FORUMS: list search recent posts

Why cant adobe have the best of both

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Richard Cardonna
Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 8:48:35 pm

Autodesk,Maxon,&intuit both have subcription and perpetual lic in all products.
Adobe says it has 500k paying subscribers whence they claimed to have had 2million perpetualseats.

Why writeoff 1.5 million. True many will not buy yearly but a substancial amount would. I know you have done the math but why erase the potencial of extra cash?

I ask myselfy what could be the ulterior motive to abandon tens of millions in potential income if not more. It just doesnt make sense.

Richard


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 8:56:44 pm

I think a big issue was people buying one or more programs and skipping several upgrades. Long range, that wasn't that profitable for them. A class of people were probably buying every 3 or 4 years. They probably decided that, with CC, some more "part timers" will move to CC and some others would fall off, overall would be a net gain in revenue.

The people who skip upgrades are the least profitable.



Return to posts index

Richard Cardonna
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 9:01:58 pm

Well they could have people buying into the cloud. people buying yearly others every 2 or 4 years. what the problem with that? money is money.

Richard


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 10:29:15 pm

[Richard Cardonna] "Well they could have people buying into the cloud. people buying yearly others every 2 or 4 years. what the problem with that? money is money."

If a lot of people were skipping upgrades it hurts case flow needed for development. While I don't know the numbers imagine, for example, only 1/3 of the owners upgraded after a new release, another 1/3 skipped one and, another 1/3 skipped two. With a large number skipping releases then, on a long development cycle it really hurts.

In the last few years Adobe had been making changes to their upgrade policy by increasing the price if one skipped releases. Of course that meant the more you skipped, the more you were "penalized" meaning you'd be even less likely to upgrade.

They had to put a stop to that due to the economics especially since they wanted to be more, not less aggressive with upgrades after FCP7 EOL. They were faced with looking at a method to upgrade more frequently and ensure a steady cash-flow, knowing they'd have steady and predictable revenue.

Professional users, businesses that make their income from their apps, would see the new model as means to spread out costs. It prevents a cash strapped but professional user from holding off on an upgrade. It also means if you're holding off on a hardware upgrade or locked into a work cycle were an upgrade doesn't make sense at a given moment, you're still paying for it. Basically Adobe gets the money whether or not you have reasons to hold off on an upgrade.

On the other side, there's the businesses that stick with older version for a long time. Don't upgrade until they upgrade hardware. Serious hobbyists who buy and use a version for a few years since they don't have an urgent need to upgrade. Maybe the indy filmmaker who doesn't have to worry about projects coming in from the outside they have to be compatible with. All these "customers" are marginal revenue for Adobe.

What they've done is pushed people to make a decision. In addition to the 1/3 that would upgrade anyway, maybe they pull in the 1/3 that would skip one upgrade but lose the other 1/3 that would skip two upgrades.

Overall a gain in revenue for Adobe. They have steady and predictable revenue. Upgrades are paid for even if you have reason to hold off.

So some embrace it even if they'd prefer not to. And some will look elsewhere. Overall Adobe is more stable. There's no risk of an upgrade being perceived as weak or not offering the features you'd really want to do a big paid upgrade to. They have you steady.

I'm sure they waited until this point because they had a pretty good idea of how CC subscriptions were growing and had some idea what the "churn" rate would be.

Additionally even those with casual needs, rather than hanging on to an older version, will have to pay for the month to use the app temporarily. All those who only use Photoshop or Illustrator to tweak a client's file are now at least piecemeal revenue.

As I've said before, these companies are businesses, not "friends" you can "trust." Adobe did this because it made economic sense for them. For those who were not regular upgrades, the "churn" is the least profitable users.

So where does one go? Avid's an NLE. It doesn't replace After Effects or Photoshop.
Apple gives Motion a serious going over?
Pixelmator development increases?

A lot of people have to move to CC. Others will look for alternatives. While not quite the same as FCP7 EOL, Some will search for alternatives. The market may or may not respond.

It really does make sense for Adobe even if it doesn't make sense for a portion of the user base.



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Pixelmator Responds
on May 7, 2013 at 10:52:50 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Pixelmator development increases?"

Pixelmator responds in their blog.

Cloudiness
http://www.pixelmator.com/blog/2013/05/07/cloudiness/

Big excerpt

We’ll prove ourselves again later on this week. On Thursday, we will storm the Mac App Store with a free Pixelmator 2.2. Blueberry upgrade for all of our existing customers. Don’t be confused by versioning numbers. This isn’t a minor update—it’s a MAJOR UPGRADE—and it’s great one.

Then, as I mentioned sometime ago, we are on track to ship layer styles later this year. We just wanted to complete this awesome Blueberry upgrade.

After Big Brother’s latest move, I am confident that our philosophy of pricing ($15), ownership (you own the app), and development (focus on creating the world’s best image editing app) are simply the right things to do.




Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Pixelmator Responds
on May 7, 2013 at 11:00:31 pm

Ahhh...that's why everyone has heard of Pixelmator and no one knows what Adobe Photoshop is. You can't fault them for trying to cash in, though...

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


Return to posts index


Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Pixelmator Responds
on May 7, 2013 at 11:27:06 pm

[Joseph.W.Burke] Ahhh...that's why everyone has heard of Pixelmator and no one knows what Adobe Photoshop is. You can't fault them for trying to cash in, though...

They're a small team that publish an extremely elegant, easy to use Image editing app. For most image editing tasks that editors need to perform, it is more than capable.

I love it, it's fast, slick and very user friendly. I have been using it instead of Photoshop for almost 2 years. I only go into PS when something comes across with Layer Styles, as this doesn't translate in Pixelmator. Once it does, it will be a good alternative for video editors.

I like that they responded. You're mocking them here, but when X came out, Adobe did exactly the same thing. Personally, I'm all for supporting the little guys. We've seen the flipside a bit too much in the last couple of years.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Pixelmator Responds
on May 7, 2013 at 11:45:53 pm

[Sandeep Sajeev] "Once it does, it will be a good alternative for video editors."

As long as they're on a Mac... :-) If the idea is to buck "Big Brother", and democratize the tool, why not offer a cross platform solution?

Shawn



Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Pixelmator Responds
on May 8, 2013 at 12:02:07 am

[Shawn Miller] As long as they're on a Mac... :-) If the idea is to buck "Big Brother", and democratize the tool, why not offer a cross platform solution?

You're right of course, apologies, I totally forgot that they were Mac only. It's a shame, as it really is a cracking tool.


Return to posts index


Shawn Miller
Re: Pixelmator Responds
on May 8, 2013 at 12:12:47 am

[Sandeep Sajeev] "[Shawn Miller] As long as they're on a Mac... :-) If the idea is to buck "Big Brother", and democratize the tool, why not offer a cross platform solution?

You're right of course, apologies, I totally forgot that they were Mac only. It's a shame, as it really is a cracking tool."


Crap, I suspected that it was. I do understand that they're a small shop though, and that cross platform support might not be high on the agenda. I guess I'll add Pixelmator to the list of applications that I wish were available on Windows. Does PM support OpenEXR yet? I remember VFX artists were asking for this years ago.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Pixelmator Responds
on May 8, 2013 at 12:20:36 am

No support for OpenEXR yet. Stuff like this is where the difference between the tools becomes clear.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Pixelmator Responds
on May 8, 2013 at 12:37:34 am

[Sandeep Sajeev] "No support for OpenEXR yet. Stuff like this is where the difference between the tools becomes clear."

Ah, too bad. I just read that they currently only support 8 bit images. Hopefully, they'll get that corrected sooner rather than later.

Thanks



Return to posts index


Andrew Richards
Re: Pixelmator Responds
on May 8, 2013 at 12:18:01 am

[Shawn Miller] "why not offer a cross platform solution?"

I think one of the reasons the Pixelmator team has been able to build such a mature image editor so quickly with such a (relatively) small team is they take advantage of the frameworks in OS X to get a lot of image handling power "for free". If they were to go cross platform, they's need to implement all that stuff they get from Core Image themselves. They'd basically need to start all over in something other than Cocoa Objective-C if they wanted to be cross-paltform.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Pixelmator Responds
on May 8, 2013 at 12:22:10 am

[Andrew Richards] "[Shawn Miller] "why not offer a cross platform solution?"

I think one of the reasons the Pixelmator team has been able to build such a mature image editor so quickly with such a (relatively) small team is they take advantage of the frameworks in OS X to get a lot of image handling power "for free". If they were to go cross platform, they's need to implement all that stuff they get from Core Image themselves. They'd basically need to start all over in something other than Cocoa Objective-C if they wanted to be cross-paltform."


Fair enough, thanks Andy.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: Pixelmator Responds
on May 8, 2013 at 10:42:40 am

[Sandeep Sajeev] "I love it, it's fast, slick and very user friendly. I have been using it instead of Photoshop for almost 2 years. I only go into PS when something comes across with Layer Styles, as this doesn't translate in Pixelmator. Once it does, it will be a good alternative for video editors"


Thanks for the heads up. Not heard of Pixelmator before but having just purchased and had a brief play around I have to say that I agree with you Sandeep.

With its ability to export layers (in Photoshop format) it works well with FCPX.


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Pixelmator Responds
on May 8, 2013 at 12:32:55 am

all the graphics at the various live pres studio setup locations for the London Olympics were powered by pixelmator.

It was the image editor install, along with FCP for editing. I picked it up in 5 minutes, and executed a ton of pres delivery graphics, image type combos, quiz slides etc over the course of the two weeks.

It's very nice software - and it costs 15 dollars. It's not photoshop, but its not a million miles away either, nice layers system, nice layer masks, nice levels, very fast to launch, very light to run.

There is nothing wrong at all with pixelmator.

And you get to own it. Unlike the Olive Oil salesmen stalking around, selling you back your own tools on hire, on the never never. Adobe is going weird I say.

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


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 11:27:12 pm

[Craig Seeman] "So where does one go? Avid's an NLE. It doesn't replace After Effects or Photoshop.
Apple gives Motion a serious going over?
Pixelmator development increases?"


Hopefully! I think it would be good if Apple provided a serious challenger to AE. It would be even better if a smaller, hungrier company came up with a compelling, cross-platform alternative. Maybe Sony and FXHome will get there some day. It looks like they're at least trying.

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/hitfilm_vegas_movie_studio_integration

Shawn



Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 8, 2013 at 12:27:40 pm

[Shawn Miller] "I think it would be good if Apple provided a serious challenger to AE"

Well, they've had Motion for a long-ass time already and haven't yet, so I wouldn't hold my breath.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 8, 2013 at 4:15:58 pm

[Gary Huff] "[Shawn Miller] "I think it would be good if Apple provided a serious challenger to AE"

Well, they've had Motion for a long-ass time already and haven't yet, so I wouldn't hold my breath."


Yeah, I think it's more of a wish on my part. I've been waiting for someone to replace Combustion as a real competitor to AE for a long time. But I suspect you're right, Apple probably isn't interested in competing with AE in a meaningful way... otherwise they probably wouldn't have killed Shake (dumbest move ever).

Shawn



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 9:02:46 pm

[Richard Cardonna] "I ask myselfy what could be the ulterior motive to abandon tens of millions in potential income if not more. It just doesnt make sense."

Here's one possibility: they think they have all the leverage they need to squeeze every last drop of profit from the creative community, and they intend to leave it bloodless and destroyed in a few years with no long-term plan for the continued existence of their company after devouring all their customers, vampire-style.

Here's another: they actually believe that providing good products and integrated services to the creative community better meets the challenges of modern production than the current product-only model, and that by making a compelling offering at a fair price, people will actually be willing to pay for it.

I really don't think that CC is just a new way of paying for CS. I think there's going to be a lot more to it than that a couple versions hence, just as Creative Suite added integration across what were previous disparate products over a few releases.

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

Richard Cardonna
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 9:15:57 pm

It still doesnt make sense. if they want to make money they should have all the options availabe.
You know a couple of hundred here a couple of hundred there plus the cloud adds up.
If they want to tread new ground they should be reminded of fcpx.

Richard


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 10:32:16 pm

[Richard Cardonna] "It still doesnt make sense. if they want to make money they should have all the options availabe."

I don't think it made sense to offer an option to skip and upgrade. Now, even if you have reason not to, lack of new hardware, uninteresting new features, you keep paying. It makes good sense for them financially.



Return to posts index

Richard Cardonna
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 10:45:37 pm

I agree with you in almost al you state but it still does not explain why cant adobe offer options for all it will make more money having the cloud and perpetual licences plus upgraders that invest evey year or not.

Richard


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 8, 2013 at 12:25:21 am

[Richard Cardonna] "but it still does not explain why cant adobe offer options for all it will make more money"

They will not make more money and I explained that. Some portion of those professionals who skipped updates will get CC. They've probably determined that increase in revenue will more that outweigh the infrequent upgraders who drop off. They probably have very good numbers on purchasers who skip upgrades.

They don't want to offer an option that allows a user to skip upgrades.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 10:46:28 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I don't think it made sense to offer an option to skip and upgrade. Now, even if you have reason not to, lack of new hardware, uninteresting new features, you keep paying. It makes good sense for them financially."

What your leaving out of consideration is market share. Yes it might be more immediately profitable to cull the bottom third and force the rest to upgrade more frequently but they do this by reducing market share which, in an interconnected market like this, brings in new economies - FCP really took off when everyone saw that it was the platform to partner with. The more people that use an NLE, the larger the ecosystem, the more valuable it becomes, the more people will buy it. If you are correct about their reasoning then they are very short sighted.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 8, 2013 at 12:21:42 am

[Herb Sevush] "but they do this by reducing market share "

To?
Avid?
FCPX?
Motion?
Pixelmator?

That's why I mentioned the "competitors."

Sometimes marketshare isn't as important as the bottom line. More regular paying customers with more paying for upgrades since it's built in.

[Herb Sevush] "The more people that use an NLE, the larger the ecosystem"

Certainly that's true for third party developers who want to sell more to a wider user base. Again, where are people going to go though?

[Herb Sevush] "If you are correct about their reasoning then they are very short sighted."

Not a direct comparison but some would say Apple is more concerned with profit than market share which is why Samsung sells many phones.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 8, 2013 at 1:41:32 am

[Richard Cardonna] "It still doesnt make sense. if they want to make money they should have all the options availabe. You know a couple of hundred here a couple of hundred there plus the cloud adds up."

At the MAX conference, they said they are choosing to focus on what they think the way forward is, rather than splitting development efforts on two parallel tracks (CS and CC).


[Richard Cardonna] "If they want to tread new ground they should be reminded of fcpx."

They are selling and supporting CS6 perpetual licenses indefinitely. Isn't that exactly what everyone here wanted Apple to do with FCP7 while transitioning to FCPX?

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

Richard Herd
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 10:54:25 pm

Here's a composite:

[Walter Soyka] "they think they have all the leverage they need to squeeze every last drop of profit from the creative community, and ...

they actually believe that providing good products and integrated services to the creative community better meets the challenges of modern production than the current product-only model, and that by making a compelling offering at a fair price, people will actually be willing to pay for it."


It's industrialism 101. There's a class of workers who require inputs to be productive. The supplier of those inputs controls prices. The reasonableness in a contemporary capitalist market system requires a fair price but also that the supplier has some capital at risk. In theory, Adobe could fire every single employee and dissolve the research and development teams, yet we could still rent their software in perpetuity for increasingly higher but reasonable rents.

Here's the sign to watch: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/adbe

For the record: the stock is valued at $45.602 5/7/13 4 PM PDT.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 10:56:52 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I really don't think that CC is just a new way of paying for CS. I think there's going to be a lot more to it than that a couple versions hence"

Then they should have waited till then to drop all other modes of distribution.

It's really amazing that they made the exact same mistake as Apple and now they're surprised at the results. If they had simply announced that this will be the last year they were going to offer perpetual licenses the results would have been orders of magnitude different. But no -- first they excite everyone with the new offerings and then announce that to get them you "have to" change your entire way of doing business. No lead time, no time to create acceptance and answer questions, just wham bahm thank you ma'am. As though the stupidity of this approach hasn't already been demonstrated here.

They've just taken 2 years worth of good will and thrown it out the window. And I say all this irrespective of the merits to CC - doesn't matter whether it's genius or greed - the morons who thought up this marketing triumph are to be admired -- it's hard to be that dumb.

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: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 8, 2013 at 12:47:57 am

[Herb Sevush] "Then they should have waited till then to drop all other modes of distribution. It's really amazing that they made the exact same mistake as Apple and now they're surprised at the results."

Herb, I don't think what Apple did and what Adobe did are the same.

When Apple dropped FCXPX on us, they offered a new product that didn't do everything the old product did, and they immediately EOLed the old product. Didn't the consensus here more or less evolve to "If they were going to make a big change, they should have offered FCP7 side-by-side with FCPX for a while to smooth the transition?"

Well, Adobe offered CC new last year while CS6 perpetual licensing was still the norm, and they are now continuing to sell and support CS6 perptual licenses. Indefinitely.

From the Creative Cloud FAQ [link]:
For how long will Adobe continue to sell Creative Suite 6?
We plan to sell Creative Suite 6 for use on supported platforms indefinitely.


If you look past the hysteria on the Internet, Adobe's move is nothing like Apple's. They changed the licensing model (apparently in anticipation of an innovative new model for the offering, which you may or may not like or be interested in), but they didn't blow up the ecosystem the same way Apple did.

Personally, I gave up on the idea of software "ownership" when straight-up serials and dongles died and everything went to Internet activation. With permanent licenses, I'm dependent on Adobe/Autodesk/Apple/Avid/whomever to authorize my license at installation time, so I'm still "at risk" if they go under or decide to pull the plug.

I'm curious as to how this affects your decision. If Pr ends up being the best product for your needs, is the licensing a dealbreaker? Would that be enough to push you back to FCPX or MC? Even the "open source" Lightworks has a $60 yearly subscription for the good stuff [link].

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: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 8, 2013 at 1:45:20 am

[Walter Soyka] " I don't think what Apple did and what Adobe did are the same."

Neither do I. But one aspect of it was the same - the sudden reveal of a total departure right after NAB, without allowing a period of transition. True CC has been on the market for a year now but then CC isn't the problem - the lack of non CC options is the problem. And that has come with no warning and no period of transition to digest it. If they were planning to do this they should have announced last year when the Cloud first came out that it was going to be the only option in a years time. Doing it now, after getting everyone excited by the NAB demos is nuts from a PR perspective, pure and simple.

I still don't understand why they won't offer some sort of perpetual license program, even if it means delivery months after the CC versions, even if they charge additionally for it -- some sort of offering to give their customers the sense that they have options.

Speaking for myself, if PPro had a multicam feature anywhere near as good as FCPX, I wold probably go the CC route. But I absolutely understand where other editors are coming from and I think Adobe could have gotten where they wanted to go in a different way. If CC is so good why doesn't Adobe have faith that it's value will become self evident over the next few years?

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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 8, 2013 at 1:15:44 am

[Herb Sevush] " it's hard to be that dumb."

On the other hand, if CC fails, there's a bright future for them in congress.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 10:57:29 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Here's one possibility: they think they have all the leverage they need to squeeze every last drop of profit from the creative community, and they intend to leave it bloodless and destroyed in a few years with no long-term plan for the continued existence of their company after devouring all their customers, vampire-style.

Here's another: they actually believe that providing good products and integrated services to the creative community better meets the challenges of modern production than the current product-only model, and that by making a compelling offering at a fair price, people will actually be willing to pay for it.
"


Whoops! I pushed option one by mistake, and there's no "back" button.


Yes, I did get a good laugh.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 10:38:45 pm

QUESTION: [Richard Cardonna] "I ask myselfy what could be the ulterior motive to abandon tens of millions in potential income if not more. It just doesnt make sense"

ANSWER: Rentier Capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentier_capitalism

Quoting, "he soon arrives to the understanding of capitalism as inherently built upon practices of usury and thus inevitably leading to the separation of society into two classes: one composed of those who produce value and the other, which feeds upon the first one."


Return to posts index

Paul Neumann
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 10:57:01 pm

So here we are on an Apple product thread, in effect discussing something truly innovative. Innovative is what Apple's been known for. I think the whole CC offering is truly innovative. It will give you something you didn't even KNOW you needed.

Given their history, this is something Apple should have done with FCPX/Motion/Compressor/Pages/Numbers/Keynote/whatever.

No hyperbole here. Hey CC, have a seat next to the iPod.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 10:59:53 pm

[Paul Neumann] " I think the whole CC offering is truly innovative. It will give you something you didn't even KNOW you needed."

Or make you pay for something you will never need in order to get something you want. Yes, it sounds very Apple like and I don't mean that as a compliment.

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


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 11:02:39 pm

Herb -

It may be something you don't want or need, but it sure as hell is something I want, need, and earn my living with. I'm not trying to speak for everyone...just myself.

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


Return to posts index

Paul Neumann
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 11:05:40 pm

Nobody NEEDED 2000 songs on a device in their pocket...


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 11:08:24 pm

I still don't need 2000 songs in my pocket...

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 8, 2013 at 12:53:05 am

[Paul Neumann] "Nobody NEEDED 2000 songs on a device in their pocket..."

I did. I had 2000 albums to start with, putting them in my pocket, and my car was a no brainer. Illustrator, Flash, and all the rest of the programs I have no interest in have been around for years. Paying off software on the installment plan has been around for years, it's called a credit card. Downloading software direct from the producer has been around for years. Whatever the CC will become, at the moment it's simply a distribution system. The only thing new about it is the lack of any other option. Adobe hasn't created something I didn't know i needed, they have offered a distribution plan I know I don't like.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Cardonna
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 11:06:47 pm

I think its plain racketeering 101. But also a very stupid move. that still doent makw sense.

Richard


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 7, 2013 at 11:26:36 pm

I'd like both, but have been on CC for months and it's terrific - and as we upgrade with every new version, it's a bargain - you get EVERYTHING they make -

for most of us we're only interested in PP Audition Photoshop and AE -- if you upgraded each separately as stand alone license - it would take you several years of amortizing all those costs to match the bargain you get with the cloud (and they'll have already innovated new versions in the meantime)

-- we're already using Web products we never imagined using because we can explore and use them for "free" as part of the subscription.

Abobe's invested 10's of millions in product development and received 0 dollars for that development until they offer it for sale. Smart businesses maximize ROI....those of us who do this for a living do ..why not Adobe -- I'll happily be a CC subscriber.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 8, 2013 at 12:47:53 am

[Joseph W. Bourke] "It may be something you don't want or need, but it sure as hell is something I want, need, and earn my living with. I'm not trying to speak for everyone...just myself."

And I think the CC is a great idea for you and I'm glad you have it as an option. I only wish I had as useful an option.

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


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Why cant adobe have the best of both
on May 8, 2013 at 12:59:22 am

Actually Herb, I was saying CC isn't an option for me - yet. I have my CS6 disks in hand, the software is cooking along, and I have the luxury of waiting a while. I greatly prefer owning the disks - although I'm sure there's a way to backup an Adobe Cloud install locally - that's a very good question for Adobe, now that I think of it.

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


Return to posts index

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