Yes, it is in fact my premise.
The problem with your argument, however, is that you use this "market" concept as an ultimate validifier. (Is this a word or do I need to stake it too?).
But there is no uniform "market". The video editing market is too fragmented. There is low-end and there is high-end. The low-end went with FCP, which is fine. FCP is sufficient for the low-end. Alright, it is more than capable for the low-end. But MC has never been low-end. It has always been the top-notch leader of the pack offering plenty of advantages to high-end market.
If you are not in the shared storage environment cutting 4 hour feature film, then those advantages will be irrelevant to you. But that doesn't mean they are not there. Just because you have no use for a particular feature, it doesn't negate MC having it.
You not needing all the MC capabilities, it doesn't make it a lesser product that should be priced less.
I can't explain it any better, Mark.
Regards.
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Myers <MarkM@...> wrote:
>
> Your premise is that MC has been and is inherently a far better product
> than FCP or Premiere, and thus should be worth far more money. The
> market doesn't bear that out and hasn't for a long time. My personal
> experience doesn't bear that out - and that's coming from someone who
> prefers Avid.
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (33) |
No comments:
Post a Comment