FORUMS: list search recent posts

lively discussion at John Nack's blog.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Aindreas Gallagher
lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 12:51:53 pm

noted without comment:

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2013/03/half-a-million-people-now-subscribing-...

people saying that the issues raised here on the cow are FUD, invalid, while themselves making frankly dodgy camera hire comparisons might want to consider the fact that this conversation about CC is going on all over right now.

I'll say this - one thing you get with CC? Behance prosite. I'm genuinely liking the look of that - and its 100 bucks a year otherwise.

you get a really really nice portfolio website that takes roughly ten minutes to get going. here's an example:
http://tonygaddis.prosite.com/9797/150812/featured-projects/alberta-cross-f...

nice isn't it?

and here's a demo vid: http://bit.ly/17dzjdJ
there are some really nice design controls. I'm personally desperate to update my website - this is how I would do it.

I also get free access to the typekit web fonts portfolio.

On top of that you get to deploy unlimited ipad apps out of the digital publishing suite - its monkey simple if you've ever used indesign or quark, its conceivable that sometime in the next five years I would like to be able to say that I can deploy marketing materials with video to the appstore as a custom client app I guess. They do a nice job of moron handholding:
http://www.adobe.com/uk/products/digital-publishing-suite-single.html#nerol...

I also get 20GB general purpose storage, which again, isn't bad.

There are lots of things to like here - but I'm still uncertain whether or not I am willing to rent my primary software in perpetuity.
It'll be interesting to see what adobe announce.

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


Return to posts index

Dan Stewart
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 3:41:40 pm

Aindreas is this a price issue? Is there a price where you would be willing to RIP? If so, what would you say it was?

I like to have access to a recent photoshop & after effects, very VERY occasionally illustrator and if premiere was on my system I'd probably give it more attention (I use MC & FCPL).
But my old versions of PS and AE are paid for and working fine for what I need (occasional offline support stuff)..

So for me about half what they're asking would make it a pretty easy call even if half the set would never be touched. But I can easily see spunking a grand before I really needed any of them which, given I pay London rent every month, makes me hurt inside..



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 4:21:36 pm

tbh, - I'm on production premium CS6 - i just want to upgrade the thing - end of really.

On Nack's blog a few people made the point that given adobe has effectively won in so many segments, and absorbed macromedia etc, the only way to grow revenue for shareholders is to increase revenue from their existing base. And that is completely fine.

But if you ask me whether I would want to upgrade my current license for around three hundred quid, or go on hire purchase for around twice that - I'm going to say upgrade my license. production premium is basically the adobe sweet spot. the odds of me needing to step outside it are minute in the end. I haven't done print in years and the chances of me booting up dreamweaver are nil.

so the master collection is a limited value proposition for me. Although I do like some of the newer fangled stuff they bolt on like tablet indesign publishing (that really is a piece of piss) and the behance sites.

someone did make the point on the blog as well that it's master collection CC or single apps right now - if there was, for instance, a production premium CC subscription priced outside promotion at 30 dollars a month - I would maybe take that, because that is equivalent to my upgrade pricing currently, and I would get stuff throughout the year. I think I'd go with that. but really I'd sooner just have the upgrade.


My suspicion though, is that adobe have no interest in that, I think they have a sum of money in mind over a period, and it is predicated on first year promotion, and then 600 bucks for an all you can eat buffet going forward.

As some people are really fond of saying - If you really don't like it, go elsewhere.
Or, alternatively, if you really don't like it - argue the point.

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


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 4:30:39 pm

[Dan Stewart] " is this a price issue? Is there a price where you would be willing to RIP? If so, what would you say it was? "

While I'm not Aindreas I would like to reply to this.

I have no problems with the current Cloud price, which is anywhere from $29 to $59 per month, depending on who's doing the talking

In any scenario like that I would want the option to pay for a full year at a time, as the idea of monthly exchanges needed to keep my software from disappearing seems a little too fraught with unnecessary anxiety.

However the big problem for me is trust - in this Cloud scenario I am being asked to trust that Adobe will keep the prices reasonable and the software competitive in perpetuity and if they are not I can either be a bit like the Yankees paying for old ballplayers they no longer want because they're stuck with past contracts or I can move on and loose access to all past projects - a concept which, if one can recall, is one of the reasons everyone went haywire with Apple during the X release.

That's a lot of trust to ask for, especially after the X debacle, and while XML files and Adobe's current behavior seem to mitigate this fear a bit, it still feels a might uncomfortable around the collar.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 4:45:37 pm

[Herb Sevush] "In any scenario like that I would want the option to pay for a full year at a time,"

that you can actually do.

[Herb Sevush] "That's a lot of trust to ask for, "
yep. thats the bottom line. I'm basically conditioned to making a capital outlay and owning the software. If I want a new computer - I save up and buy it, if I want new software, I save up and buy it. I don't feel like leasing either of them.

there is simply no way that a transition to hire purchase does not hand a great deal of power to adobe.
Windows Vista a terrible release? Ignore it. wait for 7. And watch MS scramble to fix things.

CS4 pretty lacklustre? Ignore it. Wait for 5. Companies may not like this scenario with mature feature rich products like windows and the creative suite, in fact, lets face it - we know they don't like it. creative cloud is at least in part an answer to that problem, as well as the traditional initial high barrier to entry.

But if our ability to fold our hands at an upgrade is taken away, as it effectively is in a subscription scenario, is this definitely a good thing for consumers?

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 5:04:26 pm

[Herb Sevush] "However the big problem for me is trust "

That's it in a nutshell. I personally trust no company.

With any software I have the option to "lock down" a system and skip upgrades.
Many Avid users have done that going back to the days of expensive upgrades but I suspect it still goes on.
Many FCP Legacy users chose not to move from FCP6 (FCS2).
I'm sure Adobe was hit with this very hard amongst their various product lines and that was likely one of several strong motivators for their Creative Cloud business model.

Many of us, for various business reasons, chose not to pay for upgrades for a time. Additionally, over time, some companies end a product or send it into a different direction and we prefer to remain in a holding pattern. Without a "buy out" clause which gives us a copy of the software we might want to use "frozen" for a time without additional expense, the CC will be an "insecure" investment for some (and certainly not for others). With CC, while there may be no upgrade costs, you are paying for them over time.

At any point, no matter how much the claim otherwise, Adobe can and has the right to change their business model and pricing. Some people don't find that acceptable without a viable "escape clause." Adobe hasn't removed the option to buy outright yet. The CC certainly creates that specter though.

It's with some irony that many have said they can no longer trust Apple. BTW I can't blame them. To me though, it's not Apple specific. There's not a software or hardware company I "trust." I trust the least being in relationship with a product that, at some point, might (no matter who one argues that's only a remote possibility) leave me with the inability to open that project.



Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 7:10:04 pm

[Herb Sevush] "or I can move on and loose access to all past projects - a concept which, if one can recall, is one of the reasons everyone went haywire with Apple during the X release."

A - nobody I know has "lost access to all past projects." after the X release. Legacy still works and, since you OWNED the software, your legacy projects will be available for the forseeable future.

B - not "everyone went haywire" after the X releases. A subset of a subset of editors at the high end of the heap who had deep dependencies and connections with Legacy (and who, yes, were very much displaced by the change) "went haywire" - many of the rest of us simply did not.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 7:18:25 pm

[Bill Davis] "A - nobody I know has "lost access to all past projects." after the X release. Legacy still works and, since you OWNED the software, your legacy projects will be available for the forseeable future."

I agree Bill, I never really claimed it did, I was talking about the fear of loosing access to projects, something which X's inability to import Legacy projects brought up 2 years ago. But you are right that Apple, for all the clumsiness of it's release, never posed the possibility that Adobe is now bringing up, namely loosing total access to old project files.

[Bill Davis] "B - not "everyone went haywire" after the X releases."

It was merely an expression, but yes I stand corrected, not everyone went haywire.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 7:37:08 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I was talking about the fear of loosing access to projects, something which X's inability to import Legacy projects brought up 2 years ago."

Fair.

Phil & Greg's 7toX and Xto7 took a bit of the sting out of that, but the truth is, Legacy can't do what X does any more than X can do all of what Legacy did.

They are two totally different platforms with totally different workflows.

Be interesting to see how many folks have tried to use both - and ended up, like me, tilting to one or the other. (I'd actually wager that the split is near 50/50 - because lots of editors don't have the time nor patience to radically re-tool their thinking about the central tools of their livelyhood.

Fun to speculate.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 4:38:34 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "people saying that the issues raised here on the cow are FUD, invalid, while themselves making frankly dodgy camera hire comparisons might want to consider the fact that this conversation about CC is going on all over right now."

You can call me out. That "people" is me. I can take it.

I rent software today and I can still sleep at night.

There is no difference in paying $3500 for Smoke and Autodesk decides to pull the plug, or paying $1000 bucks for Media Composer and Avid decides to close up shop, or Apple reverses direction, or Sony decides that Vegas is best left in the dessert.

I am sure you have been through enough software deaths, and yet you are still here working.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 4:49:35 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "
There is no difference in paying $3500 for Smoke and Autodesk decides to pull the plug, or paying $1000 bucks for Media Composer and Avid decides to close up shop, or Apple reverses direction, or Sony decides that Vegas is best left in the dessert.
"


I don't get this - why are you talking about software EOL? The issue is rental vs purchase?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 5:12:05 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I don't get this - why are you talking about software EOL? The issue is rental vs purchase?"

I guess if you are buying software, you pay for it, right?

You said that you are unsure if you want to rent your software in perpetuity, and you also said that if it were cheaper you'd feel better about it even if you get less software.

Since you are paying for software, what are you worried about? The price?


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 5:21:20 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You said that you are unsure if you want to rent your software in perpetuity, and you also said that if it were cheaper you'd feel better about it even if you get less software.

Since you are paying for software, what are you worried about? The price?
"


wait - what are you talking about?

I just said that currently I will expect to pay 350 pounds sterling to upgrade my suite, or... 600 pounds (ignoring 1st year promo) to go hire purchase rental on a master suite that has a limited value proposition to me - not big on dreamweaver, not doing print.

Someone had pointed out that CC was all or nothing, and that a prod. premium equivalent might make sense, less apps you don't use, no 250 pound overhead beyond the upgrade cost of premium currently - ie: around 30 quid a month.

So thats a bit more like it, but basically, given the choice between upgrading my perpetual license and going on hire purchase for around the same money, I'm going to want to upgrade my perpetual license. that make sense to you?

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 7:37:46 pm

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of...

RENTALS, CUSTOMERS & THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF FILMMAKING

Creative COW: When people talk about an Arri D20 or a RED or whatever, one of the very first things to come up is the price of it. But thats really not a direct a factor when we talk about rentals.

John Galt: One of the interesting things about Panavision's headquarters is that we have research and development here, we have the factory for manufacturing lenses and cameras right here, and we have the rental floor. This puts us directly in contact with customers. We know what they want, because they tell us. "No, I don't want higher resolution; I'd just have to sit closer to the screen. But yeah I'd like to have more shadow detail, I'd like to have more highlight detail. Can you do that?"

Another wonderful thing about the rental business is that the whole product development process is kind of turned upside down. When you sell something, service is a profit center. When you make something available for rent, service is a COST. Because we rent things instead of selling them, our best way to keep costs down is to build to higher standards.

Lenses are a great example. A zoom lens is built nominally, put together as per the spec. What they do next over in R&D is start making micro adjustments. They have a little eccentric cam that lets them measure deviations in the angle of rotation from where the cam is supposed to be. There are often over four hundred measurements made, going for the peak performance of that zoom lens at any particular focal distance.

That lens is then taken apart, the cam goes back into the factory, and they re-cut the cams based on the test results. Sometimes we'll do that 3 or 4 times. Why? Because in doing that, we can improve the performance of the lens by 30% or more. Is it expensive? Yeah, it's ridiculously expensive. But it's not expensive over the life of the lens.

And it's not expensive when you know that that that lens will not be sitting on the shelf because a particular cinematographer doesn't like it. We have a whole floor set up at Panavision where customers test equipment every day. They will reject a particular lens not because its pictures aren't good, but because it doesn't FEEL right. That's why it's very very hard to build things for the rental market. There may be BUILDER remorse, but there is no buyer remorse. If they're not happy with something, back it goes onto OUR shelf, not theirs.

We can also develop new products in ways that aren't practical in a retail environment. So you know, the design camera for the Genesis camera was to be able to match the performance of our Millennium XL 35mm film camera, in all aspects: frame rate, size, weight, all of that. And we didn't get there. It was maybe 12 pounds, 13 pounds more than a XL with a 400 foot film magazine -- more than enough to matter to the poor bugger who has to carry it on a Steadicam all day. With a 400 foot film magazine, you're getting less than 5 minutes of recording time. That's fine for Steadicam, but we also wanted to record longer than that.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 8:06:45 pm

[Richard Herd] "If they're not happy with something, back it goes onto OUR shelf, not theirs."

But it's not a lens richard - I'm unlikely to put the action of editing back on the adobe shelf, and, a few years into CC, I am unlikely to be able to put the sum total of the work performed in PPro mixed with lumetri, AE, custom keyframes etc to work in a competing product I transfer to.

Yes, I myself can switch to a competing product, the question is whether or not the works I have produced will go with me. XML - sort of to some extent - but really I will be relying on PPro for quite a while if I ever choose to transition away later.

Well ala FCP7 - thats fine - i continue outputting from last paid version FCP through the switchover period - which is likely to be extended - almost open ended. Look at Walter Biscardi - he has locked 10.6.8 suites handling all the historical works. His transition period is likely to run to three or more years
but thats fine right? He paid for FCP, like we all did. He owns the tool.

The problem here is that in that scenario, say a few years down the road, on CC - you will pay adobe, no matter what, to sustain periodic access to your work, either annually, or at monthly rates, as you transition for however long it takes to run it out. At some point, eventually, that scenario is probably likely for quite a few people.

In that scenario it is hard not to see adobe as effectively owning access to your work executed with the software. That is where the lens, camera, tripod, outdoor cooker comparisons break down.

If you don't own the software, you don't own the product of the software. I think there are going to be certain scenarios where that really pinches.

A subscription can be quite the lock-in no?

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


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 9:16:10 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "If you don't own the software, you don't own the product of the software. I think there are going to be certain scenarios where that really pinches."

It's like saying Arri owns your right to shoot.

If you don't own the camera, you can't own a shoot, or the media it creates?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 9:18:24 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "If you don't own the camera, you can't own a shoot, or the media it creates?"

When we used to shoot on HDCam, we never owned the camera or the deck. We rented one in when we needed the rushes or access to the HDCam masters!

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 9:31:48 pm

[Steve Connor] "When we used to shoot on HDCam, we never owned the camera or the deck. We rented one in when we needed the rushes or access to the HDCam masters!"

Better sound the alarm bells.

Sony was trying to own you and your work!


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 10:40:30 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's like saying Arri owns your right to shoot. If you don't own the camera, you can't own a shoot, or the media it creates?"

Despite your numerous posts, there is not any correlation between hardware rentals and software licensing. This is not to say whether software licensing is good or bad, it's just entirely different. If it weren't that they are both involved with producing video you would never think to compare them.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 11:49:42 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Despite your numerous posts, there is not any correlation between hardware rentals and software licensing. This is not to say whether software licensing is good or bad, it's just entirely different. If it weren't that they are both involved with producing video you would never think to compare them."

We are taking about video production tools, I can't help but compare the tools to get the job done, production or not.

I could have this same conversation about any project based job that requires a variety of tools.

There is a relationship, if you don't rent gear often and the rental model is new to you, the scarcity of the tools might give you the heebie jeebies.

I already mentioned that I rent software. It works fine.

I see it as a cost of doing business. No matter what, I am beholden to my software and hardware choices. Unless I begin to create my own software destiny, or build a camera, I must pay for what I think is best on terms drawn up by mountains of legal paper work for which in simpy click "Agree".

Any company at any time can make a decision that will cost me more money than I want spend. I don't have ultimate control, so I have to trust my own instincts to sink or swim.

We can argue about what is best. The Cloud is best for Adobe, it's a very modern solution to box shipment and revenue "problems".

To consumer's some will love it, some will hate it.

If you have used it, you will know its very convenient if Adobe keeps their promises. If not, Adobe won't do well. It seems to me they are almost betting the farm on the Cloud. My guess is that they will try and make it as enticing as possible.

If not for you, there's other fish in the sea.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 23, 2013 at 3:42:56 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "We are taking about video production tools, I can't help but compare the tools to get the job done, production or not. "

A closer comparison might be your cellphone bill, your car lease, or the lease on your office. They all contribute to video production and they are each, in their own way, as comparable to software licensing as a camera rental.

[Jeremy Garchow] "There is a relationship, if you don't rent gear often and the rental model is new to you, the scarcity of the tools might give you the heebie jeebies."

for my first 15 years in the business I rented camera's all the time, it is not new to me, and I still get the heebie jeebies from the Cloud concept. (thank you by the way for using the phrase "heebie jeebies." I haven't heard it in a while, nor do I recall ever having seen it written out.)

[Jeremy Garchow] "I already mentioned that I rent software. It works fine."

I also rent software, Backblaze for backup and Webroot for security, and they both work fine. It's not the fact of renting that bothers me, it's what is being rented.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I see it as a cost of doing business. No matter what, I am beholden to my software and hardware choices. Unless I begin to create my own software destiny, or build a camera, I must pay for what I think is best on terms drawn up by mountains of legal paper work for which in simpy click "Agree".

Any company at any time can make a decision that will cost me more money than I want spend. I don't have ultimate control, so I have to trust my own instincts to sink or swim.

We can argue about what is best. The Cloud is best for Adobe, it's a very modern solution to box shipment and revenue "problems". "


All of which is why I am being very cautious about who I base my next workflow around. An NLE is the hub of my post workflow, in a way that a camera isn't. If I rent a camera one day and then the following week they raise the prices or change the functionality of the camera I will simply choose a more suitable camera the next day. The changeover from one NLE system to another is a lot more complex and time consuming, as I can attest too contemplating my third season on an EOL'd FCP.

I don't doubt that "The Cloud is best for Adobe" much like I'm sure FCPX is best for Apple. The only thing I care about is what is best for me.

At the moment, making loud noises for Adobe to hear regarding choices in their distribution of products seems best for me.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 23, 2013 at 5:12:02 pm

[Herb Sevush] "A closer comparison might be your cellphone bill, your car lease, or the lease on your office. They all contribute to video production and they are each, in their own way, as comparable to software licensing as a camera rental. "

Sure, I guess they could be considered video production "tools", albeit these are pretty broad tools.

I can get work done without an office lease.

[Herb Sevush] "All of which is why I am being very cautious about who I base my next workflow around. An NLE is the hub of my post workflow, in a way that a camera isn't. If I rent a camera one day and then the following week they raise the prices or change the functionality of the camera I will simply choose a more suitable camera the next day. The changeover from one NLE system to another is a lot more complex and time consuming, as I can attest too contemplating my third season on an EOL'd FCP.

I don't doubt that "The Cloud is best for Adobe" much like I'm sure FCPX is best for Apple. The only thing I care about is what is best for me.

At the moment, making loud noises for Adobe to hear regarding choices in their distribution of products seems best for me."


Certainly. A discussion about it is absolutely practical, but we can probably put down the conspiracies/foil hats and realize that this is a new way of thinking about paying for software, and when you really look at it, ti's not much different than what you do on a regular basis when you pay for other services.

Switching NLE's does take some time and rethinking. Even different cameras require different workflows, they have different menus, they have different color science. It's not as easy as just switching it on and hitting record. There are intricacies to both.

I don't see how anyone can put full trust in any one entity, and I am not talking about just choosing one tool, I am talking about being able to trust something for which you really have no control. Situations can change in an instant. I am with you, that I have to try and make the best decisions possible, but at some point I also have to get some work done. How bad is it going to be if I pay Adobe once for a perpetual upgrade license, or once for a yearly Cloud subscription, or once for a few months if I only need for it a few months? Am I really going to be worse off by paying a subscription fee?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 23, 2013 at 5:24:15 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I pay Adobe once for a perpetual upgrade license, or once for a yearly Cloud subscription, or once for a few months if I only need for it a few months?"

as long as there is that choice - then all is fine.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Am I really going to be worse off by paying a subscription fee? "

yes jeremy, I would argue, in the long run, you are. And if they get the majority of the customer base on subscription - I don't personally feel that is an ideal outcome.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 23, 2013 at 6:29:30 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "yes jeremy, I would argue, in the long run, you are. And if they get the majority of the customer base on subscription - I don't personally feel that is an ideal outcome."

And why? Becuase you have to pay to open a project if the subscription is out?

Ok. I don't feel it's going to personally get in my way, but for the sake of argument, what if we look at it from Adobe's perspective.

What if this new revenue structure allows them to produce better products in a more timely manner. Isn't that better for us?


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 23, 2013 at 7:03:10 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "What if this new revenue structure allows them to produce better products"

what is the basis for that.

I don't want to sound heavy handed here - but you do realise that asking me to buy something, selling me wares - ie an upgrade, is a different incentive structure for the seller than having me continuously on a rental subscription. You do get that one of them is a stronger incentivising motive for the seller right?

Also there is the issue with subscription lock in - if you chose to cancel on a year - you can look forward to paying a half year penalty. Its like a really bad gym contract that way.

also there is the issue that if you transition at any point to other software, it won't be like keeping FCP in reserve, where it was a purchase and we can boot it up without thinking for a very long time. Adobe get paid everytime we want to boot the suite up.

If I'm being honest I'm almost mind boggled that people can't or won't see the variety of downsides to the proposition - particularly some of the potential downsides that won't really shake out for a few years.

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 23, 2013 at 7:36:44 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "If I'm being honest I'm almost mind boggled that people can't or won't see the variety of downsides to the proposition - particularly some of the potential downsides that won't really shake out for a few years."

Agreed.

Just to play devil's advocate, can anyone give any example of consumer lock-in resulting in greater innovation and lower prices? Anyone?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 23, 2013 at 10:27:58 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "what is the basis for that. "

Logic and intuition.

Think about all that needs to go in to producing a boxed set. And then about all the licensing that needs to go with that boxed set, the time constraint, the print, the "manual", the shipping.

All of that is gone, the updates can come faster, and we, the user, benefit from the faster accessiblity.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I don't want to sound heavy handed here - but you do realise that asking me to buy something, selling me wares - ie an upgrade, is a different incentive structure for the seller than having me continuously on a rental subscription. You do get that one of them is a stronger incentivising motive for the seller right?"

Is it? What's the basis of that?

When you have a deadline, you run like hell to get it done and make decisions about what is going to make it in the boxed and printed set, and what isn't.

I know you won't want to, but look at FCPX. The updates that have come with that application (and granted, a lot of them are known as "catch-up" features) are recent and many. These point releases would have been major updates in years past. I think the incentive, for a lot of tech companies these days, is to simply hold your attention. A company can probably hold people's attention when you have a constant stream of updates, it can't, however, hold their attention in this day and age if they have to wait a year plus for the next box to be shipped to them.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "also there is the issue that if you transition at any point to other software, it won't be like keeping FCP in reserve, where it was a purchase and we can boot it up without thinking for a very long time. Adobe get paid everytime we want to boot the suite up."

Yeah, but all that time that you weren't using the software, they don't get paid.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "If I'm being honest I'm almost mind boggled that people can't or won't see the variety of downsides to the proposition - particularly some of the potential downsides that won't really shake out for a few years."

I know, the world is half empty.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 23, 2013 at 11:14:27 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Logic and intuition.

Think about all that needs to go in to producing a boxed set. And then about all the licensing that needs to go with that boxed set, the time constraint, the print, the "manual", the shipping.
"


please. no one is talking about discs here. Its all download all the time now regardless - adobe have ended physical boxed copies of the suites anyway. that point holds no water, and how does your logic and intuition say that it was crippling their ability to advance the software? what does that actually mean? where is the logic?

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I don't want to sound heavy handed here - but you do realise that asking me to buy something, selling me wares - ie an upgrade, is a different incentive structure for the seller than having me continuously on a rental subscription. You do get that one of them is a stronger incentivising motive for the seller right?"

Is it? What's the basis of that?


Seriously? OK. In one case - they are trying to convince you to buy something - they want to sell it you. In the other they have you on a contracted rental subscription - you know a feature of contract subscription? its called churn rate - because the entry barrier is gone, you get more casual entry to the market, and because as a business you are now managing subscriptions, not selling a product to consumers, churn rate represents loss of subscribers - as long as the new entrants are greater than those exiting - its fine.

Subscription based models develop very differently to consumer sales markets over time, and they tend to see securing customer lock-in as the best way to reduce churn. securing subscriber lock in will become a focused goal of adobe's over time. Its a key goal with a subscriber base.

what I am tying to explain is that all of that stuff is familiar to anyone from telcos, cable etc. I'm not wild at the notion. One of the key goals, in the long run, regardless of industry, is to pen your subscriber base. You want them not to leave. You seem to think the only way to do this is to produce superlative products all the time. That is not what the history of large subscriber based company behaviour would indicate to this point. At all.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 23, 2013 at 11:41:28 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "please. no one is talking about discs here. Its all download all the time now regardless - adobe have ended physical boxed copies of the suites anyway. that point holds no water, and how does your logic and intuition say that it was crippling their ability to advance the software? what does that actually mean? where is the logic?"

I did not say it was crippling, I said it was changing the way software has been packaged and released.

What I mean is that if you move to a system where there are no big "versions", like what FCPX is doing in having a platform and releasing major feature point release updates, then you can release things in a different manner than what has been a traditional release cycle. Chris Kenny on this forum has some good insight on this new method of software release.

If you sign up for the Cloud, and the Cloud doesn't work for you, you leave. Adobe loses you as a customer, and doesn't take your money. If this keep happening over and over, Adobe does not make money and they go out of business. Don't you think the impetus is to keep making products that people want to pay for, or do you think that once they get you "locked in" you have no choice but to serve your new Cloud master?

Whether you want to admit it or not, if you use any brand of proprietary media creation software, you're are beholden to that software no matter how the license agreement is setup, or how the cost structure is setup.

Choose wisely.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "what I am tying to explain is that all of that stuff is familiar to anyone from telcos, cable etc. I'm not wild at the notion. One of the key goals, in the long run, regardless of industry, is to pen your subscriber base. You want them not to leave. You seem to think the only way to do this is to produce superlative products all the time. That is not what the history of large subscriber based company behaviour would indicate to this point. At all."

I agree with you that Adobe doesn't want you to leave. They want to monazite their existing user base and they want to attract as many new customers as possible with the products that are selling. It's a business.

Also, they are not a telco or a cable company. Adobe is large, but they aren't beaming 550 channels into everyone's living room and having to support that infrastructure.

Is the Cloud my cheapest option? No, pirating software is my cheapest option, but that is ridiculous. I don't want to work for free and I don't expect anyone else to work for free.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 24, 2013 at 1:46:59 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "what I am tying to explain is that all of that stuff is familiar to anyone from telcos, cable etc. I'm not wild at the notion. One of the key goals, in the long run, regardless of industry, is to pen your subscriber base. You want them not to leave. You seem to think the only way to do this is to produce superlative products all the time. That is not what the history of large subscriber based company behaviour would indicate to this point. At all."

This. ^

Still waiting for examples of customer lock-in leading to more innovation and lower prices. ;)

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 24, 2013 at 3:34:05 am

[David Lawrence] "Still waiting for examples of customer lock-in leading to more innovation and lower prices. ;)"

Why? What will that prove?

With the Cloud, you're "locked in" for one month at a time for $50.

I actually agree with Aindreas about Dreamweaver and the apps that I don't need, but my guess is that overall, the pendulum is swinging the other way where the Flash artist will use other video apps in the suite.

If you look at the sheer amount of permutations of Adobe software, it's no wonder they wanted to simplify the process.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 24, 2013 at 4:25:33 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Why? What will that prove?"

I'm just building on Aindreas's examples and playing devil's advocate to the idea that a subscription-based based model will result in better products. All evidence points to just the opposite.

[Jeremy Garchow] "With the Cloud, you're "locked in" for one month at a time for $50. "

$50 now, who knows how much next year -- for as long as you want to open your files. Which basically means forever. Remember, it's not just the video applications, it's the entire Creative Suite including Photoshop. I know people still using Photoshop CS5 and earlier. Lots of people skip upgrades.

Of course, this may all be moot, assuming an option for perpetual licensing is still offered.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 24, 2013 at 4:35:05 am

[David Lawrence] "I'm just building on Aindreas's examples and playing devil's advocate to the idea that a subscription-based based model will result in better products. All evidence points to just the opposite."

What evidence? I missed it if it was linked.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 24, 2013 at 5:08:30 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "What evidence? I missed it if it was linked."

No links, I was talking in general. Aindreas mentioned telcos, and cable companies. I'd add ISPs and health insurance companies. Captured markets tend to have bad service and higher prices. Here's just one example:

http://gizmodo.com/5830956/why-the-government-wont-protect-you-from-getting...

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 24, 2013 at 4:42:03 pm

[David Lawrence] "No links, I was talking in general. Aindreas mentioned telcos, and cable companies. I'd add ISPs and health insurance companies. Captured markets tend to have bad service and higher prices. Here's just one example:"

OK.

I guess I just don't see my choice in NLE as comparable to choosing health care, or a cell phone carrier contract, or subscribing to cable.

Perhaps this is the root of how we see things differently.

I'm not saying an NLE transition is necessarily easy, it's not, but 10 years from now, I'd gladly pay $59.99 for a month if I needed to access an old FCP7 project and I wasn't using FCP7 any more.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 24, 2013 at 3:04:05 pm

[David Lawrence] "Still waiting for examples of customer lock-in leading to more innovation and lower prices. ;)"

I think there is only one thing that leads to more innovation and lower prices: competition.

I think that the NLE market is actually pretty competitive. Off the top of my head, your options include the four A's (Premiere Pro, FCPX, Media Composer, Smoke), some other lower-cost systems (Lightworks, Edius, Vegas) and some higher-end solutions (DS, Flame, Mistika).

So what is lock-in? Wikipedia says that lock-in "makes a customer dependent on a vendor for products and services, unable to use another vendor without substantial switching costs."

Let's set aside for a moment the fact that a cadre of Apple users are suddenly concerned about lock-in (!) and explore what lock-in means practically in the context of Premiere.

Is the switching cost from Premiere any higher than from any other NLE? How does subscription have any bearing on switching cost? Are we seeing lock-in (you can't leave!) or opt-in (it's so cheap and easy to stay)?

I understand the ideology -- really -- but this is a practical question, too. Is being "forced" to get a month's subscription (assuming I've already used up my 30-day demo) to open .prproj file file any better or worse than being "forced" to keep a Mac frozen in time in the corner to open a .fcp? Eventually, we will find ourselves in a scenario where FCP7 will not practically run on a new machine, and the current software of the day will not run on an old machine. Did Apple just "force" us to buy a new Mac while simultaneously "forcing" us to keep our old one around instead of selling, donating, or recycling it? If I am obligated to keep my old hardware and eschew upgrades in order to run its old software, speaking practically, how much freer am I?

I maintain that the best practice is to output some kind of EDL/XML when you output a sequence, no matter what NLE you are on. This is the best way to make sure you can open that sequence on another NLE if you have to without maintaining subscription or old systems for dead software.

With every conversation about lock-in, I mention the industry-standard EDL, AAF, and XML that Premiere can output. I should add the reliance on open standards like MPEG-4 and DNxHD instead of closed ones like QuickTime and ProRes. I should also note that Adobe is actually pretty open -- more so than I think many people realize: here's the .PSD file spec [link]. Here's the .AI 88 format [link] (still widely used for vector exchange). Here's the Adobe PDF reference [link]. Here's the Adobe XMP open standard for metadata [link]. Oh, and here's the CinemaDNG Technology Center [link], which Adobe "co-opetitor" Blackmagic Design is exploiting for their products.

When I remark about XML, Aindreas very reasonably counters "But what about my Warp Stabilizer data?" Is Warp Stabilizer lock-in, because it doesn't translate in XML?

Fair question. Imagine a world where every NLE had all the same features as every other NLE, and where they were all perfectly translatable. Sounds great, right? But... does this sound like a scenario where's there's a lot of innovation going on? Something like Warp Stabilizer couldn't exist in this scenario until every developer implemented a compatible implementation and interchange standard.

Lock-in is a natural byproduct of innovation. If you want to take advantage of the innovation, you will have to accept some kind of lock-in by definition. The feature you want to use is only available from one vendor.

I don't think that what Adobe is doing today is morally equivalent to what, say, Microsoft did in the 1980s and 1990s. This is not "DOS isn't done til Lotus won't run." Adobe is not competing unfairly from a position of dominance, and they are not making it unduly difficult for you to switch to another product. They are actually providing a new option in the marketplace: a way to get $2600 worth of software for a modest subscription fee and no upfront investment.

But what about the "It's a trap!" argument? The Admiral Ackbars among us are concerned that once we're all signed up, Adobe will jack the price through the roof.

Well, that's possible -- but I don't see it happening. The market won't let it. If Adobe raises the price too high, people will leave, pure and simple. This is not a monopoly and people have other options. Some of us are already even using them, side by side with Adobe products!

Also, if Adobe is able to profitably raise the cost of Creative Cloud to a point where I can't profitably use it -- I am running my business wrong.

Admiral Ackbar persists: "Ok, so they keep the price down. What if they stop innovating? It's a trap!"

I rejoin: they can't stop innovating. The rest of the market is moving too fast. If Adobe doesn't keep up with new formats and new capabilities, people will leave for other software that does. Companies like Apple, Autodesk, Avid, BMD, and The Foundry would line up for ex-Adobe customers. It happened to CMX. It happened to Avid. It might be happening to Apple right now. There's no reason it wouldn't happen with Adobe unless they continually deliver good value. Subscription (read: even cash flow) might even help them better forecast revenue and fund R&D.

Again, I do understand the ideology of owning/controlling your own software. I'd be more comfortable myself with a perpetual license, even if its security is largely illusory.

However, I will make the practical decision for my business, and that might be subscription. I don't see how a subscription vs perpetual license raises switching-away costs. Since the future for any product is uncertain, I'm going to pick the one I think is best in the short and medium terms. I've switched before and I'm ready to switch again when I have to.

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

Herb Sevush
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 23, 2013 at 5:36:31 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "but we can probably put down the conspiracies/foil hats and realize that this is a new way of thinking about paying for software, and when you really look at it, ti's not much different than what you do on a regular basis when you pay for other services."

I agree, there's no conspiracy, it's just business and I'm just trying to make the right business decision for me, and to whatever extent I have any say in the matter I am going to push for as many different options as possible. In the end I might try the Cloud, but even if I do I would hope that Adobe still made provision for perpetual licensing.

[Jeremy Garchow] " Even different cameras require different workflows, they have different menus, they have different color science. It's not as easy as just switching it on and hitting record. There are intricacies to both."

Which is why some DPs choose to buy a perpetual camera license.

[Jeremy Garchow] "How bad is it going to be if I pay Adobe once for a perpetual upgrade license, or once for a yearly Cloud subscription, or once for a few months if I only need for it a few months? Am I really going to be worse off by paying a subscription fee? "

The answer to your final question will become obvious in a few years, which is why making that decision now makes me nervous.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 23, 2013 at 10:40:49 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Which is why some DPs choose to buy a perpetual camera license."

But how much time do you expect to get out of a camera these days? A couple of years? Maybe 3?

How perpetual are we talking here?

[Herb Sevush] "The answer to your final question will become obvious in a few years, which is why making that decision now makes me nervous."

I'm sure of the software offered obvious advantages (like a multi-cam that exceeded your expectations) it would be worth the cost and frayed nerves.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 24, 2013 at 11:16:36 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm sure of the software offered obvious advantages (like a multi-cam that exceeded your expectations) it would be worth the cost and frayed nerves."

If Adobe had a multi-cam that even remotely came close to my expectations, forget exceeding them, it might be worth the frayed nerves. I might opt for the Cloud frayed nerves and all but i would like to lobby Adobe for a perpetual option - is that so hard to comprehend?

No one is asking that Adobe not have a cloud option, merely that they also retain a perpetual option, but you seem to think that is an extremist position and for the life of me I don't see why.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 24, 2013 at 1:31:43 pm

[Herb Sevush] "No one is asking that Adobe not have a cloud option, merely that they also retain a perpetual option, but you seem to think that is an extremist position and for the life of me I don't see why."

Sorry, I don't mean to be an extremist.

Really, this whole thing started with an extremist reaction of "Danger!".

I do respect the concern of the want for a perpetual license. I do respect the conversation about it, it needs to happen.

I don't think Adobe is aiming for the likes of Comcast, but what do I know?

I am sort of glad that a company is actually standing behind a bit of value in their products in this business.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 24, 2013 at 2:02:20 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I am sort of glad that a company is actually standing behind a bit of value in their products in this business."

I don't understand what you mean by this.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 24, 2013 at 3:34:37 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I don't understand what you mean by this."

Apologies.

I am saying, they aren't giving it away for free.

Adobe thinks that their products are wroth something, I think that's a good thing to show the young people coming up in this industry, and your clients.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 23, 2013 at 3:48:56 am

[Herb Sevush] "Despite your numerous posts, there is not any correlation between hardware rentals and software licensing. This is not to say whether software licensing is good or bad, it's just entirely different. If it weren't that they are both involved with producing video you would never think to compare them."

It used to be very common for a production to rent an AVID (back when they were spelled with all caps), both the computer hardware and the software (dongle) together.

If software had never been sold as a product, the idea that you could own a license to software might be equally foreign. And I am very curious -- where do you think the camera analogy falls apart?

Maybe comparing it to an Alexa isn't as good as comparing it to a Panavision?

Here's an interesting quote I cherry-picked from the Panavision Wikipedia article [link]:
Panavision operates exclusively as a rental facility—the company owns its entire inventory, unlike most of its competitors. This allows investment in research and development, and the integration of high-quality manufacturing, without concern for the end retail value. Maintaining its entire inventory also allows Panavision to regularly update all of its equipment, rather than just the newest models.


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

Herb Sevush
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 23, 2013 at 4:04:12 pm

[Walter Soyka] "It used to be very common for a production to rent an AVID (back when they were spelled with all caps), both the computer hardware and the software (dongle) together."

That was when the Avid was being used as an off-line system, not as the centerpiece of an entire workflow.

[Walter Soyka] "If software had never been sold as a product, the idea that you could own a license to software might be equally foreign."

If there was no such thing as a perpetual license for software then we would not be having this discussion. The fact is both Adobe and I have a choice to make, and I believe we are both making it in the context of the marketplace as it exists.

[Walter Soyka] " where do you think the camera analogy falls apart?"

This post with Jeremy covers it:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/52218

For me an NLE is the hub of a total workflow in which to evolve and build my business in an ongoing manner. A rental camera is a fixed piece of equipment to which you have no ongoing relationship unless you specifically choose one. If you rent a Red Epic today, you don't care whether they will improve it or raise the prices on it tomorrow. You will evaluate the best camera to use the next time you need one. This is not my relationship with a NLE.

[Walter Soyka] "Maybe comparing it to an Alexa isn't as good as comparing it to a Panavision?"

Panavision's business model is interesting but really has nothing to say to me as an analogy to the Adobe situation. When I started in this business we shot everything in 16mm. Many of the DPs owned their cameras, some didn't and sometimes we needed something special and those we rented. However those few times we shot on 35mm we always rented because I didn't know any DP who owned their own 35mm camera. In that market Panavision's system makes a lot of sense, but I don't see the relevance to anything we are talking about.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 9:19:07 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "If you don't own the software, you don't own the product of the software. I think there are going to be certain scenarios where that really pinches."

If you look at the Autodesk website these days, they phrase it this way. Software isn't "sold" to you, it is "licensed".

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 9:22:59 pm

[Oliver Peters] "If you look at the Autodesk website these days, they phrase it this way. Software isn't "sold" to you, it is "licensed"."

Exactly, you don't really own it in as much as you are purchasing the right to use it.

The Cloud more accurately reflects this language.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 23, 2013 at 2:52:55 am

I'm not even sure where to begin. Let's just say, from my point of view, football is a sport where the ball is 12", and not a sport where the players use their feet, go '9ers.

On this side of the Pacific, way past Kansas, up in Tahoe, we do not own software, as a matter of legal definition, no US citizen owns software. We agree to "use the software" for a negotiated fee. EULA.

What are we talking about? Oh yeah: the business of rental v. ownership.

No one in the USA has ever actually owned Adobe software products. In theory, Adobe could recall photoshop like Encephalitis encrusted meat.

blah blah blah.

I edit to make money. It doesn't matter what software I use. I tell stories. I make people laugh. I make people cry. Hopefully, it's by design.

I like Adobe's new business model because it places an emphasis on what John Galt called "build[ing] to higher standards." I cannot wait for the day when Dennis Radeke is the John Galt of Adobe. And, with all due respect Dennis, you may be there now.

For me, it changes the bidding (AICP) to help me make more money (uh...that's US dollars, not so bad against the yen, pretty bad against the pound). Three years down the road, client GSR wants some video, okay, it will cost you $30 just to open the file. Of course, I will pass that cost to the client as a COGS. Similarly, if GSR needs me to re-shoot, then I have to rent the same camera package. Of course, lenses are software. But...business is business.

Adobe, owning the work? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Man, that was funny. Whew. I owe you a Double Jack, my favorite beer. Think of all the movies audio dialogue tracks sennheiser owns, or the guitar player riffs Fender owns, or the goals Nike owns.

Well, I've read far too many of your posts. I think you need a blog--oh, alas--blogster would have to pay Cow for the rights to your words!

You might say "cheers mate."
I say "later dude"

Thanks!
Rich


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 4:53:03 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "There is no difference in paying $3500 for Smoke and Autodesk decides to pull the plug,"

of course there is a difference. Time is the difference. When Apple pulled the plug on FCP7 or when Discreet pulled the plug on *edit I had years to make a transition at no extra cost to me. With the cloud, if Adobe goes in a different direction you will have to maintain monthly payments as you make your transition if you want access to old projects. The idea of paying monthly for something you don't want until you've XML'd every last project in you library is not a pleasant one.

Loosing access to old projects is one of the things that made so many people apoplectic when Apple pulled it 2 years ago and that has sensitized many editors about the possibility of doing it again.

There is no need for Adobe to go this route, they can charge a reasonable premium for perpetual licenses to cover any additional costs -- if the cloud idea is so good it will prove itself over time.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 5:14:04 pm

[Herb Sevush] "of course there is a difference. Time is the difference. When Apple pulled the plug on FCP7 or when Discreet pulled the plug on *edit I had years to make a transition at no extra cost to me. With the cloud, if Adobe goes in a different direction you will have to maintain monthly payments as you make your transition if you want access to old projects. The idea of paying monthly for something you don't want until you've XML'd every last project in you library is not a pleasant one.

Loosing access to old projects is one of the things that made so many people apoplectic when Apple pulled it 2 years ago and that has sensitized many editors about the possibility of doing it again.

There is no need for Adobe to go this route, they can charge a reasonable premium for perpetual licenses to cover any additional costs -- if the cloud idea is so good it will prove itself over time."


It's true, it will fail or succeed. What we don't know (and I keep having to say this) is what the terms are.

Do we know that Adobe will cut all access to the software off?


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 5:28:04 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Do we know that Adobe will cut all access to the software off?"

Do you mean if you stop payment? then Adobe says quite clearly they will cut off all access until you re-up. For now there is no penalty to re-up, just start a new monthly subscription - but of course that could change in the future - there's that pesky "trust" issue again.

If it's a program that they want to EOL then they will make a perpetual final copy available.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 5:18:37 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The idea of paying monthly for something you don't want until you've XML'd every last project in you library is not a pleasant one. Loosing access to old projects is one of the things that made so many people apoplectic when Apple pulled it 2 years ago and that has sensitized many editors about the possibility of doing it again."

I'd suggest that outputting master deliverables and XML together is a new best practice.

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

Herb Sevush
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 5:23:59 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I'd suggest that outputting master deliverables and XML together is a new best practice."

Agreed, no matter what the software.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 7:16:02 pm

[Herb Sevush] "[Walter Soyka] "I'd suggest that outputting master deliverables and XML together is a new best practice."

Agreed, no matter what the software."


Provided your deliverable is a "fixed state" project, sure.

But the promise of the current world, is that not all projects will be that.

I'm betting that in the future, there will be fewer "fixed state" (meaning detached from their parent program) masters, and more "current state on-line" masters -

After all, the world is connected and I bet more people are now accessing more content via "on-demand" streams (YouTube, Vimeo, Hulu, et al) than accessing content that's "fixed state."

If you still work in a "fixed state" world, great.

If you don't. Then having new tools to accommodate the new reality is pretty great.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 7:21:09 pm

[Bill Davis] "Provided your deliverable is a "fixed state" project, sure....
....I'm betting that in the future, there will be fewer "fixed state" (meaning detached from their parent program) masters, and more "current state on-line" masters -
After all, the world is connected and I bet more people are now accessing more content via "on-demand" streams (YouTube, Vimeo, Hulu, et al) than accessing content that's "fixed state.""


Please explain, because I have no idea what you are talking about. If you deliver a finished piece to Hulu or Vimeo for example, in concept it's no different than delivering to NBC or HBO. Though it may be tapeless and the QC less stringent (maybe). There's a master file that's a "locked picture" with a grade and a mix. How is that any different with X than with PPro or FCP "legacy"?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 7:50:32 pm

[Oliver Peters] "There's a master file that's a "locked picture" with a grade and a mix. How is that any different with X than with PPro or FCP "legacy"?"

Here's the thing...

I'm trying to finish up my iBook. (last minute delivery glitches regarding a maddeningly few embedded photos throwing errors at the last stage of the Publish to the iTunes Bookstore process)

But the entire iBookstore is based on a platform that allows "re-versioning" of your content.

You publish now. If you find errors or glitches, you re-publish next week and from that instant, the consumer gets the new content.

So in a very real sense, the book is never actually "finalized"- it's a living document that is under revision.

We see this everywhere in the computer industry. Virtually ALL software manuals now take advantage of this. And in fact, the new "broadcast" system - YouTube and Vimeo, et al, are built on this model.

Products, stats, metrics change? Re-publish the original work with fresh content to replace the old.

Being connected to virtual content on-line is different thinking from "make the master" and leave it alone in that fixed state forever.

The traditional model still has tremendous value - and people will ALWAYS want to create fixed works. I get that.

But that was the ONLY mode of creation in the past. Now, there's another model. Being a creator in the modern era can be as much a matter of curating a stream of useful but ever-changing data as it is creating a work "once" and that being the terminal act of the creative process.

This might seem foreign, but I think it's real... In the modern era, we can create traditional "dead" works - defined as cut off from revision ... or we can create "live" works - that live in a state of connected access to their creator.

The second mode seems more interesting to me than the first.

How I see it anyway.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 7:56:57 pm

[Bill Davis] "And in fact, the new "broadcast" system - YouTube and Vimeo, et al, are built on this model. "

You can't update a video on YouTube. You can delete an old video and upload a new one, or just upload a new one, but you can't "replace" a video that's online. So you are, in fact, uploading two separate master files that are different from one another. It's very much not a living document in the way you're describing.

Vimeo allows you to replace a video, but YouTube doesn't.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 7:59:31 pm

[Michael Hancock] "
Vimeo allows you to replace a video, but YouTube doesn't."


Surprised.

I use Vimeo for 98% of my client delivery.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 8:01:37 pm

[Bill Davis] "Products, stats, metrics change? Re-publish the original work with fresh content to replace the old."

So... render a new version, export a new XML to match. What's the problem?

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

Bill Davis
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 8:15:56 pm

[Walter Soyka] "[Bill Davis] "Products, stats, metrics change? Re-publish the original work with fresh content to replace the old."

So... render a new version, export a new XML to match. What's the problem?"


Unless I misunderstand, what you're doing is the traditional process of plopping files to your desktop - which doesn't really DO anything. It's a precursor to doing what you want to do (master delivery to the client)

In the "connected" model, Export IS the delivery. So you're saving steps and driving efficiency.

This is most valuable in workflows where the creator is the ultimate gatekeeper between the timeline and the audience. Those who aren't might get time and efficiency savings in delivering review copies to upstream decision makers, but the tool works best (in comfortable consort with Apple's long-held "empowering creatives" bent) when it's deployed by a person both creating and selling their work for direct personal benefit - perhaps more than someone working for a larger company or corporate content owner.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 8:53:17 pm

[Bill Davis] "Unless I misunderstand, what you're doing is the traditional process of plopping files to your desktop - which doesn't really DO anything. It's a precursor to doing what you want to do (master delivery to the client) In the "connected" model, Export IS the delivery. So you're saving steps and driving efficiency."

Ok, so... "deliver a new version," export an XML to match. What's the problem?

I'm suggesting there's a simple thing you can do that takes seconds as a part of your delivery process that future-proofs your product.

Otherwise, if you switch NLEs, you'll have to either A) go through all your old projects and export XMLs en masse when you switch, or B) maintain an old system with your legacy app to open old projects and export XMLs on demand.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 8:35:49 pm

[Bill Davis] "So in a very real sense, the book is never actually "finalized"- it's a living document that is under revision. "

OK, I understand what you are saying now. I think that's a possible (one of many) viable approach for someone "self-publishing" video. I'm not sure it is realistic in the "work for hire" video production world though. Mainly because it ultimately holds you - as the editor - liable for managing the assets and master without future renumeration (aside from the actual logistics of doing it).

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 8:57:15 pm

[Oliver Peters] " I'm not sure it is realistic in the "work for hire" video production world though. Mainly because it ultimately holds you - as the editor - liable for managing the assets and master without future renumeration (aside from the actual logistics of doing it)."

Two points.

I undersand why you see it in those terms, but the history of our industry is littered with technologies that were initially "solo practitioner" oriented (like DV vs Betacam) that went on to transform the larger game. The key driver is value. If the technology delivers enough value compared to the old, then the market adopts it.
I can see massive swaths of functioning video where "versioning" will be a powerful driver of efficiency - so I think it's more inevitable than niche.

As to future remuneration - again we see this very differently. I see versioning as a driver of revenue. Because in the modern market, fresh, revised content - offered at incremental cost into an existing customer stream - is a long established model. For instance, we've all been traditionally delighted when we get new capabilities in our $89 software, but only have to pay $19 bucks for the upgrade because we're an existing customer.

Do you suppose that model won't migrate to publishing or on-line video?

And what if, because distribution costs are virtually ZERO - if you can build a 100,000 customer database for a piece of content, and revise it - and only ask a low barrier upgrade price of say, 99 cents.
You can generate a whole lot of incremental income with a sales model like that.

The underlying truth is that the entire economic model of generating income off intellectural property is changing. That's the huge driver of all this change, in my mind.

Brave new world, indeed.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 9:15:46 pm

[Bill Davis] "Do you suppose that model won't migrate to publishing or on-line video?"

No. Not with "work for hire" clients, like ad agencies, corporate video departments, TV show producers, filmmakers. It may work for them that way, but that has no benefit for the individual editor who services that work as a vendor.

[Bill Davis] "if you can build a 100,000 customer database for a piece of content, and revise it - and only ask a low barrier upgrade price of say, 99 cents.
You can generate a whole lot of incremental income with a sales model like that."


I believe we are talking about two completely different things. You are talking about the benefits of self-publishing and there I agree. Same model as software development.

What I'm looking about is the cost to me as a post-production vendor for managing a client's assets in my possession. Yes, that drives future revenue, but the more we move to the "living document" model, the less likely it will be that I will be able to adequately charge for those services. It encourages the belief on the client's part that these things have no cost and therefore my charges should be minimal. At that point editors become more likely - not less - to wash their hands of a project when it's done, because of the diminishing returns of handling the media. At some point you DO have to call a project "DONE" or you'll work for free forever.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 23, 2013 at 4:21:47 am

[Oliver Peters] "At some point you DO have to call a project "DONE" or you'll work for free forever. "

Amen.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 7:32:17 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I'd suggest that outputting master deliverables and XML together is a new best practice."

there is a thing with this tho.

I realise that my pliers analogy has taken a battering - I can see how that might be - so lets just keep it with tools and the product of that tool.

If I'm up to my eyeballs in PPro in 24 months time, my timelines are likely to have warp stabilisation, dynamic links, lumetri looks, adjustment layers, you name it really, not to mention push pulls done with the pretty peerless keyframing system, where the acceleration curves are best of breed.

I mean, yes, the XML will get a form of the timeline out, but it will miss a fair bit of my intent, and working practise. So it goes or whatever - but there is no way that the tool and the product, the outright personal creative property originating from that tool are not quite deeply enmeshed?

Same goes for a guy in dreamweaver, same goes for a guy in indesign, same goes for a guy in flash. I'm not even sure the guys in dreamweaver or flash get to have even an XML equivalent really. plus where is the dreamweaver guy going to take it? Or the flash guy? i'm not really up on those software markets.

Basically XML as it stands doesn't answer the issue of the personal works being enmeshed in the authoring tool to the point of being indivisible.
If you don't own the authoring tool, in a way, you don't own the product of that tool. That, to me, is the issue here.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 8:41:17 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "If I'm up to my eyeballs in PPro in 24 months time, my timelines are likely to have warp stabilisation, dynamic links, lumetri looks, adjustment layers, you name it really, not to mention push pulls done with the pretty peerless keyframing system, where the acceleration curves are best of breed. I mean, yes, the XML will get a form of the timeline out, but it will miss a fair bit of my intent, and working practise. So it goes or whatever - but there is no way that the tool and the product, the outright personal creative property originating from that tool are not quite deeply enmeshed?"

I get the ideology here -- I'm very Ae-dependent, and there are no real alternatives there.

But so what? Let's talk about this practically. Why are you revisiting this project, after x amount of time in mothballs? Presumably there's some value here?

So pay for it. Rent the tool for a month and bill it back to the client. Pay a guy like me who's still on subscription to reconform your old project for you and deliver it back to you in whatever format you like and bill it back to the client. Tell the client it can't recovered, start from scratch again with new tools, and bill the client.

It's not worth that? Cut what you need to from the master.

Years ago, restoring a project would mean having access to whatever tapes it was on. How much of your work is sourced on Beta? Do you have a Beta deck ready to go to restore those old projects?

Remember, I'm the guy who just hunted down a working 5.25" floppy drive to attempt to read some thirty year old disks. The content on there was valuable to me, so I paid for a way to get it back. If I had wanted to "own" this myself, I would have had to keep an operational IBM PC frozen in time for 30 years in order to be able to read those diskettes. It was a lot more practical for me to get what I needed when I needed it than it was to maintain a full legacy system for the original workflow.

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

David Lawrence
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 23, 2013 at 6:45:10 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Basically XML as it stands doesn't answer the issue of the personal works being enmeshed in the authoring tool to the point of being indivisible.
If you don't own the authoring tool, in a way, you don't own the product of that tool. That, to me, is the issue here."


Well said.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 4:48:33 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "people saying that the issues raised here on the cow are FUD, invalid, while themselves making frankly dodgy camera hire comparisons might want to consider the fact that this conversation about CC is going on all over right now."

And by the way, the conversation itself isn't FUD, the conversation is good.


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 5:24:46 pm

FUD?

We don't know about purchase options yet. whether it's possible to purchase , and if it is, whether it's equitable which raises the question. Is it a fair deal?

It's a business model.

It reverses the 'customer is king' equation.

The Creative Cloud is superb idea for Adobe if enough people take up the offer, and if its mandatory I guess they'll hit their targets.

And for the customer? I don't think its such a great idea. You are basically going to be paying over and over for the same product once you've been a member for 2 or 3 years.

And if you have a bad patch, a couple of bad months, you can count on the Creative Cloud being turned off because I doubt you will be able to get any concession from them, and your bank will not be meeting standing orders. If all your business is dependent on this software you won't be able to work your way out of it and I very much doubt that the projects you've been working on will be backward compatible to versions of software you have in your cupboard.

If Apple were ever to try this stunt I'd switch immediately.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 5:07:01 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "people saying that the issues raised here on the cow are FUD, invalid, while themselves making frankly dodgy camera hire comparisons might want to consider the fact that this conversation about CC is going on all over right now."

I think there's a very clear line between legit concerns about drawbacks of software as a service (why can't I access my own project files when I cancel after paying monthly for five years?), and some of the FUD we've seen (Adobe will jack the price to one million dollars per month while hacker zombies from outer space attack my computer through Creative Cloud, and I am only saved by my Internet service going down for six weeks straight).

I don't see anything wrong with someone questioning the value of Creative Cloud. That strikes me as a good conversation to have, and I think that Adobe should hear about licensing requests just as they'd hear about a software feature request. I hope we keep this part of the conversation going, because this may be a big change for a lot of us. (Or it may, as I suspect, really not matter all that much in practical terms.)

But there's also been a lot of misrepresentation of actual factual information about current offerings, supposition posted as if it were fact about future offerings in "techniques" forums, and even a bit of really unnecessary name-calling of people who think the model may have some merit. That's the part I think we need to be careful of.

I'm curious -- what do you think is dodgy about Jeremy's camera example? Maybe it's a bit disconcerting because it challenges an assumption we've been making about our software tools, but I actually think the analogy holds up pretty well.

Looking back not all that far, it's a pretty recent development that a freelancer is able to "own" his own tools in this industry, blurring the lines a bit between freelancer and facility. Aindreas, you came up on Flint, right? Did you own it? Or were you able to make your living with it even though someone else's name was on the license?


[Aindreas Gallagher] "There are lots of things to like here - but I'm still uncertain whether or not I am willing to rent my primary software in perpetuity. It'll be interesting to see what adobe announce."

Totally fair question that I think many of us are asking!

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

Oliver Peters
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 5:45:27 pm

There's another concern in all of this. That's the issue of "nickel & dime". Not specifically with Adobe, but overall. They aren't the only ones looking at subscription models. When you start to factor in all of the services a small business uses and have them all go to a monthly subscription, it really starts to add up. Many small companies upgrade or add features/plug-ins/gear when they have a job come in that pays for it. If you start shelling out several hundred a month (Adobe + others), it starts to look very unattractive to add any more of these than absolutely necessary.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 5:49:24 pm

Another question. What happens to your software activation when Adobe kills an application? For example, Soundbooth is no longer available, yet it is the only application that can interpret the sound scores sold as part of the package. Had it been EOL'ed under CC, would you still be able to use it a year later, even if you are on an active subscription?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 5:52:28 pm

aye, they actually do have a specific commitment to release final version apps in the case of EOL.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 5:54:09 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Had it been EOL'ed under CC, would you still be able to use it a year later, even if you are on an active subscription?"

The 10 Most Common Myths About Adobe’s Creative Cloud
http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-creative-cloud-myths.html

"In the event that Adobe decides to discontinue any products in the Creative Cloud, then they will make the most recent full and permanent version of the software available free of charge to active members on an as-is basis."

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 6:25:56 pm

[Herb Sevush] ""In the event that Adobe decides to discontinue any products in the Creative Cloud, then they will make the most recent full and permanent version of the software available free of charge to active members on an as-is basis.""

Good to know. Thanks.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 22, 2013 at 6:51:30 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Aindreas, you came up on Flint, right? Did you own it?"

of course I did - the second hand indigo 2 extreme came in at 125,000 euro, and roughly around the same for the software.
then I believe it was low five figures all in per year after that. the accom cost me a pretty penny too mind you.

Steal at the price!

I still really miss the flint particle generator though. that thing was just gorgeous - run a keyframed colour ramp through the source particle colour parameters , throw the generator around a bit and play that sucker back in realtime. deeeelicious.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: lively discussion at John Nack's blog.
on Apr 23, 2013 at 2:11:41 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "of course I did - the second hand indigo 2 extreme came in at 125,000 euro, and roughly around the same for the software. then I believe it was low five figures all in per year after that. the accom cost me a pretty penny too mind you. "

Aindreas, apropos of nothing -- have you tried Smoke 2013? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

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

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]