Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US :: FAQ
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
FORUMS:listlist (w/ descriptions)archivetagssearchhall of famerecent posts

Thanks Adobe

COW Forums : Adobe Creative Cloud: The Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook
Billy PaynThanks Adobe
by on Jul 16, 2013 at 10:55:37 pm

Been watching the forums and reading the comments, I'm pretty unimpressed with the change Adobe have made to the relationship with their clientelle.
A couple of things I've noticed.
The changes to Premiere and After Effects are pretty minor, yes, they sound good as 'sound bites' but actually don't add up to anything like a package that would tempt me to upgrade, maybe about as warm a deal as upgrading from CS5 to CS5.5 - why ? I am only interested in upgrading my software when there are real changes on offer, and only wish to upgrade when in between projects. My experience of this software is that it's not always stable - this may not be the fault of the software alone, and might be a combination of soft/hardware. Still I like stability and don't want to rock a boat while managing a complicated project.
Also, I like my plugins to work, I'm not confident that this will always be the case if the software is altered in an ad hoc basis.
I have not been able to find anything on this worth reading, if anyone has - please could you enlighten?
In the past I have generally missed an upgrade, buying in every second incarnation, usually at about £600, (lately) and have been doing this since '98. and have been pretty happy with this arrangement.
I'm not interested in the subscription model, and will most definately not be signing up - and am very happy with CS6 - it's fantastic, capable beyond my abilities and pretty solid and stable.
I couldn't care less about the 'Cloud' to me that's just vapour - a selling point. I shoot, edit and deliver, very happy - thanks.
Looking at the numbers being bandied around, 700,000 subsribers already (I think?) 1.2 million by whenever - great.
Most of the comments I've read on this are from people who are not happy with the changes, how many of them - us - are there? A million?
more? At an average of £300 per year upgrade now not forthcoming, how long will it be before Adobe gets round to realising that they're leaving £300,000,000 in the pockets of ex customers who are slowly drifting towards other software? Maybe it's time to write to the shareholders.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Rainer SchubertRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 16, 2013 at 11:36:18 pm

Well said.
But Adobe is first with writing to the shareholders - busy obfuscating all the things beyond recognition.
They tell them also all the half-truth like us (...think, it´s long ago, that they were a serious company).
And you are right - from users sight there is not one argument, why this "cloud" called "upgrade" is a must.
And it´s far away from sure, that it will work for Adobe in the end.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 17, 2013 at 1:18:23 am

[Billy Payn] "I couldn't care less about the 'Cloud' to me that's just vapour - a selling point. I shoot, edit and deliver, very happy - thanks."

I'm glad I's not just me mentioning that the emperor has no clothes.

We know why CC is great for Adobe. We know why CC is great for new users. We know why CC is great for Enterprise customers (in some cases anyway).

But every other argument I've heard for why the rest of us SUDDENLY, after all these years, need to move to a cloud subscription model just don't make sense.

"vapour" indeed...


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2


Juan SalvoRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 17, 2013 at 4:40:55 am

It's effectively a way to stabilize revenue and potential migrate occasional upgraders to basically perpetual upgraders. They've chosen to do it. I personally don't dislike it. To me it has certain benefits. Others may weigh the cost/benefit and come out the other side. Finding it not worthwhile.

Adobe it seems to me, is well within their rights in doing this. if customers don't like it, they're welcome to keep using their perpetually licensed cs6 and eventually move on to other platforms. It's business, not personal. I don't get why there seems to be all this vitriol over a business decision? If adobe's proposition seems unappealing to you today, don't buy it. Maybe that'll change in the future. Maybe not. They seem to be very effectively growing their subscriber base with the current model.

color/post/workflow
http://JuanSalvo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 17, 2013 at 4:49:21 am

Again, we know why its good for Adobe. That's self evident.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Juan SalvoRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 17, 2013 at 4:59:02 am

I guess, I don't get why it can't just not be targeted for some people. It's not a personal insult is my point.

color/post/workflow
http://JuanSalvo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 17, 2013 at 5:02:21 am

Sounds good.

Are you not making the case for choices between subscription and perpetual licences?

You do understand that the objection is the mandatory part, not to the cloud model itself?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Juan SalvoRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 17, 2013 at 2:36:39 pm

I'm making the case for Adobe's choice to not offer a perpetual license. I don't get why they are obligated to do so.

color/post/workflow
http://JuanSalvo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 17, 2013 at 2:52:36 pm

[Juan Salvo] " I don't get why they are obligated to do so."
Yep, that about sums it up. Adobe is free to do whatever it wants, regardless of the huge opposition from 10's of thousands of its own customers.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Lance BachelderRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 9:14:18 pm

Is there really a HUGE opposition? The fact is this is the best release Adobe has ever done - the software is great and $49 month is a the smallest part of my monthly cost of doing business. I understand if you're a hobbyist just playing around but then you don't need CC anyway - go buy Premiere/Photoshop Elements or use iPhoto/iMovie.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-1

Rainer SchubertRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 9:47:54 pm

If they are only able to bring 700.000 users into this so called cloud within 18 month (and forcing by cutting the "so antique CS" distribution)
And 12.5 Mio. stay outside.
When is it a HUGE opposition in your eyes?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 9:49:09 pm

[Lance Bachelder] " I understand if you're a hobbyist just playing around but then you don't need CC anyway - go buy Premiere/Photoshop Elements or use iPhoto/iMovie."

There's really no need to be rude and insulting


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 10:15:35 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "Is there really a HUGE opposition? The fact is this is the best release Adobe has ever done"

It's true this is a great release. Nevertheless, the opposition really is huge. I'd say the numbers are in the hundreds of thousands at the very least. Remember, even by Adobe's figures, they expect to lose up to half their existing customers in the short term. That's potentially millions of paying customers. I think that qualifies as huge.

[Lance Bachelder] "I understand if you're a hobbyist just playing around but then you don't need CC anyway - go buy Premiere/Photoshop Elements or use iPhoto/iMovie."

Nonsense. Being against forced DRM lock-in from one of the largest software venders in the world has nothing to do with being a hobbyist. Chris's video says it much better than I:

https://vimeo.com/66594939

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Juan SalvoRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 6:04:12 am

In the videos analogy the paint brush is say after effects. The painting is not his AEP file, it's the render of his work. That video is his painting. There is nothing in the CC model that prevents him from accessing the rendered video. Adobe isn't making any claims on the product of his work. Just the product of THEIR work. They're saying they're not interested in selling you a copy of their work. But they'll rent it to you. That's the only change here. No claims on your painting, just, no interest in selling you a brush, if you want to buy, go somewhere else. If you want this particular brush, well you gotta rent it. But you still get to keep the paintings you make with it. If you want to update or revise the painting, and you want to use the same brush, well you gotta rent it again. Does this really merit all of this vitriol?

color/post/workflow
http://JuanSalvo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 6:32:43 am

[Juan Salvo] "In the videos analogy the paint brush is say after effects. The painting is not his AEP file, it's the render of his work. That video is his painting."

Simply wrong.

The work is the project file. Rendered output might be in any number of forms for any number of purposes. 4K, HD, tablet, phone, who knows? Now, next month, or years from now. The project file is the expression of the composition and holds the possibly for all kinds of different output. The work is the project.

Using your analogy, it would be like if Microsoft started forcing everyone to pay rent every time they wanted to open a Word document after making a print out. How well do you think that would go over? (BTW, they tried that with Office 360. It failed.)

[Juan Salvo] "Does this really merit all of this vitriol?"

What vitriol? We're passionate but basically civil. If you think this forum is rough, you should take a look at Adobe's CC forums or Facebook page. The conversation here is a tea party in comparison. Yes, many people are upset, and with good reason.

If you're happy with DRM lock-in, by all means feel free to enjoy, but please understand that those of us who are not are fighting for more choice for all of us, including people who like CC.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2


Walter SoykaRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 12:25:44 pm

[David Lawrence] "Simply wrong. The work is the project file."

This is a fascinating philosophical digression!

I'd disagree with your statement above. This suggests that creative work couldn't exist before computers, before there was such a thing as a "project file." I think the work is something different, consisting certainly of the final output and perhaps also of the mental process that occurred while making it.

I'd argue that a project file is a production meta-tool, like a custom-made jig. It's a means to an end for producing the work. I respect but disagree with Chris's contention that Adobe "owns" the painting by renting artists the paintbrush. Painters show paintings, not their brushes or palettes. You don't even see the underdrawing. The project file is immaterial to the audience. (That said, I think that a gallery show of art-in-progress tools could be really cool!)

While I may disagree with you about where our tools end and our work begins, and therefore question the claim over ownership, I do understand why you want to own your tool outright -- I just think that's a separate discussion.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 1:39:17 pm

[Walter Soyka] "
I'd disagree with your statement above. This suggests that creative work couldn't exist before computers, before there was such a thing as a "project file."


Interesting conversation indeed.

"I think the work is something different, consisting certainly of the final output and perhaps also of the mental process that occurred while making it."

The word "work" has two connotations that need to be separated out. There is the "work" done to create the "work." The first meaning has to do with process and the second with the output of that process. While Adobe has no holds on the latter, it has the former in it's pocket.

"I'd argue that a project file is a production meta-tool, like a custom-made jig. It's a means to an end for producing the work. "

To me the project file is, as you mentioned, a recording of your actual work process. This is something not readily available before computers. if Dede Allen's edit suite caught on fire while she was editing Jaws the only record she would have to reconstruct her work would be her memory (and also a bunch of VHS copies of rough cuts floating around, but you get the idea.)

Computers have brought us the ability to record our actual work process, to go back and create editorial variations whenever desired, to output to new formats, to re-version for new markets. Our work process has become an object, a project file, that is arguably much more valuable than the finished "work" itself.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3

Walter SoykaRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 2:36:13 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Computers have brought us the ability to record our actual work process, to go back and create editorial variations whenever desired, to output to new formats, to re-version for new markets. Our work process has become an object, a project file, that is arguably much more valuable than the finished "work" itself."

What value does our work process have after the work product is delivered?

With original media and mastered output or open EDL/XML/AAF, you do have options for everything you mention above outside of the original project file and original edit system.

I do understand why people want to own their tools outright, but I don't think that renting the tools of production equates to loss of project ownership.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 3:05:30 pm

[Walter Soyka] "What value does our work process have after the work product is delivered? With original media and mastered output or open EDL/XML/AAF, you do have options for everything you mention above outside of the original project file and original edit system."

My work process has value the moment I need to revise and re-version.

EDL/XML/AAF is better than nothing but it does not normally include the ability to re-create effects and filters from one NLE system to another.

Also my normal workflow is to generate a series of timelines that develop as my work develops so that by the time I am ready to deliver a project I'm generally on timeline #12 or so. Unless I start XML'ing all these timelines as well as the master timeline I loose access to material, my master assembly, my bins, my multicam clips, that makes revising much easier.

If Adobe comes up with a solution that can recapture my whole project file as an XML, with all the bins, timelines, effects, then that would be the solution that everyone is arguing for. They have the Automatic Duck guys on staff, it seems doable - so do it and everyone gets what they want.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Juan SalvoRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 3:11:49 pm

All your timelines/bins/media are exported in the XML file that already exists in PrP.

To go back to the new editorial analogy of Jaws... Adobe isn't making any claims on the edited product. They are making claims on the tool used to produce that product.

They're refusing to sell you their KEM. They'll rent it to you anytime you want. But if you want to edit on their KEM, well you have to pay. That isn't making any claims of owner ship on your work... just the tool you use to do the work.

color/post/workflow
http://JuanSalvo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 4:23:47 pm

[Juan Salvo] "They're refusing to sell you their KEM. They'll rent it to you anytime you want. But if you want to edit on their KEM, well you have to pay. That isn't making any claims of owner ship on your work... just the tool you use to do the work."

This might apply if the Kem had a device that recorded every cut and splice you made on it, but it doesn't. You can take any film cut and switch from a kem to a moviola to a steinbeck without any loss of information. The same cannot be said of a project file. XML still looses a lot in translation depending on your use of filters and plug-ins. But I imagine you know that, your just being deliberately obtuse to make a point, no matter how illogical.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2


Juan SalvoRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 4:51:15 pm

[Herb Sevush] "But I imagine you know that, your just being deliberately obtuse to make a point, no matter how illogical."

And there's the vitriol!

color/post/workflow
http://JuanSalvo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

John GodwinRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 4:57:02 pm

Well, if you poke the bear long enough it'll bite you.

Best,
John


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 5:03:33 pm

[Juan Salvo] "And there's the vitriol!"

I thought you were commenting about vitriol directed at Adobe. If your worried about a little sulfate being thrown your way, I suggest your in the wrong place.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Aindreas GallagherRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 21, 2013 at 9:48:41 pm

[Juan Salvo] "Adobe isn't making any claims on the edited product. They are making claims on the tool used to produce that product."

reading through the thread here - the lengths people are going to is really surprising.

I would seriously ask anyone to re-read that top sentence above and have a long, proper think.
seriously - we're talking about print, photography, dtp, web, mograph and video post.

we are willing to accept those continual tool ownership claims on all creative products of the software they, adobe, code?

are. we. out of our minds.

If this isn't a monopolistic claim, I don't know what is, because unless adobe felt they had a reasonably monopolistic position, they would never dare declare that their tools are not for sale, but merely for rent. because if there were competition in imaging, dtp and mograph, we would drop their weird terms like a rock, and move on. we have limited room to maneuver here.

the idea that people are enabling them in this new mindset is mindboggling.

Adobe are market supposed to lose this argument. its a bad argument. If their software cannot compete in the mid term, let it die. They're dying online and they know it.
I kind of presume that is why video image and post got such weird overwhelming love at nab. They have a dead audience online.

no one cares about muse or edge. the kids have moved on.

this is a company in a bad place doing weird things and we would be well served to wait them out.

to repeat this: could people please have the sense to not sign up, because it is the only short term lever we are ever going to have to alter their completely mental corporate mindset.

as they say, if you care about adobe....

#adobe2014
http://www.adobe2014.tumblr.com

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Ridley WalkerRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 21, 2013 at 10:34:06 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "we have limited room to maneuver here."

Herein lies the rub. I'm with you 100%, holding off CC even though it has its appeals.

Adobe has the industry (various industries) by the short and curlies.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Aindreas GallagherRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 21, 2013 at 11:24:33 pm

[Ridley Walker] "Adobe has the industry (various industries) by the short and curlies."


but if we had sense, and I mean any sense - we could see the reverse.
Adobe are extraordinarily sensitive to subscription uptake right now.
Industry wide short term rejection of the uptake could give true long term benefits.

honestly: even for the basic good of the company you'd nearly hope they could be starved off this position.

them halting all contemporary sales and shifting to a season, after season, after season landlord to millions of tenants is a pretty weird road to hell.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 5:25:48 pm

[Walter Soyka] "What value does our work process have after the work product is delivered?"

So Walter, does this mean your usual practice is to delete your project files after you've delivered a job to a client?

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Walter SoykaRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 1:30:06 am

[David Lawrence] "So Walter, does this mean your usual practice is to delete your project files after you've delivered a job to a client?"

Of course not. I double-archive everything onto LTO tape. Doing that has given me a very realistic view of how often I go back to old projects. In the last three years, I've restored exactly three archives. In every case, that was to send a copy of a master or a specific asset used in production. I did not re-open project files.

If I had to open these and make changes in an app I no longer subscribed to, I could have charged for it and covered my tool rental cost. I'm not arguing that this is better, but I do think it's possible that the value of old project files and the security of perpetual licensing are overstated here.

Let me turn the question around: David, is your usual practice to keep all the footage, project files, and maintain machines capable of running every NLE you've used? How many of us fight bit rot and maintain our footage archives? How many of us here still have Avid ABVBs or Media 100 hardware ready to go, just in case?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 22, 2013 at 8:07:44 am

[Walter Soyka] "Let me turn the question around: David, is your usual practice to keep all the footage, project files, and maintain machines capable of running every NLE you've used? How many of us fight bit rot and maintain our footage archives? How many of us here still have Avid ABVBs or Media 100 hardware ready to go, just in case?"

Actually Walter, the answer is yes. As much as I possibly can.

I still have my first Apple//e and boxes of 5 1/4 floppies. I can still run the software on those floppies including stuff I wrote in the early 1980's when I was learning to program.

I can still run the Hypercard multimedia prototypes I produced at Lucasfilm in 1988.

All previous projects on SyQuest, Zip and Jazz cartridges are backed up to NAS, HD and optical disc and can be retrieved at any time. All previous system hard drives are fully backed up and can be opened as disc images.

I didn't really begin doing freelance post until around 2001 starting with Final Cut Pro 3. I have boxes of tape but since all material was immediately captured, I never need to touch it. I can go back to any project I worked on since 2001 and since they all exist as self-contained archives, I can open them in FCP 7 Legacy and bring them up to date. I recently did this for a video I made in 2004 which I wanted to add to my Vimeo page.

Storage is cheap. I treat mini USB hard drives like floppies; except instead of storing a megabyte, they store a terabyte or more.

All client projects are fully archived. Any client can call me any time and I can have their project up and running. Active clients get a directory on the NAS and are backed up nightly.

Anyway, you get the point.

I've been careful to as much as possible, only work in formats with a clear upgrade path. I consider it my job to archive with this in mind.

It's especially true with art and in my collaborations with artists. I've worked with an artist on one particular project over a period of 11 years and during that time, it went thru many format changes as new technologies gave us new types of presentation opportunities. It was absolutely essential to the artist that she have a complete, fully documented mirror archive of the piece, including all assets and project files. I spent a day on Skype with her walking her thru directories, explaining how everything was used and what she'd need in case for any reason, I was unable to work with her on the piece in the future. This is my standard practice with artists. They always get a copy of everything.

BTW, I realize my situation doesn't apply to everyone. I work with the simplest possible set-up (laptop and Cinema Display) and my archiving strategy benefits from this simplicity. If your work depends more specialized hardware, it might be a bit harder keeping projects current as hardware changes. But it should still be possible. If the work demands it, you'll figure it out.

I thought I was safe after more than a decade with Apple and FCP. I was wrong. Live and learn. Why would I trust Adobe management at this point, given their recent decisions?

[Walter Soyka] "I do understand why people want to own their tools outright, but I don't think that renting the tools of production equates to loss of project ownership."

If you have to pay rent to access your project, you're at the mercy of the landlord. The landlord can revoke your access at any time for any reason. The landlord can charge anything they want. You have zero control. How on earth is this anything but the effective loss of project ownership?

Maybe I think about this the way I do because of my background in art. I use Adobe digitals tools for my livelihood, but they've also been an intrinsic part of my creative practice for close to 25 years. I work on a wide range of projects and money has very little to do with many of them. So saying you can always rent for a month just sounds ridiculous. I can't help but find it laughably short-sighted and naive. Artists always own their tools. The idea that any artist would willingly give control of their creative masters to a tool vendor is absurd.

I'm in agreement with Jim Campbell's post, referenced by @James Taylor in the thread above. Adobe's clumsy attempt at total DRM lock-in is a great big middle-finger to millions of paying customers. Until Adobe is ready to start selling software again, or offer a fair solution for those of us who require perpetual, archival, project access, I'm perfectly happy to respond in kind.

#adobe2014
http://adobe2014.tumblr.com

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3


Walter SoykaRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 23, 2013 at 12:32:24 am

David, it's awesome that you still have all that working. I try to do the same, though I use LTO instead of HDDs. I do value my project files, even if I don't actually have to re-use them very often in practice.

Yet I still think that CC is a viable option. Crazy, I know.


[David Lawrence] "Artists always own their tools. The idea that any artist would willingly give control of their creative masters to a tool vendor is absurd."

Always? That's easy enough to disprove. It's a choice.

The tools you "own" are dependent on Adobe servers for activation. You cannot install your copy of CS6 without explicit approval from Adobe.

Everybody's been ragging on Aharon, but his distinction between licensing and outright ownership is real. Your ability to use "your" tools without Adobe is directly tied to your current hardware. When the machine that your software is licensed on fails, you will have to re-install and you will have to re-activate. There have been all kinds of nightmare scenarios imagined here wherein CC will become unusable; for consistency, should we not apply the same degree of imagination to legacy CS activation?

(I have much more faith in Adobe continuing to provide CS activation, and much more faith in Adobe continuing to support their CC customers than I have faith that my current hardware will still be operational 10 years hence.)

I get the ideology of ownership and control, but I think you are all focused on trying to own and control the wrong thing. In my mind, open and portable data formats are vastly more important than the applications, since the legacy applications also have DRM and will ultimately require legacy hardware.

When we talk about our project files, what really matters is the data they represent. To that end, I have been campaigning for more open data formats through appropriate channels, and will continue to do so.

If CC where available as you have envisioned, with some kind of perpetual plus subscription offering, I'd go for that. Right now, though, that's not an option and CC is, so I'm making the practical choice to go for it. In my mind, the future is uncertain whether I'm on subscription or holding onto legacy licenses, so I'll weigh my best options for today alongside my options for the future.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 26, 2013 at 8:02:23 am

[Walter Soyka] "Yet I still think that CC is a viable option. Crazy, I know."

Not crazy at all. I think you do a great job explaining how the benefits outweigh the downsides in your situation. If it makes sense, why wouldn't you go for it? Of course, it would be even more awesome if you joined us in #adobe2014, but I get why you might not want to wait for a better deal ;)

[Walter Soyka] "Always? That's easy enough to disprove. It's a choice.

The tools you "own" are dependent on Adobe servers for activation. You cannot install your copy of CS6 without explicit approval from Adobe."


I don't see how this disproves anything.

Yes, you depend on Adobe's activation servers, but assuming you have your licensed serial number, you should always be able to activate a legal install. The last time Adobe shut off activation servers in late 2012 for CS2, they made CS2 freely available to download for anyone with a legally purchased serial number. No activation required to run. I don't think activation is a problem.

[Walter Soyka] "Everybody's been ragging on Aharon, but his distinction between licensing and outright ownership is real. Your ability to use "your" tools without Adobe is directly tied to your current hardware. When the machine that your software is licensed on fails, you will have to re-install and you will have to re-activate. There have been all kinds of nightmare scenarios imagined here wherein CC will become unusable; for consistency, should we not apply the same degree of imagination to legacy CS activation?"

Aharon's a very smart guy and I do give him credit for acknowledging some the bigger problem's with CC, but I gotta say, I'm really tired of the "you never owned it" rap. He (and everyone else using it) knows exactly what we all mean when we talk about "ownership". While the point is technically true, I find it disingenuous and condescending.

Yes, re-activation can be a PITA, but usually it's not a big deal. Your legally purchased license entitles you to activation and in the case of a disk crash, AFAIK, Adobe is good about recovering lost authorization tied to hardware.

The fact that Adobe allows customers to legally sell and/or transfer their product licenses really should put an end to the "you don't own it" argument:

http://adobe.ly/1dQOjQn

[Walter Soyka] "When we talk about our project files, what really matters is the data they represent. To that end, I have been campaigning for more open data formats through appropriate channels, and will continue to do so. "

I completely agree with you about portable data formats and support the idea 100%. Unfortunately, it's still a pipe dream for the most part. Common file types like .psd are still not completely portable. I've even had problems exchanging .doc files with people using OpenOffice. If simple, common, file types like these are still problematic, I don't see NLE/Motion Graphic projects becoming truly portable anytime soon. They're just too complex and the various platforms are too different.

XML really isn't good enough. The last few times I tried using XML to move projects from FCP 7 to CS6, more than half the time I wound up rebuilding my sequences from scratch because so many key things (effects, transitions, motion key framing, etc.) simply didn't translate. And these were for relatively simple projects. And of course, XML will likely never understand something as vendor-specific as dynamic link. It's simply impossible to take advantage of the full benefits of Adobe integration (or any vendor-specific features) and have fully portable project files. So yes, while I support full data portability, I don't think it will be a realistic safeguard against DRM lock-in either now or any time soon. This is why some form of perpetual buy-out is so essential.

[Walter Soyka] "If CC where available as you have envisioned, with some kind of perpetual plus subscription offering, I'd go for that. Right now, though, that's not an option and CC is, so I'm making the practical choice to go for it. In my mind, the future is uncertain whether I'm on subscription or holding onto legacy licenses, so I'll weigh my best options for today alongside my options for the future."

Makes sense. I understand and support your choice and will continue making the case for better choices for all of us!

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 5:23:16 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Computers have brought us the ability to record our actual work process, to go back and create editorial variations whenever desired, to output to new formats, to re-version for new markets. Our work process has become an object, a project file, that is arguably much more valuable than the finished "work" itself."

This. ^

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2


David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 5:50:15 pm

[Walter Soyka] "This is a fascinating philosophical digression!"

Glad you're enjoying it :)

[Walter Soyka] "This suggests that creative work couldn't exist before computers, before there was such a thing as a "project file.""

Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Herb said it well:

[Herb Sevush] "Computers have brought us the ability to record our actual work process, to go back and create editorial variations whenever desired, to output to new formats, to re-version for new markets. Our work process has become an object, a project file, that is arguably much more valuable than the finished "work" itself."

[Walter Soyka] "I'd argue that a project file is a production meta-tool, like a custom-made jig. It's a means to an end for producing the work. I respect but disagree with Chris's contention that Adobe "owns" the painting by renting artists the paintbrush. Painters show paintings, not their brushes or palettes. You don't even see the underdrawing. The project file is immaterial to the audience. (That said, I think that a gallery show of art-in-progress tools could be really cool!)"

I think of my project files as the true project master. Any output is simply an instance of the work rendered for a specific purpose. But the project file allows all possible instances and even content revision if necessary.

So conceptually, the project is the master. Take away access to the project and you take away access to the master.

I think that's the point of Chris's video and why Adobe's DRM lock-in scheme is so offensive to so many of us.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Ricardo MartyRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 6:29:54 pm

maybe walters view is better. we delete all our work then when the client wants something else we bill him all over again. wow charging twice or more, but wait if he finds another editor using any other nle he could probably get a better price because the will always have acces to the files. hmmm

Ricardo


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 1:30:59 am

[Ricardo Marty] "maybe walters view is better. we delete all our work then when the client wants something else we bill him all over again. wow charging twice or more, but wait if he finds another editor using any other nle he could probably get a better price because the will always have acces to the files. hmmm"

You know that's a gross misrepresentation of my viewpoint.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 12:33:40 am

[Walter Soyka] "I'd argue that a project file is a production meta-tool, like a custom-made jig. It's a means to an end for producing the work. I respect but disagree with Chris's contention that Adobe "owns" the painting by renting artists the paintbrush. Painters show paintings, not their brushes or palettes. You don't even see the underdrawing. The project file is immaterial to the audience."

My point with the video was this:

Work created with Adobe products is created with proprietary tools (that I paid for BTW). The file formats that are generated in that process are also proprietary and interdependent. If I create that work using proprietary tools, bound to proprietary formats (there are no other options) and then that work suddenly becomes unavailable because of Adobe policy, failure to validate my subscription, the cloud goes down, cessation of rental fees, or an act of god, then my work is (by default) in THEIR control, not mine. They have essentially taken control of my work. And now I'm a hostage to their subscriptions and their policy if I ever expect to access, modify, update my existing work or create any new work.

If at any time, for any reason, Adobe is free to pull the plug on the tools, and without those tools I loose access to my work because all the work exists in an untouchable "Adobe only format" they OWN my work. De-facto.

Totally unacceptable.

That's what this whole mess if all about from my perspective. I recognize that others don't understand this or sympathize with the reasoning, but I can assure that for many thousands of us, this is the fundamental issue and core to who we are as artists, business people and users of Adobe products.

Along those lines, without some kind of a buyout option or something substantial in terms of policy modifications from Adobe that mitigates these concerns, one thing I feel very confident of: The strong and vocal opposition against mandatory CC will not go away.

Whether you agree or not with our reasoning, I would hope that those who disagree would see the sincerity and the passion of what we are saying in the comments in this blog, and the sentiments I expressed in the video, that I hope encapsulate how others feel.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Dustin LawhornRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 12:38:20 am

+1

-dl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 12:42:39 am

[Chris Pettit] "If at any time, for any reason, Adobe is free to pull the plug on the tools, and without those tools I loose access to my work because all the work exists in an untouchable "Adobe only format" they OWN my work. De-facto.

Totally unacceptable.

That's what this whole mess if all about from my perspective. I recognize that others don't understand this or sympathize with the reasoning, but I can assure that for many thousands of us, this is the fundamental issue and core to who we are as artists, business people and users of Adobe products."


Well said.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Walter SoykaRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 2:13:34 am

[Chris Pettit] "They have essentially taken control of my work. And now I'm a hostage to their subscriptions and their policy if I ever expect to access, modify, update my existing work or create any new work. If at any time, for any reason, Adobe is free to pull the plug on the tools, and without those tools I loose access to my work because all the work exists in an untouchable "Adobe only format" they OWN my work. De-facto."

Adobe has changed their offering, now making it available as a rental. That means that you need to pay for it while you're using it, but it doesn't mean they're taking control of anything, holding anybody hostage, or taking ownership of what you produce. Those are all forcible actions and I don't think they accurately describe this situation. I know they are not perfect, but support for industry-standard EDL/XML/AAF means that your projects not locked in "an untouchable 'Adobe only format.'"

I get that the ideological difference between CC and perpetual licensing is big, but in a lot of cases, I think the practical differences in the areas you describe is small.


[Chris Pettit] "Whether you agree or not with our reasoning, I would hope that those who disagree would see the sincerity and the passion of what we are saying in the comments in this blog, and the sentiments I expressed in the video, that I hope encapsulate how others feel."

I'll quote Edison again: there is always a better way. I'm happy with CC so far, but I'd be thrilled to see improvements.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Post removed.

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 2:59:06 am

[Walter Soyka] " Those are all forcible actions and I don't think they accurately describe this situation. I know they are not perfect, but support for industry-standard EDL/XML/AAF means that your projects not locked in "an untouchable 'Adobe only format.'" "

A valid point if I was only editing video Walter. But while I use premiere almost daily, I'm not an editor. I'm an editor, animator, motion graphics artist, interface designer and application developer (with the help of the programmers I hire anyway).

On any given day, I use the following: AE, PR, AU, FL, PS and occasionally AI. That's in addition to C4D. The fact is, my projects are complex animals, with lots of moving parts and lots of formats, most of them Adobe. There is simply no way of protecting my work without having access to the half dozen tools that were used to create that work to say nothing of the dynamic linking and inter dependencies that make the CS suite the holistic tool that it has become over time. Just not possible. If you follow the thread with Adobe staff on my vimeo page you'll see that I sincerely tried to explore this option (backwards protection of CC work through CS6). It's just not viable, and Adobe knows it. I'll refer you to a statement from an Adobe VP:

"The community is telling us is that what we have in place today – where you can export from your CC apps to CS6 – is not an acceptable solution," admits Sharma. "There are other ideas and expectations that customers have that we are actively discussing internally – but more importantly with our advisors and customers (on the forums)."

http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/creative-software/adobe-vp-on-creat...

I tried to keep my mind open at the beginning in May regarding output to other formats or other versions of the software when it was suggested by Adobe that CS6 and other apps would protect our work through other means. But the fact is, it was a trial balloon, and it popped. Adobe has essentially acknowledged that by announcing some future "tweaking" to CC policy in response to this very issue.

[Walter Soyka] " I'm happy with CC so far, but I'd be thrilled to see improvements."

I think that a lot of us on this blog actually agree more than we disagree. While I'm not happy at all with CC, I totally agree that the solution most likely lies in improvements. That's why I'm hopeful for a substantial compromise.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Juan SalvoRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 3:27:37 pm

[David Lawrence] "The work is the project file. Rendered output might be in any number of forms for any number of purposes. 4K, HD, tablet, phone, who knows? "

I don't know about you. But when I finish a project, I deliver to my clients a "master" this is usually a DPX or TIFF sequence in my case. Could also be a ProRes file. This is delivered at an agreed upon resolution. Based on the source material, and what they're willing to pay for. Usually 2K or 4K, frequently 1080P. But both me and the client know going in what the intended master is. Everything else is work in progress. My clients don't make any claims, and I refuse to grant claims, to the process used to create their master. The only thing they own is the master output we agree on, and any derived deliverables they might request.

color/post/workflow
http://JuanSalvo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 5:29:39 pm

[Juan Salvo] "The only thing they own is the master output we agree on, and any derived deliverables they might request."

So Juan, does this mean your usual practice is to delete your project files after you've delivered a job to a client?

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Ridley WalkerRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 6:12:02 pm

[David Lawrence] "[Juan Salvo] "The only thing they own is the master output we agree on, and any derived deliverables they might request."

So Juan, does this mean your usual practice is to delete your project files after you've delivered a job to a client?
"


Looking a Juan's impressive portfolio I can see that indeed he may never re-open a project file once the job is delivered. In my case, I work for a variety of client on much smaller jobs that are often edited, updated and revised annually.

I shoot, edit and animate. Its primarily the animations and motion graphics that are updated. The videos are rarely updated, though I have had a client ask for a revision 5 years after the original work was done and dusted.

This discussion demonstrates that there are differing products and workflows for each of us.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Juan SalvoRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 6:25:27 pm

I certainly keep my project files. If clients request revisions or changes or other version, I charge them accordingly. Why shouldn't adobe retain the right to charge me accordingly if I'm using their tools?

color/post/workflow
http://JuanSalvo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Ridley WalkerRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 6:49:20 pm

[Juan Salvo] "I certainly keep my project files. If clients request revisions or changes or other version, I charge them accordingly. Why shouldn't adobe retain the right to charge me accordingly if I'm using their tools?
"


I apologize for assuming that you did not keep your project files. Your statement regarding using Adobe's tools is interesting.

It illustrates what Walter S. has suggested is a philosophical difference of opinion. Perhaps I should pay Sears every time I use the hammer I bought there.

Juan, we disagree on this point. No vitriol or sarcasm included in this message.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Juan SalvoRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 6:57:16 pm

[Ridley Walker] "It illustrates what Walter S. has suggested is a philosophical difference of opinion. Perhaps I should pay Sears every time I use the hammer I bought there."

If sears wanted to start a hammer rental business. And charged you $0.25 a month instead of $20 for the hammer, then I would hope that you'd pay them when you used their hammer.

It's an honest business. Whether you'd rather rent or buy a hammer is a different question. I think if I could download a hammer over the internet, I'd much rather pay a few cents for the couple of times a year I use a hammer rather than $20 one time for the hammer. If new hammers were being introduced every year, then that hammer rental would look even more appealing.

And that's as far as I can stretch the metaphor. ;)


[Ridley Walker] "Juan, we disagree on this point. No vitriol or sarcasm included in this message."
Noted, and much appreciated!

color/post/workflow
http://JuanSalvo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


David SmithRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 7:49:45 pm

[Juan Salvo] "If sears wanted to start a hammer rental business. And charged you $0.25 a month instead of $20 for the hammer, then I would hope that you'd pay them when you used their hammer."

In that example, I would still buy the hammer, no question. There is a certain security to knowing the hammer is always in my toolbox waiting for me when I need it. There are many hidden or unspoken costs attached to renting, certainly hassle. If every time I needed a hammer, I had to drive to Sears, spend gas money, wait in line, fill out paperwork, deal with some horrible customer representative, that's all a hassle well worth avoiding for me by just paying the $20. I'm having flashbacks now to the great hassles I've had to deal with every time I needed to rent a car. Even if it were an internet-based hammer rental company, I'd still have to log in, deal with all the forms, entering credit card information, wait for delivery. Then send it back when I'm done.

And, I could easily transfer that metaphor to Adobe's rental scheme. When it comes to renting versus owning, it's a no-brainer for me, I want to own. I understand that for others, renting is the way they like to go, and that's fine. Adobe's biggest fault here, is not allowing the choice.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 8:59:00 pm

[David Smith] "I understand that for others, renting is the way they like to go, and that's fine. Adobe's biggest fault here, is not allowing the choice."

This. ^

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Andrew KimeryRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 10:26:33 pm

[David Smith] "Adobe's biggest fault here, is not allowing the choice."

As Adobe expands their server-side services (which sounds like the plan) then I think the subscription model will make more sense. Right now CC, besides the apps, gets you 20gigs of cloud storage and web hosting via Behance. Not really all that much. The subscription plan also allows Adobe to roll out feature upgrades at will instead of all the software teams arbitrarily being forced to release upgrades every 12 months (ready or not). Cool, but it still feels like there's not a significant difference between renting and buying.

Mike Chambers (a product manager at Adobe) envisions a future where Adobe servers could act as a cloud render farm and the API's would be made available to third parts. Imagine editing an image on a tablet and when applying filters that number crunching is offloaded to Adobe's servers via WiFi instead of being done by the relatively weak CPU on a mobile device. I think it would also be cool to see Adobe add a file upload/download accelerator (kinda like Aspera) to their cloud storage. Maybe a robust video chat/screen sharing feature via Adobe Anywhere for remote collaboration (kinda like iChat Theater but better) too.

Adobe's end goal seems to be to create a platform as opposed to just selling applications and, to that goal, a subscription model makes more sense, IMO. Only time will tell how it all plays out though.

Maybe if I was more dependent on Adobe products for my day-to-day work I'd be more put out, but I'm not so I'm curious to see what Adobe can do with this over the next year or two. Kinda like how FCP X was pretty useless at launch but has steadily become more and more viable. I know that not everyone has the luxury to have a wait and see approach.




Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Rainer SchubertRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 10:59:17 pm

So Adobe is taking a credit of users to build that vision of cloud, they have (if I interpret right...) ;)

And: God only knows who is faster...
Adobe developing it´s so called cloud to a version, where it can be called cloud
or
Developers of CPUs for Pads.

BtW: If I edit Images (Video/3D) I do that on min. 2 calibrated 30" monitors (sometimes a Wacom Cintiq additional). Never even had the wish (or want to) edit with photoshop on my iPad or Mobile PC.
Same with Video or 3D.
iPad, phones and all similar devices are Communication Tools or/and Gimmicks. They are not made (or useable) for the work I do (in my eyes).
And editing GB-Data Files over Web will not be satisfying in a foreseeable future (For example: Using Server CPU by mixing local with cloud content?/bandwith/...)

I read the thought s of Adobe. But they are not in a foreseeable future.
I think also they are very, very late with their wish to be also a player in the "we have your data game".


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 1:27:19 am

[Rainer Schubert] "BtW: If I edit Images (Video/3D) I do that on min. 2 calibrated 30" monitors (sometimes a Wacom Cintiq additional). Never even had the wish (or want to) edit with photoshop on my iPad or Mobile PC.
Same with Video or 3D.
iPad, phones and all similar devices are Communication Tools or/and Gimmicks. They are not made (or useable) for the work I do (in my eyes)."


Agreed Rainer. Dual 30's for me too.

I've heard this suggestion quite a bit lately: that editing would be enhanced somehow by mobility. While I think documentary producers could perhaps use this in the field, why would anyone else want to edit on a smaller screen? (no offense Andrew)

It took us all these years to get to big, color accurate hi-res screens, speaking for myself, I don't see value in going back...


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Andrew KimeryRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 4:11:21 am

[Chris Pettit] "I've heard this suggestion quite a bit lately: that editing would be enhanced somehow by mobility. While I think documentary producers could perhaps use this in the field, why would anyone else want to edit on a smaller screen? (no offense Andrew) "

It's not about wanting to edit on a smaller screen (I like my 2x24" + broadcast monitor setup), it's about having the flexibility of doing so if the situation could benefit from it. Maybe a producer can use it to make a string out (certainly a situation that doesn't require a full blown editing workstation), or an editor can use it to watch (and annotate) dailies from someplace other than the edit cave or an assistant editor can use it to monitor and/or execute tasks remotely (large exports or other such things that need an occasional checking in on but not constant attention). Not to mention it could be used to make an adjustment remotely instead of having to drive to the office, make the simple fix, then drive all the way back home (not a fun task on the gigs that are an hour drive each way).

I prefer writing emails on a full sized keyboard, watching movies on the living room TV and using TeamViewer on my computer to remote into the computer at the office, but I like the fact that I can also do all these things on a mobile device for the times when using my preferred method isn't an option (or isn't the best option).

I figured people that want Adobe to offer a subscription plan *and* a perpetual license would be all about having options. ;)




Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 4:28:31 am

[Andrew Kimery] "I figured people that want Adobe to offer a subscription plan *and* a perpetual license would be all about having options. ;)"

Don't misunderstand the nature of our comments in this regard. We're not saying that no one should edit video on an iPad. What we're saying is that doesn't seem like much of a valid argument for why we should all leap towards subscriptions.

No meat on the bones so to speak


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Andrew KimeryRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 7:10:27 am

[Chris Pettit] "Don't misunderstand the nature of our comments in this regard. We're not saying that no one should edit video on an iPad. What we're saying is that doesn't seem like much of a valid argument for why we should all leap towards subscriptions.

No meat on the bones so to speak"


I've worked in, and developed workflows for, many multi editor, multi producer environments (including coordinating with remote productions in different countries) and sufficient access to media always seems to be a bottle neck in large part because you have to be in close physical proximity to the media in order to have real time access to it. That's probably a big reason why the idea of anyone associated with the production having real time access to the media anywhere and on any device is so appealing to me. The flexibility it adds to workflow development just blows my mind a little bit.

I'm very excited about the future potential of things like Avid's Interplay Sphere and Adobe Anywhere. Once the hardware requirements hit closer to commodity level then it won't matter if you want to share the media on your NAS with someone down the hall or across the country.




Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Ricardo MartyRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 5:21:30 pm

yes having a perpetual lic. and when needed a cc for a job surge. but cant be done for most since now that ver 7 is only cc.

ricardo


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 11:10:12 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Imagine editing an image on a tablet and when applying filters that number crunching is offloaded to Adobe's servers via WiFi instead of being done by the relatively weak CPU on a mobile device."

I've read this argument in a couple interviews with Mike Chambers and I gotta say, every time I hear it I always roll my eyes.

It's hard to take them seriously if this is what they're betting on. I mean come on. We have this super-cool, super-fast new Mac Pro to look forward to in the Fall and Adobe wants to force all of us onto The Cloud so in some unspecified time in the future, we can remotely process complex filters on images we're editing on our cellphones?

Really Adobe? That's the best you have to offer?

This is not a serious argument.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Andrew KimeryRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 12:15:33 am

[David Lawrence] "This is not a serious argument."

It's not a serious argument for a desktop replacement and it's not being tossed around as an idea for a desktop replacement... or any sort of replacement. It's an idea to augment and improve an existing process a very power constrained mobile device.

Taking this a step further, I'd love Adobe to create a web client for Adobe Anywhere so that any device (computer, tablet and smart phone) could be a part of Adobe Anywhere and perform basic functions (like logging or basic editing in PPro). This is what Avid showed a few years ago at NAB and it was awesome. They had a laptop in Vegas running a 'lite' version of MC in a web browser and editing online quality HD footage stored on serves in Virginia. It was great and the tech exists for this (ex. OnLive, the online video game streaming service). Eventually Avid turned this into Interplay Sphere and, from what I hear, the web-based NLE was dropped because the GUI was too different from the desktop version (which is a shame).

Does this mean I want to ditch my desktop and edit on my smart phone? No, this means I'd like the option to have access to projects, media, etc., on any device, anywhere I have a broadband connection. I'm not looking to replace, I'm looking to augment and expand.




Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 11:38:25 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Maybe if I was more dependent on Adobe products for my day-to-day work I'd be more put out, but I'm not so I'm curious to see what Adobe can do with this over the next year or two. Kinda like how FCP X was pretty useless at launch but has steadily become more and more viable. I know that not everyone has the luxury to have a wait and see approach."

Actually, if not for the FCP Legacy EOL debacle and Adobe really, truly delivering with CS6, I wouldn't care nearly as much as I do. I'd still be perfectly happy with CS5, lol. But I very publicly switched and spent the past year advocating and evangelizing for Adobe with my clients and colleagues. I truly believed them when they said they listen and they were different. I still believe that their project development and support teams do listen and engage. I have the highest respect for them. But there's a big disconnect between them and Adobe corporate. Adobe corporate is actively destroying years of customer trust and good will. I hope they clue-in before it's too late.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 4:21:20 am

[David Lawrence] "But I very publicly switched and spent the past year advocating and evangelizing for Adobe with my clients and colleagues. I truly believed them when they said they listen and they were different. "

Same here David. The sheer number of disenfranchised FCP users I attempted to evangelize towards Adobe....

Only to look like a chump a year later.

Just another example of the damage done by the poor handling of mandatory CC by Adobe


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 12:14:07 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Mike Chambers (a product manager at Adobe) envisions a future where Adobe servers could act as a cloud render farm and the API's would be made available to third parts."

[Andrew Kimery] "Maybe a robust video chat/screen sharing feature via Adobe Anywhere for remote collaboration (kinda like iChat Theater but better) too."

I certainly can see your point on the service VS apps point Andrew. And I agree that seems to be where Adobe wants to go.

So why not create those services first, and THEN demand that we make monthly payments if we want them? I guess I have a hard time paying subscriptions for "what if" or "someday" services that don't exist yet.

And that gets at the core of what I think Adobe did wrong here. If they had gone slower, introduced different services as they became available, showed customers what the possibilities to work flow could be, and then required subscriptions to participate, who would complain? particularly if those services produce demonstrable workflow improvements? For example: The minute online render farms became available 3D developers jumped on board because they could see the benefit to their workflow. Why in the world would anyone start paying subscription fees for future "possible" services before they've even arrived? So Mike Chambers has a vision. Cool. When it's reality, come talk to me. At the moment it's just talk. Don't misunderstand me, I truly believe in Adobe's ability to innovate and lead the industry, but don't they have to put some real examples in play before we all jump on board?

While I do understand there are other reasons some people like subscriptions, this particular argument puzzles me.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Andrew KimeryRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 12:20:55 am

[Chris Pettit] "So why not create those services first, and THEN demand that we make monthly payments if we want them? I guess I have a hard time paying subscriptions for "what if" or "someday" services that don't exist yet. "

Me too, which is why I'm not renewing my subscription. :)

Why did Adobe go the route that it did? I have no idea. It seems premature to me too. Of course Apple launching FCP X and stopping sales of FCP 7 seemed premature too me too. Maybe this is why I'm not running a global corporation? Maybe Adobe is trying to stabilize its revenue stream so that it can invest in tech that will require a lot of infrastructure on their end w/o endangering the company's cash flow? Just a wild stab in the dark as I have no idea what goes on at Adobe from an accounting perspective.




Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 12:52:37 am

I think we're on the same page essentially Andrew


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Andrew KimeryRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 12:55:57 am

[Chris Pettit] "I think we're on the same page essentially Andrew"

I think so too. It's funny how hard that is to realize on the internet sometimes. lol




Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 1:40:38 am

[Ridley Walker] "It illustrates what Walter S. has suggested is a philosophical difference of opinion."

In thinking about it a bit more, I think our reactions can be measured on (at least) three axes: ideological, emotional, and practical -- and we all weight them differently.

Ideologically, I understand why people want to own their tools. (Speaking for myself, ideologically, I'd like to see better open interchange to make questions around any individual product less relevant).

Emotionally, I feel excited about the potential CC offers. Others feel angry or betrayed.

Practically, I think that subscribing to CC is better for me than not subscribing. Others here reasonably disagree and think that rental is too great a long-term risk.

There are lots of shades of gray here, even for those of us with strong opinions.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 10:56:35 pm

[Juan Salvo] "I certainly keep my project files. If clients request revisions or changes or other version, I charge them accordingly. Why shouldn't adobe retain the right to charge me accordingly if I'm using their tools?"

So we agree project files have value. Good, that's a start. ;) I'd go further and posit that the project files are your project's true masters. They actually have more value than your output because they encode your actual work.

Of course Adobe should be paid for the right to use their tools. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that point.

The debate is over how we pay Adobe for those rights and what we get for our money.

1) Adobe 1982-2013:

Pay Adobe up front for the right to use their tools in perpetuity. Pay a lower fee for the right to use newer versions of those tools in perpetuity. The customer decides if and when to pay the upgrade fee. The tools always work and the customer can always use them as long as they keep a compatible system.

2) Adobe mid-2013:

Rent time for the use of the latest versions of Adobe tools. Pay rent forever in order to keep access to Adobe-specific project files. If the tools fail to perform a critical function, there's no compensation for lost rental time. When rental period ends, the customer is left with nothing, no matter how many thousands of dollars have been spent on tool rental. The customer is locked out of access to Adobe-specific project files.

If you think option 2 is a better deal for you, by all means, enjoy it. I won't try convincing you otherwise.

But please understand, I and millions of other Adobe customers prefer option 1 for very good reasons.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Juan SalvoRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 12:31:59 am

I don't deny the value of project files. I don't think of them as masters but rather as a snapshot of my work. I've never once been asked by a network or film distributor to deliver a .fcp or avid project, or a resolve project. Not once. That's not a master. When we get distribution deal delivery specs, they ask for a image sequence or an HDCAM-SR tape, or even a prores file. But never an AEP.

Like I said, I don't deliver to my client a project file. That's my work, not their product. Their product is the master.

But this is largely a semantics argument.

I think there's a lot of merit to option 2. But you've described it rather inaccurately. If you stop paying for access to CC. Your projects still exists. That intellectual property still lives. And the products of that work is still accessible. You just don't have access to the tool you need in order to utilize the product until you pay. You can pay and gain access to it anytime. You're not permanently locked out. Just rent the hammer and you can continue to nail away right where you left off. In exchange you pay less upfront and get more frequent updates. You also get to take advantage of new features and applications as they become available. You also change the dynamics of what features are added in the application. Because the motive stops being new whizz-bang features to sell high-priced upgrades. And becomes solid refinement features that keep subscribers happy so that they keep subscribing.

In a perfect world everyone would give you every option. But Adobe has made a decision with regards to how they want to do business. We make decisions like that with our businesses all the time (30 day terms, 90 day, cash up front) we get to decide how we want to charge our clients for our service. And which clients we want to work with.

Adobe has made a decision for themselves about how they want to do it. It's not an attack on your creative freedom or your property, your property is still very much yours. It's a change in how they bill you and how their tools are used. They're not stealing anything from you. They're asking you to pay an ongoing service fee. Not forever but for however long you want to use their tools. If you're upset that they changed their mind about how they sell their service, fair enough. I'm sure some of your clients would be unhappy if you decided to take your business in a different direction. But I think you'd be a little miffed if some of your former clients started wondering whether you were committing fraud because of how you decided to run your business. Thats what I mean by vitriol. When people start asking for department of justice investigations because some one wants to sell you a service instead of a perpetual license, some perspective is being lost.

color/post/workflow
http://JuanSalvo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Rainer SchubertRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 4:02:42 pm

Adobe did all they can, to become a monopolist in the graphic-industry.
They bought most of (real) competitors.
May be not that strong in Video-editing and Web, but Illustrator & PS are nearby not replaceable.
Aso InDesign is very established and hard to replace (in many workflows)

There are many small users and freelancers, who are in dependency to what the big agencies are moving.
So if they must be able to work with Adobes File-Formats, they are forced to Adobes Software.

If you write, it´s users decision, to take it or not, that´s not a picture of the real situation.
The authority "Monopolies and Mergers Commission" isn´t existing without a base for it´s existence.

If it would be a real market with lots of competitors - I would say you are right.
Also if Adobe used this kind of distribution from the beginning (all the users who are leaving Adobe will lose also all the additions & plugins they bought over the years - which is more than the CoreApps in my case).
Under the given reality, I will not agree, that Adobe should be allowed to do everything they want.
(Espec. because they made their position a monopoly themselves with buying competitors like Macromedia or playing them against the wall like Quark)

Since their CashCow decision I try to base all new projects to Adobe alternatives as good as possible.
And it´s very hard to keep the workflows living to some clients.
I still have CS6 and it will run for a few years.
I don´t know how competitors will develop in the future.
Sometimes it´s amazing to go new ways.

But as long as possible, I will do my best to avoid, that SW will be only available as subscription in the future.
I find all these "fee-based", "credit-based" and unforeseeable costs horrible (TY, Cellphone,...)
In my eyes this kind of distribution only makes sense, where different users have different consumption (gas, water, energy)
We all know: nothing gets cheaper with that.
They don´t do that to give us a favour.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Aindreas GallagherRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 21, 2013 at 7:51:17 pm

[Juan Salvo] "I don't deny the value of project files. I don't think of them as masters"

that's a bit weird. It feels like someone doing mental contortions to defend adobe's position.

#postchat
#teamadobe

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 21, 2013 at 11:08:40 pm

[Juan Salvo] "I don't think of them as masters but rather as a snapshot of my work. I've never once been asked by a network or film distributor to deliver a .fcp or avid project, or a resolve project. Not once. That's not a master."

It sounds to me like you fail to understand the difference between a client deliverable and a project master.

[Juan Salvo] " If you stop paying for access to CC. Your projects still exists. That intellectual property still lives. And the products of that work is still accessible. You just don't have access to the tool you need in order to utilize the product until you pay."

If you don't have access to the tool, you don't have access to the project. Period.

With CC, Adobe rather than you has complete control of access to the tool.

Therefore, Adobe now has compete control of access to your projects.

Not acceptable.

But if that works for you, by all means enjoy your DRM lock-in and never-ending payments ;)

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 3:42:54 am

[Juan Salvo] "My clients don't make any claims, and I refuse to grant claims, to the process used to create their master. The only thing they own is the master output we agree on, and any derived deliverables they might request."

But don't your clients expect you to archive their work in some editable form, for some reasonable period of time? Mine do.

And while I'm not obligated to deliver raw files to the client, I certainly owe them a reasonable period of time where I can make changes to their work without starting over from scratch. If I told them that they had to pay me to start over every time, that's one less client.

That means the raw files ARE the work. Without the raw files all I have is a rendered, un-editable video file, which I can assure you my clients will find useless in 6 months. Or 6 weeks even. For Trade shows, even 6 DAYS.

I can assure you that's how my clients feel, not just me. You must have great clients Juan...


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Sandeep SajeevRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 11:40:46 am

Juan,

Are you strictly talking about grading?

I'd venture that for those of us in editorial, things can get a bit more convoluted. Especially when dealing with large/long term projects.

Sandeep.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Richard HerdRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 23, 2013 at 3:23:04 am

[David Lawrence] "Using your analogy, it would be like if Microsoft started forcing everyone to pay rent every time they wanted to open a Word document after making a print out. "

Actually...the writers I know are done with the work. Opening it up again causes panic attacks. For writers having to pay every time they/we open the document means another reason to procrastinate. :)


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 3:45:33 pm

[Juan Salvo] "Does this really merit all of this vitriol?"

The only vitriol on this entire thread came from a single person (that happens to share your position BTW).


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Lance BachelderRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 21, 2013 at 2:22:37 am

If Adobe really does lose hundreds of thousands of paying customers I can't imagine some changes happening - they're in this to make money so either they'll relent on the subscription only model or fire the CEO and then relent... But if they relent and all you crybabies don't jump on board then I hope you'll have the integrity to stay away from forums like this and keep you whining to yourself.

Oh and yeah I stand by my hobbyist comment - go cry somewhere else.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-1

David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 21, 2013 at 7:39:09 am

[Lance Bachelder] "Oh and yeah I stand by my hobbyist comment - go cry somewhere else."

Dude, chill. I'm ready to give them my money as soon as they decide to start selling software again.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Dustin LawhornRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 21, 2013 at 3:21:00 pm

[David Lawrence] "[Lance Bachelder] "Oh and yeah I stand by my hobbyist comment - go cry somewhere else."

= merlot #2?


Dude, chill. I'm ready to give them my money as soon as they decide to start selling software again.
"


:)

I, too, am in the waiting game for now...

-dl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 21, 2013 at 3:55:15 pm

Relax Lance.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Derek AndonianRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 11:45:54 pm

[Juan Salvo] I don't get why there seems to be all this vitriol over a business decision?

Because the business that made the decision is Adobe, and the decision they made has an enormous impact on several applications that are the de facto standard for a lot of industries.

If Quark had done this same thing with their software, people wouldn't have cared much about it. After the shock of learning that they're still around wore off, they would have said, "Well, that's just one more good reason to use InDesign instead."

Greg Andonian, a.k.a. Derek

______________________________________________
Facebook.com/creativecloudboycott

adobe2014.tumblr.com

#adobe2014


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Juan SalvoRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 6:29:21 pm

Fair point. I would just counter that they're not the only game in town. Even in photo editing. Certainly not the only option in the video space.

I get though that Adobe may mean much more to some than other brands.

Thanks Derek for recognizing that some of the reaction may be vitriolic, even if it has a rational motivation.

color/post/workflow
http://JuanSalvo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Franz BieberkopfRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 1:07:34 am

Juan,

You're expressing certain well-worn tropes in your arguments, largely ignoring the substance of opposition to Adobe's strategy.

[Juan Salvo] " if customers don't like it, they're welcome to keep using their perpetually licensed cs6 and eventually move on to other platforms. It's business, not personal. I don't get why there seems to be all this vitriol over a business decision?"

It's a common tactic to paint opposition as somehow emotional or unreasonable in face of simple, rational decisions (ie. "vitriol" vs. "business"). You might be suggesting that there are no rational, reasonable opposing points of view to the Adobe strategy.

But what is more insidious is the idea that the only way that one can express oneself is through money (ie. buying or not). I suppose it would be a simpler world if this were true. Fortunately, it is not - people may well petition, express themselves on forums, send feedback, talk to company reps, organize boycotts or media campaigns, and otherwise lobby or make their opinions heard. It might be a bit messy, but it's just a way of dealing with businesses, not personal.

People, it seems to me, are well within their rights in doing this.

Sometimes it even leads to positive change.

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 1:30:26 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "But what is more insidious is the idea that the only way that one can express oneself is through money (ie. buying or not). I suppose it would be a simpler world if this were true. Fortunately, it is not - people may well petition, express themselves on forums, send feedback, talk to company reps, organize boycotts or media campaigns, and otherwise lobby or make their opinions heard. It might be a bit messy, but it's just a way of dealing with businesses, not personal.

People, it seems to me, are well within their rights in doing this.

Sometimes it even leads to positive change."


Agreed. Well said!

I believe that positive change is not only possible, but eventually probable. But it will take lots of participation from articulate and passionate people.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Juan SalvoRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 6:36:20 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "But what is more insidious is the idea that the only way that one can express oneself is through money (ie. buying or not). I suppose it would be a simpler world if this were true. Fortunately, it is not - people may well petition, express themselves on forums, send feedback, talk to company reps, organize boycotts or media campaigns, and otherwise lobby or make their opinions heard. It might be a bit messy, but it's just a way of dealing with businesses, not personal.

People, it seems to me, are well within their rights in doing this."


No one is insinuating you're not within your rights. But as someone in this field who could have been swayed to take a stand against this (largely I find the new model helpful, but I can see the point in wanting a choice... I just also see that it's within Adobe's rights to not offer a choice) when I see the name calling and eighteen-exclamation-point-all-caps diatribes, I don't think it's out of line to suggest that it's something other than an entirely rational response.


And I'm not ignoring the substance of the opposition, I just don't agree with it. I believe the product of your work isn't your project file it's your render, or export, or whatever you make with it. Not the means with which you make it. I believe adobe puts resources and capital into further developing those tools. I believe they are adobe's intellectual property. Just as my methods and techniques in using my tools are my intellectual property. I don't think access to that project is a right. If adobe was making claims on the product I made with their tools, I'd be the first on the picket line... but they're not. They've just decided to change the way they ask me to pay for access to those tools.

The tools are still available to me provided I'm willing to pay. The product I make with the tools is always available to me (masters in my case), regardless of whether I pay or not. So I disagree with that formulation of the opposition.

Is there some other reason to oppose this that I'm not picking up on?

They can raise prices anytime? Well so can I. I'd probably loose clients, and would have to weigh that into any price adjustment. So would they.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Ricardo MartyRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 6:57:52 pm

to make it simple, your stance only benefits you and those who think like you, ours benefits us and those that think like you. whats the problem?

ricardo


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 5:51:01 am

[Ricardo Marty] "to make it simple, your stance only benefits you and those who think like you, ours benefits us and those that think like you. whats the problem?"

Advocates for CC have what they want, or mostly anyway.

If those of us that advocate for buyouts or perpetual licences, or whatever, get what they want, then everyone's happy, right? No?

How does our advocacy for choices negatively affect those who already have what they want from Adobe (subscriptions). I simply don't get this...


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Andrew KimeryRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 17, 2013 at 6:27:33 am

[Billy Payn] "Maybe it's time to write to the shareholders."

Adobe's stock is hovering near a record high so now probably isn't the best time to try and convince the shareholders that Adobe made the wrong move. ;)




Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Rainer SchubertRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 17, 2013 at 8:47:34 am

? ? ?
Adobe stock raised 1% in total since May 6th (with a short time lose of nearby 10% directly after their coming out with evil).
NASDAQ raised above 6,5% (and MS 8,5%) in the same period! (I think, you have to compare that)
If all their words are true, and all their numbers right (in their minimalistic business reports ; ) - That´s not an overwhelming success, I would say.
And also: Their financial future is based on their self set estimation, that they can get 1.25 K into Cloud dependency till 1.12.2013 (and/or 4.5 K till 2016).
(and the discounts for former CS users will end soon - Or there will be extra discounts, when they are not at their targets - God knows).
And that all these happy subscribers are always able to pay their fees.
If not.... Hm
There was a mail send out today, where they tell customers:
"Join the over 650.000 creative professionals who’ve already made the switch to Creative Cloud"
Wasn´t there a number of more than 700.000 a few days ago?
Hm... Hm... Hm...
! ! !


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Richard HerdRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 23, 2013 at 3:28:54 am

Too bad I didn't invest.

I closely watch this and I linked it somewhere down there. When the CC launched, stock was at $45. It dropped to almost 39. Friday it closed 48.

EDIT: adding the link: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/adbe

52 week low is $30. If you got in at $30, now at $48, then CC is a great business model. There's no reason Adobe can't trade price with Apple or Google, and I believe that's where it's going. How long will it take? 2 years? 5 years?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Rainer SchubertRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 23, 2013 at 10:33:35 am

I don´t think so.
Adobes business reports are minimalistic as they never where.
In my eyes they are misleading investors.
Hard to find any numbers how their income is split between subscriptions or CS buyers.
Or other relevant numbers.
There also will be a milestone at the end of November.
Then they have to point out, how many subscribers are caught.

They made their bill with only the half of the former users (caught in the cloud till 2016).
Their first target is 1.25 K till Dec 1st.
(also this self set target is very low, as they have 12.5 Mio users in total and the already caught 700,000 are only 7% within 18 month)
But what happens, if they have to tell WallStreet that they didn´t reach their numbers?
What happens to cloud if they can´t get enough users into dependency in the end?
And it seems, it´s not as easy Adobe thought, to reach that targets.
As most of users don´t like this kind of distribution.
They are already making surveys, what they can do, to make this business Model more acceptable.
For the moment they have also income from CS buyers. There are also discounts for former users.
But this will end soon.
Their income is totally based on fees then.
And if there are not enough Cloud-Users their income will drop dramatically.
(And it will become visible for Wall Street or/and subscribers - by raising prices/fees)

It seems (having a look to their acquisitions), they are really dreaming of somewhat like a "cloud".
Spend much in buying companies (all the fees of Cloud-subscripers hoping on updates?).
But it also looks aimless. Looks, like they have no real plan them selves.
All this new cloud functionalities feels like different worlds.
And I also wonder if their Marketing cloud will ever become that success they hope.
They are the last rat in the race to get a part of the "We own your data" Cake.

In the end there are lots of estimations. Nothing is sure.
And it can run in every direction.
May be they get away with that (and change the SW market in total at the end)
But also possible, they don´t (and I hope).

Btw: Adobe is still 4% under raising NASDAQ when I compare both for the period between May 6th and today.
(May be better to buy MS for the moment, which dropped down nearby 12% on Fr. Isn´t that the Xbox and Office 365 company? Hm...)


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 17, 2013 at 1:00:38 pm

[Billy Payn] "The changes to Premiere and After Effects are pretty minor, yes, they sound good as 'sound bites' but actually don't add up to anything like a package that would tempt me to upgrade, maybe about as warm a deal as upgrading from CS5 to CS5.5 - why ?"

Maybe the new features in Premiere Pro CC sound minor, but they make a huge difference in actually using the application. There are tons of fixes to those little everyday annoyances: better relinking, tons of UI enhancements, join through edit, editing unnested sequences, the clip mixer. I think the Lumetri Color Engine integration is underrated, too.

I think it's tough to call Ae CC (12.0) a "pretty minor" update. C4D Lite and CINEWARE for a whole new 3D integration pipeline, Refine Edge, layer feature snapping, bicubic resampling, improvements to the Warp Stabilizer and 3D Camera Tracker, a ScriptUI overhaul... there's a lot in this update.

These are actually my favorite kind of updates -- totally user-focused, adding and improving tools that people touch every day, rather than going for shiny new "bullet point" features for the marketing web page while ignoring the things that people using the applications actually need.

Maybe they don't touch on your workflow, but I don't think it's entirely fair to call them minor.


[Billy Payn] "I am only interested in upgrading my software when there are real changes on offer, and only wish to upgrade when in between projects. My experience of this software is that it's not always stable - this may not be the fault of the software alone, and might be a combination of soft/hardware. Still I like stability and don't want to rock a boat while managing a complicated project."

Subscription has pros and cons, but I don't think this is one of the cons. The applications run locally in your machine and you get to choose when (or if) to install the updates.


[Billy Payn] "Also, I like my plugins to work, I'm not confident that this will always be the case if the software is altered in an ad hoc basis. I have not been able to find anything on this worth reading, if anyone has - please could you enlighten?"

"Ad hoc" might be a little strong. Creative app releases have been decoupled, meaning Ae and Pr and Ps and Il and Id and Fl and whatever don't all have to hit the same release date. When Ae has an update ready (developed & tested), they can launch. When Pr has an update ready (developed & tested), they can launch.

As for plugins, I'll refer you to this post from Todd Kopriva of Adobe [link]:

[Todd Kopriva] "Also, nothing changes in this area regarding plug-ins. You only need new plug-ins when the API changes or when a new architecture is introduced (like with the port to 64-bit), which happens rarely. Sometimes, the plug-in makers need to update their installers so that the default installation locations are current, but even then you can typically use the older version and just manually install into the new location."

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3

Oliver PetersRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 17, 2013 at 2:31:00 pm

I would suggest that improvements between Premiere Pro CS6 and CC are significant. Aside from UI enhancements, the performance increases in real-time playback with mixed formats, renders and exports are very quantifiable. There are pros and cons to the Cloud pricing structure, but remember there is no upfront buy-in like with past collections and bundles.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 17, 2013 at 2:35:18 pm

I agree on the improvements, lots to like there.

I just haven's seen valid arguments as to why it's good for my business that I only be able to get them from subscription.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Ricardo MartyRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 17, 2013 at 5:24:18 pm

The cloud will probably fail this year or next. adobe will either change its approach or sell of its content creation software and dedicate its scaled down company to internet marketing. the loss of subcribers will only continue to grow as those who singed in before realise the where taken. if they lost 50k users one month after their announcement the loss will be of over 300k by the end of the year a friend recived a special 2 year offer with a reduced price. he declined.

ricardo


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Andrew KimeryRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 17, 2013 at 5:56:20 pm

[Rainer Schubert] "If all their words are true, and all their numbers right (in their minimalistic business reports ; ) - That´s not an overwhelming success, I would say. "

I'm not trying to paint anything as an overwhelming success. I'm just pointing out where the stock currently sits. Many people were happily pointing out Adobe's stock slipping after the CC announcement as a sure sign of Adobe's folly but now that it has rebounded no one here seems to care what the stock price is anymore. ;)


[Chris Pettit] "I just haven's seen valid arguments as to why it's good for my business that I only be able to get them from subscription."

Only you can judge what's valid for your business though and just because you don't think it's good for you doesn't mean it's not good for anyone else.


[Ricardo Marty] "The cloud will probably fail this year or next. adobe will either change its approach or sell of its content creation software and dedicate its scaled down company to internet marketing. t"

I think it would be a shame if Adobe abandoned their CC plans and went back to their perpetual license model. There's lots of potential in what Adobe wants to do but they do need to add some value into the CC service such as a 'loyalty buyout' option that has been mentioned here many times and more bundles/price tiers (mirroring the CS bundles) instead of a one-size-fits-all approach.




Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Ricardo MartyRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 17, 2013 at 6:06:40 pm

They could have both models cc and perpetual and maybe a hybrid perpetual after a few years. but the cloud as is is not good not even for adobe. At this moment they could have had a windfall of perpetual licenses money plus the monthly income of cc from those that see an advantage to this model.

Ricardo


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Billy PaynRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 17, 2013 at 8:38:22 pm

I have a feeling that after a while, some time who knows how long,the management will look at the Creative Cloud, see how many subscribers they have - realise that there are lots of people who like me are happy enough to keep going with CS6 (which is fantastic, I'm loving the results I'm getting with it)and realise that if they want money from those people they will have to give us something - some kind of compromise.
Until then they are probably just watching and waiting, I guess to see what happens, they want us to sign up but I am not going to and the more people who think this way, the more likely it is that a compromise will be forthcoming one day. Either that or they'll lose us to another package.
Also to see how people are when the monthly subscriptions are continually going out and there may be some months when the software is not being used, how many of their subscribers might want to start taking holidays from monthly payments?
Every business is different, I do edits for people often for no reward if I like their idea or think it might benefit us. Other edits I get paid for, same for touching up photographs. Some months I just play with graphics ideas, I guess lots of the people who readily signed up to CC are making their software pay every month. So it suits them, great - it doesn't work for me - I'll wait.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 17, 2013 at 6:13:39 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Only you can judge what's valid for your business though and just because you don't think it's good for you doesn't mean it's not good for anyone else."

A self evident point that I've made many times. I have friends and partners that use CC. I've recommended CC to a number of people who previously wouldn't have made the investment in the tools like I have. Lots of people like CC. Most of them liked it before if was mandatory.

But how is the mandatory part of the CC model (being forced on my business) good for yours? I remain fairly confused as to why creative pros like yourself who already have what they want from Adobe policy (Cloud subscriptions) are so invested in defending the mandatory part of subscriptions with those of us who oppose it (and again, "it" is the mandatory part, not CC itself)


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Andrew KimeryRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 6:52:37 am

[Chris Pettit] "
But how is the mandatory part of the CC model (being forced on my business) good for yours? I remain fairly confused as to why creative pros like yourself who already have what they want from Adobe policy (Cloud subscriptions) are so invested in defending the mandatory part of subscriptions with those of us who oppose it (and again, "it" is the mandatory part, not CC itself)"


Who says I have what I want from Adobe? I'd like to see application bundles and price tiers in CC the way there was for CS. I'd like to see a 'loyalty' buyout option like has been mentioned here, or, at the very least have the apps go into a demo-type mode where it's fully functional but saving is disabled if your subscription lapses. I signed up for CC last year to kick the tires and it's doubtful I'll renew my subscription until I feel like there is more value and flexibility offered.

With that being said, I think Adobe's plans for CC are interesting and I'd like to see them mature more before I render final judgement on the whole thing. It seems like Adobe wants to transform into a platform as opposed to just an app provider and that really isn't feasible unless you have users on a subscription service. Right now, besides, the apps, all there really is web storage and web hosting services but I've read about Adobe Project managers envisioning things like server side application acceleration and even opening up API's for those process to third parties. Imagine running an image editing app on your tablet and when you apply a filter the app can leverages servers in Adobe's Cloud so it renders faster than the tablet alone would be capable of.

I also like that the subscription model frees up the various software departments to release feature upgrades when they are ready as opposed to everyone having to conform to an arbitrary, annual release schedule. I'd love to see Adobe offer a file transfer accelerator service w/CC that was integrated into the apps. Providing 'always on' server-side solutions like this opens up a lot of possibilities for Adobe but the trade off is moving to a subscription model (which is pretty common for cloud-based services).

Maybe Adobe did pull the trigger prematurely (I was surprised they didn't have the subscription and perpetual live together at least another year) but what's done is done and I'm interested to see what happens down the road.




Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 2:54:25 pm

Understood. My point was a basic one, not granular:

I don't see value in subscriptions at all, but others do. That's where it should end I would think. But there is a lot of energy spent by others trying to convince those of us that are quite certain this is bad for our businesses that it's actually a good deal. Why?

If people are happy with the concept of subscriptions broadly, then they essentially have what they want, even if the specific plans are not to their liking. At the moment, I have nothing of what I want from Adobe. I really want Cineware/AE for example, but I can't purchase it unless I sign up for a lifetime of payments, a completely unacceptable prospect. Although I am hoping for a compromise (as you mentioned - a REAL buyout plan) I'm currently completely cut out of the Adobe upgrade process for now. So are many thousand of others. We're the ones who are out in the cold.

But I agree with everything you've said here Andrew (except I cant envision myself editing video on a tablet). I hope to be keeping an eye on all these features and services if they get here, and taking advantage of those that make sense and have legs in the future for my small business. I outsource to render farms now for my 3D renders. That's a service. I have no problem paying for the service for a determined period of time and then passing those costs on to my clients. But those "what if" services from Adobe don't exist yet, unless you count 20GB of storage or behance (please...)

I'm not anti CC at all. Just anti mandatory CC. Lots of us are.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Andrew KimeryRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 3:59:36 pm

[Chris Pettit] "
I don't see value in subscriptions at all, but others do. That's where it should end I would think. But there is a lot of energy spent by others trying to convince those of us that are quite certain this is bad for our businesses that it's actually a good deal. Why?
"


I guess I don't see people saying positive (or even neutral) things about Adobe as expending even a fraction the energy of people that are consistently posting about horrible Adobe is to the point where you'd swear Adobe ran over their dog, burned down their house and stole their girlfriend. ;)

If people upset with Adobe would've just said, "Well, I don't like the subscription model so I won't be joining CC" then this forum wouldn't have been created. But the negative reactions and anger kept coming and, unfortunately, sometimes turned into personal attacks against Adobe employee's the frequent various forums (including the COW) trying to help users. If there is an large reaction of energy and emotion to the situation it's w/the people coming from the 'Adobe sucks and should die' crowd (which I'm not implying you are part of).




Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 4:25:30 pm

I understand and respect your point. I even had to apologize a bit for some of the nasty comments that came in from a video I created regarding CC on my vimeo page responding to Kevin at Adobe. Link here if you have time:

https://vimeo.com/66594939

From my perspective, (while not defending some of the nasty comments from some anti CC people) Adobe is to blame for this mess. Even if mandatory CC is where they are determined to go, the appalling way they rolled it out, and the arrogant way they've treated customers (and I'm definitely not talking about Adobe participants on this site) is to blame for why there is so much anger and frustration.

As I mentioned in this thread, releasing all the cool new features in April, and THEN letting it be known 1 month later that they are only available by lifelong subscriptions is simply appalling.

EDIT (UPDATE): Andrew, this thread is yet another example of what I was referring to. I can assure you the attacks can come from any direction. I've been attacked personally many times for advocating against mandatory CC. In the case of this thread, I would suggest that the only personal attacks came from someone advocating for the Adobe point of view.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 5:27:20 pm

[Chris Pettit] "I understand and respect your point. I even had to apologize a bit for some of the nasty comments that came in from a video I created regarding CC on my vimeo page responding to Kevin at Adobe. Link here if you have time:

https://vimeo.com/66594939"


Chris, I had no idea that was your video. I think it's one of the most articulate and well presented statements regarding CC I've on the web and beautifully done. I've been sharing it with many friends and clients all this time. Thank you!

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 5:53:07 pm

Thanks for that David! I've had a lot of response from it


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Rainer SchubertRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 9:09:06 pm

Great work.
And I left my comment as "raischub" there one month ago.
Also didn´t know, it was your work.
I think, you love C4D the same as I ;)


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 9:23:38 pm

I thought that was you Rainer! Thanks, yes love C4D


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 5:55:20 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I guess I don't see people saying positive (or even neutral) things about Adobe as expending even a fraction the energy of people that are consistently posting about horrible Adobe is to the point where you'd swear Adobe ran over their dog, burned down their house and stole their girlfriend. ;)"

The reason for that is pretty obvious. People saying positive (or even neutral) things about Adobe like what Adobe's offering.

But many of us like and want the products but find the business terms completely unacceptable. Our only leverage with Adobe at this point is to complain loudly and publicly with the intent of demonstrating and fomenting massive customer resistance. It may take time but there are many examples of corporations backpedaling in face of customer backlash -- XBox One, Office 360, Sim City 2013, New Coke, etc. To that list I'd add CC. The only way we will get Adobe management to listen is to complain, boycott, and encourage others to do the same.

I really wish we could close this forum and instead be talking about how awesome the new Adobe video tools are. Unfortunately, Adobe forced us into this situation with their clumsy attempt at total DRM lock-in.

The irony is those of us that are complaining the loudest are complaining because we want to give Adobe our money. Why any company would leave millions of dollars on the table for the sake of DRM lock-in is beyond me.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3

Armando CiuranaRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 6:52:07 pm

Without a doubt, you put the words where my feelings about CC are, a lot of us want to make business with Adobe, but that most be in a way that is convenient and fair for us, both Adobe and the users.

CC is not business, is Imposition, makes you want to take your business elsewhere.

Best!

President
Ciurana Dussauge Films Mexico


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 7:03:28 pm

[David Lawrence] "I really wish we could close this forum and instead be talking about how awesome the new Adobe video tools are. Unfortunately, Adobe forced us into this situation with their clumsy attempt at total DRM lock-in.

The irony is those of us that are complaining the loudest are complaining because we want to give Adobe our money. Why any company would leave millions of dollars on the table for the sake of DRM lock-in is beyond me."


PLUS 1!


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Dustin LawhornRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 7:17:41 pm

[David Lawrence] "The irony is those of us that are complaining the loudest are complaining because we want to give Adobe our money. Why any company would leave millions of dollars on the table for the sake of DRM lock-in is beyond me."

Well said, David.

-dl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Rainer SchubertRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 9:32:47 pm

Well said.
I am also of the opinion, that all the crying is not about their products.
It´s the way they did it (and are still doing, because being silent is also acting).

I trusted in Adobe for 23 years and most of the time I felt good with that.

But on may 6, they simply changed the product I once bought.
OK - there is no written right, that a thing will go on to the end of time.
But most of the users thought it would go on for ever.

From users sight - and Adobe can tell me every marketing bushwah - there is absolute NO necessity to stop the cloud as an option model.
It´s only for Adobe. And they like to tell us, it´s good for us. Even if we know that it is not.
(Everyone who will do me a harm, and is telling me, it´s good for me gets a worse response than only doing me a harm)

Price isn´t the problem. A single Master Collection is ca 4500$ here in Europe the updates where another 1000$ every 18 month.
No problem - Good tool, good money no question.
Also: Nothing against the cloud (or... nothing against the "cloud" if they name it a bit different, because this is not a cloud)
Would have payed also more for this tools. A prise like 80$/mth (EU) is ok.
But: There must also be the ability to get more than only the right for use as long as you pay.
There MUST be an buy-out, There MUST be guarantees for supported hardware, There SHOULD be an option to "buy all".
Best would have been to keep the "Cloud" beside the CS (may be a higher price level).
They also can change the upgrade politics like you have to pay all upgrades (CS4, CS5, CS6) if you want to come from CS3 to CS6 (if they have trouble with users, who didn´t take all updates. I understand, that a developer needs foreseeable income. But that´s not argument enough for a change like that.

So, with the way they did it, they showed an very different face of of Adobe.
And lost trust (not only mine).
Lost customers (not only me).
I think, that they didn´t make a great deal with the cloud only introduction.
Because the image of an company is also a capital.
And all their marketing folks can´t repair that, with all their pink.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Shawn MillerRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 5:20:56 pm

[Chris Pettit] "I outsource to render farms now for my 3D renders."

Good points all, Chris. Slightly off topic though, who is your render farm service provider? I saw the video you referenced later in the thread. Nicely done, I really like the lighting. Can I assume that you're a Cinema 4D user?

Thanks,

Shawn



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 6:03:11 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Good points all, Chris. Slightly off topic though, who is your render farm service provider? I saw the video you referenced later in the thread. Nicely done, I really like the lighting. Can I assume that you're a Cinema 4D user?"

Thanks Shawn. Yes heavy C4D user and big fan of Maxon.

For monthly subscriptions for a farm I've used Render King. The great thing about this model is that you're not renting cores, but time on the farm. Great option if you have a client making a lot of changes etc:

http://www.renderking.com/

Also I've used per core-hour services like Render Core, but it adds up real quick is hard to budget for:

https://www.rendercore.com/Default.aspx

But mostly I've been paying a company that I've hired for overflow work to use their in-house farm. I would share their name but they're not actually seeking render work per se, I got in because we have a working relationship already.

In the case of the video I mentioned, I rendered that out on my main development machine over a weekend: Dual 8 (16 core) XEON. no farm

Thanks for the thoughts


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Shawn MillerRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 8:31:02 pm

Thanks Chris,

[Chris Pettit] "Thanks Shawn. Yes heavy C4D user and big fan of Maxon."

I thought so, I'm also a very big fan of Maxon's software. C4D is just packed with great features for a relatively small amount of money.

I'll look into renderking.com. Currently, I use rebusfarm.net for short animations (900 frames or so). They're moderately priced, and I like their service, but I'm always on the lookout for alternatives.

Thanks again for the links.

Shawn



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Rainer SchubertRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 9:42:10 pm

Maxons Cinema 4D is fantastic in using multicore computers (don´t know any other App, which can handle that like Cinema).
I´m astonished every time, when I see, what a multicore machine can render over a weekend.
With C4D studio you can also build a "inhouse render farm"
So I need render farms extreme seldom.
Most of the time some hardcore macs are doing the jobs inhouse.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Shawn MillerRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 10:50:37 pm

[Rainer Schubert] "I´m astonished every time, when I see, what a multicore machine can render over a weekend.
With C4D studio you can also build a "inhouse render farm""


Absolutely. I have two older dual Xeon workstations that I use for C4D render nodes (at home)... probably not as nice as Walter's render garden (mine is more like a window sill garden)... but serviceable. For anything that looks like it's going to take more than 8 hours to render, I prefer to use a proper render farm. I figure that a moderate service cost like that pays for itself in productivity gains and electricity savings. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 11:01:31 pm

Another good point Rainer. My workflow is similar.

C4D has single-handedly justified my investments in XEON cores (currently rendering on a 16core - 32 threads). C4D flat out has NO limit to how many cores it can leverage, it simply a matter of getting your hands on more cores.

Just as with you, a lot of my rendering happens on a single XEON machine thanks to C4D excellence


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 5:25:53 pm

[Chris Pettit] "I don't see value in subscriptions at all, but others do. That's where it should end I would think. But there is a lot of energy spent by others trying to convince those of us that are quite certain this is bad for our businesses that it's actually a good deal. Why?"

Speaking for myself, I have spent a lot of time and energy posting here because the "against" side of the argument is very well-represented, but the "for" side is not. Sometimes (much less now than the early days) there are factual errors that should be corrected, too.

I'm sorry if you're offended by my opinions, but I'm actually trying to help the community here as I do in other forums on the COW. For all the readers out there (who may not be active posters) who are on the fence about CC, or who are looking for more information, I'm trying to explain why CC works for me in case it also works for them.

If you're opposed to Creative Cloud, I'm not trying to change your mind. That's none of my business at all. That's your decision to make according to your own needs. There are plenty of very good reasons to not subscribe to CC. I'm just trying to provide a little balance so that others can also make informed decisions.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 5:51:55 pm

I'm not offended by your opinions Walter. I haven't responded to your posts to my knowledge.

I find your comments to always be thoughtful and technically well researched

EDIT: It's been a long day, wanted to follow up:

Walter, your participation in this forum is very valuable from my perspective. I've personally benefited from your knowledge and perspective, always helpful, even if I disagree with mandatory CC.

Whatever the perception of the type of people my comments were directed at, it was definitely not you.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 1:37:07 pm

Chris, thank you so much for both your kind words, and for great discussion. Sincerely appreciated!

Cheers,
w.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Joe MarlerRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 4:49:58 pm

[Andrew Kimery] " the subscription model frees up the various software departments to release feature upgrades when they are ready as opposed to everyone having to conform to an arbitrary, annual release schedule."

Regarding this, Adobe's VP Winston Hendrickson said: "The reason behind the subscription-only move is the logistics of supporting two sets of software. The last 12 months of development was brutal."

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08/Adobe-photoshop-cc

The 12 months he mentioned was before CC was released, so there was only the normal development cycle of a new version. There was no support for two separate versions over that period.

If instead he means from CC onward, supporting both packaged and cloud-based distribution of the same product would be an extreme "brutal" development burden, I don't see that. Cloud-based product sales is a primarily a licensing and packaging issue, not a development issue.

If he means they just got tired of having to synchronize the development cycle of many different suite components, that's no different from any developer of complex multi-component software. In fact any industrial item including cars and airplanes have thousands of subcomponents which must be developed in parallel and synchronized for shipping. They use PERT charts and other techniques for this. It's just a fact of life.

If he means the ability to just ship a CC component whenever it's ready will make their development life less "brutal", it's not that clear cut. They still must do full-suite compatibility and reliability testing. Even if a component seems discrete and without interconnections (to the end user), there are always many "dotted line" interactions between software components. When you ship everything together, testing is a big job but it's a fixed set of items with a single fixed set of version interactions.

But when you're kicking out a new component every few months, you have a continuously skewed set of versions in the field. Each snapshot of versions should be re-tested, at least those with known interactions. E.g, years ago Microsoft did not release service packs or hot fixes for Windows. Each major version was a huge development/test burden, but then you were done until the next version. When they started shipping service packs and hot fixes, this was a huge *additional* test and support burden.

What Adobe is doing with CC is like that.

And it's not only a burden for the product developer, but also for the end user if employed in a mission critical role. They cannot just drop the latest service pack or hotfix on all the servers without major internal IT testing. Maybe client-side Adobe products are less critical and you can take the risk.

However if I was managing a large group of CC users on a critical job, I'd be very cautious about installing a new update without internal testing. Yet if you defer those updates and shoulder the burden of additional testing, this diminishes the supposed advantage of the continuous stream of CC updates.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 7:22:52 pm

[Joe Marler] "If instead he means from CC onward, supporting both packaged and cloud-based distribution of the same product would be an extreme "brutal" development burden, I don't see that. Cloud-based product sales is a primarily a licensing and packaging issue, not a development issue. "

I'm not a software developer, but I have to say I agree. I've never bought the "dual path" argument.



[Joe Marler] "However if I was managing a large group of CC users on a critical job, I'd be very cautious about installing a new update without internal testing. Yet if you defer those updates and shoulder the burden of additional testing, this diminishes the supposed advantage of the continuous stream of CC updates."

Nailed it.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Dustin LawhornRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 7:52:19 pm

[Joe Marler] "However if I was managing a large group of CC users on a critical job, I'd be very cautious about installing a new update without internal testing. Yet if you defer those updates and shoulder the burden of additional testing, this diminishes the supposed advantage of the continuous stream of CC updates."

Exactly. I think you're onto a significant point of concern. We've all felt that exact pain with some project in the pipeline at some point in the past. The last time that happened to me was a CS4 to CS5 transition in the shop I was working in. What a mess! I'd like to think that most people in this business are loath to upgrade the software they use to make a living on based on a whim or "because the update is out."
The continual upgrade "pitch point" Adobe is trying to sell us is a "moot point." We don't actually make those sweeping software changes without testing and preparing for the transition.
The continuous stream of CC updates sounds 'cool' but it's really a 'hot mess' for productions in mid workflow. The way I traditionally do roll-outs to new software involves stopping work for a week for the transition to figure out where the bugs are in the process. Now how would I decide when to roll out which updates? There's a riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in some other level of abstraction...

-dl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Dennis RadekeRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 6:10:55 pm

[Dustin Lawhorn] "The continuous stream of CC updates sounds 'cool' but it's really a 'hot mess' for productions in mid workflow. "

You are in control of your deployments and upgrades. One tool that is available is the Creative Cloud Packager: CCP


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Lance BachelderRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 17, 2013 at 9:26:19 pm

I totally agree - Premiere CC is much improved over earlier versions. I've found it to be the best NLE I've used since FCP 7 but with with far better performance. I'm really loving cutting with it and the send to Audition feature is working really well. I personally don't mind the monthly payment thing but it wouldn't matter to me if the software wasn't any good - the fact is Premiere is a great NLE and well worth the price regardless of the purchase method.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Dustin LawhornRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 3:14:39 am

[Chris Pettit] "But how is the mandatory part of the CC model (being forced on my business) good for yours?"

In point of fact, it's not.

[Lance Bachelder] "I totally agree - Premiere CC is much improved over earlier versions. I've found it to be the best NLE I've used since FCP 7 but with with far better performance. I'm really loving cutting with it and the send to Audition feature is working really well. I personally don't mind the monthly payment thing but it wouldn't matter to me if the software wasn't any good - the fact is Premiere is a great NLE and well worth the price regardless of the purchase method."

I don’t think anyone here would argue that CC is not a great NLE compared to previous releases. And I'm totally on board with paying for great software. But, this whole thing feels a bit like a Bait-and-Switch.

The point that is driving me away is the way they switched to a subscription model. It’s an ethical issue: Adobe waved the “we’ll never do anything like FCPX to OUR customers” flag. That was a clear statement about how they would treat their customers. The thing that upset so many people about FCPX was not just the radical departure of the software itself; it was the sense of “betrayal” that people felt as customers. If the company (Apple) had clued their customers into the changes they were considering we *might* have responded differently. I believe that Adobe made the SAME MISTAKE as Apple by switching to the subscription model with the CC release. I really think I wouldn’t have been as upset with this change if this was something they (Adobe) had clued us in on. Instead, they rolled out the cloud (almost a year ago) as something completely different than what they actually did with the CC subscription model.

Both Apple and Adobe completely changed their dealings with their customers. In effect, they stepped away from drawing more customers closer to them by changing their relationship with them. If I were to spring a complete change of how I bill my customers without clueing them in on it, I will lose them (for a long time - if not forever). But that is what Adobe did...


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2


David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 4:00:17 am

[Dustin Lawhorn] "I don’t think anyone here would argue that CC is not a great NLE compared to previous releases. And I'm totally on board with paying for great software. But, this whole thing feels a bit like a Bait-and-Switch. "

[Dustin Lawhorn] "The point that is driving me away is the way they switched to a subscription model. It’s an ethical issue: Adobe waved the “we’ll never do anything like FCPX to OUR customers” flag. "

Well said. Seems like there's a big disconnect between who's listening at Adobe and who's not.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 4:20:12 am

[Dustin Lawhorn] "I don’t think anyone here would argue that CC is not a great NLE compared to previous releases. And I'm totally on board with paying for great software."

100% agreed. Even raise the price if need be Adobe! I have always willingly paid for the software I use.

[Dustin Lawhorn] " I believe that Adobe made the SAME MISTAKE as Apple by switching to the subscription model with the CC release. I really think I wouldn’t have been as upset with this change if this was something they (Adobe) had clued us in on"

Again, agreed: How dishonest was it for Adobe to release details of the new Maxon Cineware functionality at NAB while deliberately NOT mentioning that they would go to a mandatory subscription process only one month later?


[Dustin Lawhorn] "Both Apple and Adobe completely changed their dealings with their customers. In effect, they stepped away from drawing more customers closer to them by changing their relationship with them. If I were to spring a complete change of how I bill my customers without clueing them in on it, I will lose them (for a long time - if not forever). But that is what Adobe did..."

Well said, frames up the issues exactly


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Herb SevushRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 11:35:13 am

[Chris Pettit] "[Dustin Lawhorn] "Both Apple and Adobe completely changed their dealings with their customers. In effect, they stepped away from drawing more customers closer to them by changing their relationship with them. If I were to spring a complete change of how I bill my customers without clueing them in on it, I will lose them (for a long time - if not forever). But that is what Adobe did..."

Well said, frames up the issues exactly"


+1

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Lance BachelderRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 9:22:08 pm

Yeah not buying it at all. I've been on the Cloud for a year now (CS 6) and would never buy the box set again.

I'd bet if we'd all been on a $49 per month fee for the past several years and Adobe announced you now have to buy a 25lb box of discs and manuals for $799 to $2999 you'd all be freaking out the same way and crying to your momma about how betrayed you feel by Adobe and Apple.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 9:27:31 pm

Cant speak for anyone else, But I don't cry to anyone's Mamma.

Your comment is exactly what I was referring to earlier in the thread.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 9:32:18 pm

[Lance Bachelder]"you'd all be freaking out the same way and crying to your momma about how betrayed you feel by Adobe and Apple."

I wouldn't have to go back too far in the FCPX forum to find statements from you detailing how you would never ever use PPro again, Adobe was a wretched company and not ever to be trusted; but now you have the gall to attack other's for criticizing your at the moment beloved Adobe.

For someone who is almost bi-polar in his opinions of both Adobe and FCPX - you love them you hate them you love them you hate them - this attack coming from you is ludicrous.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Lance BachelderRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 2:56:00 pm

Hey at least I'm open minded enough to give each rev a serious go. Yeah I think, for me, ALL previous versions of Premiere have been lacking in the pro features that I need for day to day editing and buggy enough to make them unusable for me. Being a beta tester in the past was a very frustrating experience as features requests would just fall on deaf ears.

Even though I considered Premiere total garbage, I've still remained an Adobe fan and a loyal 20 year + Photoshop and Illustrator user and a going on 15 years with After Effects. I've happily paid for the Cloud subscription since last summer even though I NEVER considered using Premiere CS6 for any paid work. But I've made a lot of money with the suite and hopefully will continue to do so.

I'm blown away by the work Adobe has done with Premiere CC, it's a GREAT NLE and quickly becoming by 1st choice. Yeah I've been and probably will always be bi-polar in my choice of NLE - back and forth from Mac to PC for years... FCP on one job, Sony Vegas on another, even some Avid in there etc etc etc.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Joseph W. Bourke@Lance - Re: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 4:14:33 pm

Lance -

For once I am in complete agreement with your perceived back and forth. With every single release of either FCPX or PPro CS6/CC (or AVID, for that matter), the playing field changes. What are perceived as bugs by one user, are features to another. I've been through Edit*, AVID, and now I'm with Premiere Pro for good (I'm currently just staying with CS6 until my next computer upgrade, being that I'm running Vista 64-bit very successfully - I'm also waiting to see what Adobe's long-term move is).

There were features I loved in all of the NLEs I've used, and with the upgrade race/feature creep wars, there are always some key features that I'd kill for, but generally, if I wait a rev or two, the competition (whichever NLE they might be) adds that feature. So it makes perfect sense to lean towards one or another at any given point in time - we're not politicians - we're just trying to make our living in the most efficient, revenue generating way...

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Lance BachelderRe: @Lance - Re: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 8:24:45 pm

Agree. As far a future compatibility, if I was to make another switch and, for instance cancel CC, I'd make sure to kick out some .aaf's and .xml's of relevant projects so I have access in a variety of programs. Older shows I just render out masters of anyway so that doesn't matter to me.

While I'm loving Premiere CC, I remain open to all new technology and if Apple does some great stuff with FCPX and the new MacPro that I feel is easier/faster/more powerful for me and great for my clients I could switch again or at least add it to my choices for a particular job. But I see no replacement in my work for Photoshop, Illustrator and After Effects so my subscription will continue.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Rainer SchubertRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 9:52:56 pm

Definitive not.
(you forgot to say: this box is for ever)


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Billy PaynRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 18, 2013 at 11:59:57 pm

Divide and conquer? I bet the Adobe executives are loving this, and all the threads like it, maybe that's the reason for their new approach, something to talk about in the golf club bar. Bet they are wondering if it's going to work though, just how many people will sign up and how many won't - (someone's head is potentially going to roll) one thing they will not do is to say 'we may change the subscription model later' or even hint at it, or they will be shooting the experiment down on take-off.
I don't care whose a hobbyist, who's a hardened proffessional - I used this software when it was considered no more than a toy, the professional world laughed at it and that wasn't too long ago.
Its' great now, maybe they should have launched into subscription on the release of CS5, something stable after the seemingly experimental and unstable CS4 (my experience with that release was not good).
So, I'll wait, I'll use CS6 which can do everything I want pretty well and if something else comes along in the meantime which works I'm open to having a good look at it.
I'm dissapointed that the goal posts have been moved so far and so carelessly, and that loyalty I think I once felt has definately evaporated. I will not buy on subscription, no matter how many times I hear that it works for someone or another - great, but it doesn't work for me - end of. Time to wait and see - just like the Adobe Execs and management - good luck you guys.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Dustin LawhornRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 12:51:00 am

[Lance Bachelder] "Yeah not buying it at all. I've been on the Cloud for a year now (CS 6) and would never buy the box set again.

I'd bet if we'd all been on a $49 per month fee for the past several years and Adobe announced you now have to buy a 25lb box of discs and manuals for $799 to $2999 you'd all be freaking out the same way and crying to your momma about how betrayed you feel by Adobe and Apple."


Wait a minute, your argument here is about digital downloads of the programs vs. a media copy (discs, box sets, and/or whatnot). 
With all due respect, that does not seem to be what this thread has been about at all.

I want access to my creative work. Give me the digital download that has a permanent license and doesn’t stop working (when or) if I end my subscription. I’d be happy with that. At the point I choose to end my subscription, allow me the option of purchasing the program at that point outright or risk losing everything permanently. I’d be happy with that. At least then I would be making a decision about my creative work. That would allow me to live with the consequences of my decision.

What I am trying to say to Adobe is: When you take away my ownership of my intellectual property/my creative work by forcing me to subscribe to your software you have stolen something that didn’t really belong to you.

To illustrate (albiet, poorly):
A woodworker may have to rent the tools they use to create that beautiful chest of drawers in my home. The tools were used for a creative purpose, they created a product. The product was delivered. Now, that woodworker could rent those tools again to modify that chest of drawers at any time. You see, the woodworker doesn’t have to pay a rental fee for the wood he used for the end product. He bought that wood or he owned that wood and sold the final product to me after he created something with it. Access to that chest of drawers is somewhat controlled by me, the end-user. If the woodworker needs to make changes or adjustments, he doesn’t have to chop down another tree and redo everything from scratch.

Woodworker = Us.
Tools = Adobe products
Wood = Media, footage, lower thirds, etc
The end-user = the client

Adobe is not just charging for the tools I use to create the end product. They’re also charging me a regular fee for access to my media. Why? Because I now have no access to the tools or the product (/altered media) unless I pay for a subscription. Okay, so what exactly do I own? Original media and final media; nothing in between.

How can I access my creative work if my client wants to make a change? They own the final product--and, yes, I usually give them a .pproj file, too. But, I now have to rent the work that I created--I have to rent my own editing decisions! Again, what do I own now? Adobe is now saying that I only own the final movie/file I rendered out and the original files that I put in the project. I don’t own access to the creative tool, or the record of my creative process used to get that end result--I now have to rent that. I also (evidently) don’t own that alternate cut to that end sequence of the movie. As Chris puts it so eloquently in the video he linked to, Adobe products are the tools that an artist uses, the other parts of the process should not belong to the manufacturers of said tools.

I guess I could go cut the entire thing together again or re-create the graphics in another program but that’s rehashing a discussion that’s already been covered in these forums extensively.

-dl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 2:54:22 am

Dustin, this description totally describes the issues involved in exquisite detail.

[Dustin Lawhorn] "What I am trying to say to Adobe is: When you take away my ownership of my intellectual property/my creative work by forcing me to subscribe to your software you have stolen something that didn’t really belong to you. "

Exactly my point when I posted this video a month ago (forgive the shameless promotion...):

https://vimeo.com/66594939

[Dustin Lawhorn] "Adobe is not just charging for the tools I use to create the end product. They’re also charging me a regular fee for access to my media. Why? Because I now have no access to the tools or the product (/altered media) unless I pay for a subscription. Okay, so what exactly do I own? Original media and final media; nothing in between. "

Well said again: we ARE talking about access to our life's work. Adobe must address this core issue of ownership and access.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Lance BachelderRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 3:03:21 pm

I didn't pay my cell phone bill and now Sprint won't let me access my voice mail! How dare they!

How dare any company try to charge me for the the goods and services I need in order to charge my clients for the goods and services I provide them...Shame on you Adobe!

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Dustin LawhornRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 4:53:46 pm

Yes, but Sprint didn’t change the nature of their service in mid-stream. It was always a “service” you were paying for.

“Services” are intangible and “goods” are tangible.

Since when is a NLE program a “service”? I guess May 2013.

I guess you are saying that Adobe shifted from providing “goods” (Software) to calling their software a “service.” Conceptually, they no longer sell “goods” but offer a “service”?

A year ago, the “goods” they provided was their software and the ‘cloud’ was a “service.” Now, they call the software a “service” and the cloud “service” is bundled with it. Microsoft tried that, too (as David mentioned) with Office 360.

However, it’s unethical to make such a large shift (from providing “goods” to providing “services”) without giving adequate forewarning to the customer. You don’t spring it on them in a new release announcement. NAB would have been a great place to clue us in on the change that was coming.

-dl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2


Joseph W. BourkeRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 5:21:23 pm

If you read the EULA, it was never goods you were buying, either the disc version or the CC version. Granted, you had access to your project files as long as you had a system which supported the old software, but you never really owned it. This whole debacle is not an argument of ownership, it's an argument of access. I want access to my projects no matter what the status of my license is.

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Dustin LawhornRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 6:05:50 pm

Yes, you're right. Upon re-reading my post, I see what you mean. I didn't intend to imply ownership, but there it is in black and white. I stand corrected. “Access” really the correct concept, Joe.

Upon re-thinking, “goods and services” have nothing to do with access to my work. Goods are items like books, pencils, clothes, etc. Services are provided by other people: lawn care, haircuts, restaurants, etc. Software doesn’t clearly fit in either side of the continuum-it’s somewhere in the middle. Access to my creative work is something outside of that continuum it's neither "a good" or "a service." Therefore, goods and services aren’t what we’re talking about all. Nice point. I’ll graciously step aside, now.

-dl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Rainer SchubertRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 10:31:20 pm

Not 100% right, because with CS you OWNED the right to use the software for unlimited future use.
With CC you OWN NOTHING after subscription.

Many people use the phrase "I want to own" and are false with that in the way, that they "own the software".
But if they would use the phrase "I want to own the unlimited right to use" it will become correct and the way it is meant.

Think we have to understand the people who use the "I want to own" argument this way.
And they are right with that.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 5:11:42 am

[Rainer Schubert] "Not 100% right, because with CS you OWNED the right to use the software for unlimited future use.
With CC you OWN NOTHING after subscription.

Many people use the phrase "I want to own" and are false with that in the way, that they "own the software".
But if they would use the phrase "I want to own the unlimited right to use" it will become correct and the way it is meant. "


Good point Rainer. So nobody has ever actually "owned' the software. Aharon Rabinowitz drove that through our skulls with his initial post last month. We get it.

I have a hard time understanding why that's all that relevant. Whether we're talking about ownership or unrestricted or indefinite licensing, what practical difference is there in regards to access to our work? Either you (are) or you (are not) paying a monthly subscription fee to access your work. You either have indefinite use of software, or the credit card payments will come every month until you retire or die. Choose.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 22, 2013 at 10:56:33 pm

[Chris Pettit] "Good point Rainer. So nobody has ever actually "owned' the software. Aharon Rabinowitz drove that through our skulls with his initial post last month. We get it.

I have a hard time understanding why that's all that relevant."


It's completely irrelevant, Chris. The only time this argument ever comes up is when someone feels the need to defend Adobe. To his credit, at least Aharon Rabinowitz understands the legitimate problems with Adobe's forced rental scheme, but even he misses bigger points about DRM lock-in and digital rights.

The fact that you can legally sell and transfer an Adobe license should put an end to this line of argument:

http://adobe.ly/1dQOjQn

Yeah, we don't own the code. Every knows what we mean when we talk about software ownership. The "you never owned it argument" is just a red herring.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 22, 2013 at 11:04:59 pm

[David Lawrence] "Yeah, we don't own the code. Every knows what we mean when we talk about software ownership. The "you never owned it argument" is just a red herring."

Exactly right David. It's one of those arguments that I just scratch my head and wonder "why are we even talking about this?"

And I'm with you on Aharon Rabinowitz, he's mostly reasonable guy, but the diatribe about "you never owned it" was patronizing and way off point.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Lance BachelderRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 22, 2013 at 8:22:50 am

Ahhh...sob...sob...did Adobe hurt your wittle feewings? Do you need a tissue?

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-3

Tom SeftonRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 22, 2013 at 1:39:17 pm

I can't really see the need to act like this Lance.

Adobe have done something really divisive. We've used their products since the days of Premiere 1.5 and seen a steady improvement in almost every tool (Encore went through a patch 4-5 years ago of being an absolute piece of crap). I like their products and wouldn't have imagined the need to change to a different piece of software.

But, I don't like the thought that Adobe will be able to tell me when I can access MY files. What I create, even if it is with a piece of outdated crap software is mine. I want to purchase something, not hire it. I don't like the thought that they can jack up the rental cost without us being able to do anything about it.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Dustin LawhornRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 2:07:20 am

All in all this has been a great thread! Obviously, I find the topic interesting (otherwise, I would never have posted) and it has helped me to focus my concerns with the subscription model into something more concise.

I think that we are all in deep agreement on the following issues:
  • We like the product(s) that Adobe has provided (in a relative sense, so far).
  • We use the product(s) that Adobe has provided to create things that our customers need.
  • We genuinely would like to use Adobe products as long as they meet our needs.
  • We know that the products that Adobe offers are not perfect, but we are willing to be patient and supportive to their continued work to improve them.

And through this thread a really interesting concept came up. Put in the form of a question, it is: When does the moment of artistic production happen?
Is it at the moment of conception (“Ah, if is simply slide that cut 15 frames to the right, it works!”) or at the moment of delivery? (“Hey that scene was cool! I’ll pay you _____ dollars for ____ versions of that on ________ formats”)

Some of us believe that moment is at conception. The software to record that moment is Adobe CS(insert version # here)...

Others here are saying that moment is at the moment they get paid or (to borrow a saying from Ben Burtt) the moment the thing “escapes.” In other words, the art is found in the "deliverables."



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Andrew KimeryRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 6:09:27 pm

Wow, this thread really blew up yesterday.

[Chris Pettit] "I understand and respect your point. I even had to apologize a bit for some of the nasty comments that came in from a video I created regarding CC on my vimeo page responding to Kevin at Adobe. Link here if you have time:"
.
.
.
EDIT (UPDATE): Andrew, this thread is yet another example of what I was referring to. I can assure you the attacks can come from any direction. I've been attacked personally many times for advocating against mandatory CC. In the case of this thread, I would suggest that the only personal attacks came from someone advocating for the Adobe point of view.


Yes, I remember seeing that when it first went up. And you'll have to forgive Lance. Once he gets a littler Merlot in him all bets are off (inside joke from FCP X or Not).


[David Lawrence] "But many of us like and want the products but find the business terms completely unacceptable. Our only leverage with Adobe at this point is to complain loudly and publicly with the intent of demonstrating and fomenting massive customer resistance. It may take time but there are many examples of corporations backpedaling in face of customer backlash -- XBox One, Office 360, Sim City 2013, New Coke, etc. To that list I'd add CC. The only way we will get Adobe management to listen is to complain, boycott, and encourage others to do the same."


David,
I get where you and others are coming from. I also get where people that are happy with CC are coming from too. I joined CC last year to kick the tires. My subscripting is up in a month and I'm not going to renew it. In this forum (as well as others and via feature request) I've mentioned changes to CC that would bring me on board. CC just doesn't offer the value to me right now that I'm looking for. And that's that. No lamenting over Adobe's ultimate betrayal. No swearing to never buy another Adobe product ever again. No drama.

Interesting that you bring up the Xbox One. After the dust settled and the gnashing of teeth ended many gamers realized that some of online features were actually pretty cool (kinda like Steam but for Xbox) so a new cry went up to bring those features back. MS has said they are looking into how they can bring back the sharing features people want w/o needing an always-on (or near always-on) connection.


Coming back full circle to my original point. I just don't see the incessant brow beating of people unhappy with CC by people that are not uhnappy with CC. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. :)




Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 6:23:53 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Coming back full circle to my original point. I just don't see the incessant brow beating of people unhappy with CC by people that are not uhnappy with CC. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. :)"

Agreed! :)

And for what it's worth, I think we're pretty much on the same page. I have nothing against CC as an option. If the cloud features were in any way useful for my specific needs, I might even be interested in it for a while. But making it the only option as a means of creating DRM lock-in doesn't work for me and potentially millions of other Adobe customers.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Ricardo Martymissing the point
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 6:46:51 pm

a responder to this thread mentioned that he received a letter from adobe asking to join the 650k cc users,not the 700k userd they had mentioned in early june. if this letter is recent that means that adobe is at least 150k users under. the ones that unsubscribed plus those that didnt (meaning the 22k weekly subscription rate before the only cc announcement in may.)

ricardo


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris PettitRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 4:02:45 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Wow, this thread really blew up yesterday."

No kidding!

I feel bad if I inadvertently contributed to that, although frankly I think this has been a largely productive conversation. I continue to learn from those I disagree with (when they're reasonable)


[Andrew Kimery] "Yes, I remember seeing that when it first went up. And you'll have to forgive Lance. Once he gets a littler Merlot in him all bets are off (inside joke from FCP X or Not)."

Thanks for that, I was wondering what his motivation was, I'll try to cut him more slack in the future!


[Andrew Kimery] "Coming back full circle to my original point. I just don't see the incessant brow beating of people unhappy with CC by people that are not uhnappy with CC. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. :)
"


Agree to disagree. I appreciate your input Andrew


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Andrew KimeryRe: Thanks Adobe
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 6:37:03 am

[Chris Pettit] "I feel bad if I inadvertently contributed to that, although frankly I think this has been a largely productive conversation. I continue to learn from those I disagree with (when they're reasonable)"

Agreed, good discussion by and large.




Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Post removed.

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook


FORUMSTUTORIALSFEATURESVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2014 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]