developed by them.

Google became so much more towards the end, there were types of Wave such as meetings, brainstorming, to do lists, plus more. Each bringing a clear vision of what Google Wave could do and for someone who used it, I can say it did it better than most, but not perfect and not what we'd expect from Google.That was a big problem for me.

Wave began to show widgets that allowed for conversations or mini wave like forums to be attached to websites and was tested to a live Ustream Broadcast. This really began to show off the potential of the system and if Wave wasn't closing I'd have been trying that.

So what was its biggest problems, the answer. Scale. The scale of the project was big but also required to be small at the same time. Google were the only provider of Wave, meaning you had to be a Google member with a Gmail account that limits the amount of people willing to replace many email like tasks with wave. This stopped many people who would probably experiment or benefit using waves but not signup.

Second is the smallness of Wave, it's big and bulky but it works. I'd use it on a phone but it's too big. I'd use it on a tablet for work but only for task lists, brain storming basically the business functionality. I'd use it on my computer for meetings.  That's the problem I couldn't use an aspect of it on one device or the whole Wave technology on something small like a phone, and belive me I've tried. The project just needed to be scaled like email has been across devices. 

So I will wave goodbye to Google Wave, it was amazing and I hope its technologies do end up in my future email clients but as a straight replacement for my email I'm sorry the world just wants it to develop email not be replace it.