FORUMS: list search recent posts

The New Adobe

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Franz Bieberkopf
The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 12:55:09 am

Cross posting this from the Adobe CC Debate forum, because it's pretty stunning to me.

We sincerely appreciate all the feedback you have given us. We believe that an honest and open dialogue with the community will ensure that, together, we can move the creative process forward.
May 2013
http://blogs.adobe.com/creativecloud/our-move-to-creative-cloud-an-update/

".... if you don't want to buy our products, just don't buy them. And, you know, SHUT UP."
April 2014, Al Mooney, Product Manager for Adobe Premiere Pro
https://twitter.com/al_mooney/status/453033347837485057

This is on the eve of a free NLE from Blackmagic and a rental offering from Avid.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 1:46:40 am

I can understand his frustration. It seems to be the same argument, over and over.

Meanwhile, Adobe engineers, in extremely short order have done a lot of work to many of the applications in CC, Pr probably being the most drastic, everything else being high quality additions to already mature product lines. That hard work pretty much goes unnoticed except for current CC subscribers, and those wanting to pay attention, but not pay perpetually. In my opinion, that amount of attention and development can't be denied no matter how you feel about the money side of the equation.

The CC fallout is happening. Avid, Autodesk, Intelligent Assistance, Red Giant, and others are now offering subscription options. I know I've missed a few companies, and I'm sure there'll be more.

The plan is in full effect.

I have pretty much always argued to not argue with the subscription model. It was pretty obvious to me that Adobe was going this way very early on, and they weren't going to budge on subscription/lack of ownership. I always thought a better fight was price. The photographers's fought it, and won. $10/mo for Photoshop/Lightroom is a great value for great products.

$50/mo for a giant wad of application that I don't even download seems unnecessary. Adobe has room to wiggle, they've made that obvious with photogs. There are other ways to monetize CC without having to pay monthly/yearly for a lot of applications I will never use, and a few I use rarely, and a couple I use consistently.

Pick your battles,

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 2:02:13 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "$50/mo for a giant wad of application that I don't even download seems unnecessary. Adobe has room to wiggle, they've made that obvious with photogs. There are other ways to monetize CC without having to pay monthly/yearly for a lot of applications I will never use, and a few I use rarely, and a couple I use consistently."

Jeremy,

Yes.

Then there's this:

[Al Mooney] ".... if you don't want to buy our products, just don't buy them. And, you know, SHUT UP."


Franz.


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 2:53:43 am

Yeah. Perhaps it's a bit over the top.

It's unfortunate that Adobe's open dialog hasn't been very open, or a dialog.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 2:32:40 am
Last Edited By David Lawrence on Apr 8, 2014 at 2:33:22 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "The CC fallout is happening. Avid, Autodesk, Intelligent Assistance, Red Giant, and others are now offering subscription options. I know I've missed a few companies, and I'm sure there'll be more.

The plan is in full effect. "


I don't think anyone objects to subscription as an option. But it's important to note that all of the companies mentioned above also offer perpetual licenses for customers who prefer them.

Poor Al Mooney. He and his team have done some of the best work in the industry, but Adobe management and marketing have blown a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for their efforts to become a de-facto standard. I'd be frustrated too if I were in his shoes.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 3:02:17 am

[David Lawrence] "Poor Al Mooney. He and his team have done some of the best work in the industry, but Adobe management and marketing have blown a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for their efforts to become a de-facto standard. I'd be frustrated too if I were in his shoes."

It has to be maddening, obviously.

I think that asking for a perpetual option is not the most effective option to ask for, of course, that's just my opinion. It seems to be the root cause of all of the frustration, on both sides.

Jeremy


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 3:26:40 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think that asking for a perpetual option is not the most effective option to ask for, of course, that's just my opinion. It seems to be the root cause of all of the frustration, on both sides. "

I think a 'loyalty reward' every 3-4 years would be a great middle ground. After 3-4 years of continuous CC membership you get a perpetual license to the most recent version of all the CC apps. Adobe gets to stay subscription only and users get an 'off ramp' if they want it.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 3:46:03 am

[Andrew Kimery] "I think a 'loyalty reward' every 3-4 years would be a great middle ground. After 3-4 years of continuous CC membership you get a perpetual license to the most recent version of all the CC apps. Adobe gets to stay subscription only and users get an 'off ramp' if they want it."

Agreed. I'd be perfectly happy with a deal like that.

It's not rocket science, just give an exit strategy. It's technically trivial, Adobe could offer it immediately and earn back millions of customers and dollars.

Guess they'd rather tell us to shut up.

Good luck with that business strategy.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 1:33:34 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I think a 'loyalty reward' every 3-4 years would be a great middle ground. After 3-4 years of continuous CC membership you get a perpetual license to the most recent version of all the CC apps. Adobe gets to stay subscription only and users get an 'off ramp' if they want it."

Hmm, I hear that.

I just....what's in it for anyone?

For Adobe, many people might jump ship after the loyalty period.

For users, you get an out after paying $1800-2400.

I know personally, I would have to pay to stay current as all the artists I work with will stay current.

So, I will need to receive and use, as well as send files that are of the current version. An off ramp really has no use for me. I had to start a subscription to CC for this reason. I couldn't ask people to save down to cs6 anymore (and sometimes they couldn't).

I'd much rather see lower prices for those of use that don't need all 35(?) CC apps and see some sort of microtransaction for usage. For instance, I don't subscribe to, but occasionally need to use InDesign, I open it and pay .99 for 24 hours.

This way, I subscribe to the apps I use, Adobe still gets a subscriber, and they monetize occasional usage directly, and I have a cheap enough service that I don't really need to think about long term consequences.

I also think that Adobe has a a very grand plan in that their software will truly be a service, and you'll need an relatively thin client to run it, but that's a while away. This current version of CC and Anywhere are the foundations for it, I believe.

I don't know, maybe that's stupid.

Basically, I'd rather see lower prices for the things I use. The photogs got it, we can't we video peeps?


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 3:16:15 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I know personally, I would have to pay to stay current as all the artists I work with will stay current. "

Many users need to stay current though many users don't. I feel like most of the voices against the subscription policy are people that don't have to stay current. Adobe gets good will plus a big uptake in CC subscribers and users that want an off-ramp get one. Win/win. For the foreseeable future I will have to stay current, but if for some reason that's no longer the case it would be nice to know there is an off ramp.



[Jeremy Garchow] "I'd much rather see lower prices for those of use that don't need all 35(?) CC apps and see some sort of microtransaction for usage. "

I'd like to see that too. Bundles like the CS bundles with a lower monthly rate since not everyone needs the Master Collection.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 3:29:51 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "lower prices for those of use that don't need all 35(?) CC apps and see some sort of microtransaction for usage. "

I'd like to see that too. Bundles like the CS bundles with a lower monthly rate"


And even one further, you can throw the various effects in the price equation too. Sometimes I need a lot, sometimes I don't need any.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 4:29:52 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Many users need to stay current though many users don't. I feel like most of the voices against the subscription policy are people that don't have to stay current. Adobe gets good will plus a big uptake in CC subscribers and users that want an off-ramp get one. Win/win. For the foreseeable future I will have to stay current, but if for some reason that's no longer the case it would be nice to know there is an off ramp."

This. ^

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 5:20:00 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Many users need to stay current though many users don't. I feel like most of the voices against the subscription policy are people that don't have to stay current."

Perhaps.

Let's play devil's advocate.

As Adobe, is this who you build your business around? The people who don't need to stay current? How much does that cost to keep track of the people that don't need the updates? Lawrence says it's minimal, and maybe he's right, but what is the true cost in potential revenue, in lost time updating older applications, and then the lost time trying to keep up with all the versions. How does Adobe service those customers? And if they don't service those customers, where is the good will?

FCPX received tons of flak for not catering to professionals. Adobe CC delivers a service directly to the veins of working professionals. Adobe CC does not currently cater to the part time video professional. Perhaps they could cater to that audience differently as they have to photographers. Photographers are a freelance bunch too, right?

Why haven't photographers complained as loudly as video? Because, I would surmise, the price is right. I don't feel that the Adobe CC price is right for some of the freelance or part time video crowd.

[Andrew Kimery] " Adobe gets good will plus a big uptake in CC subscribers and users that want an off-ramp get one. Win/win."

Again, how much is good will worth to Adobe? I'd would guess, probably not very much. I know that the business I take on good will loses more time and money than paying gigs. If the price is right, the off ramp becomes less necessary as the penalty is reduced. Realistically, I can't imagine how you could use old "off-ramped" software with all of the new formats, resolutions, codecs, and available computing power today. The constant barrage of updates are also feature releases as well as bug fixes. As we are all well aware of, this is the new software model. Most likely, if you need to dip out of the rental agreement only to revisit it 6 months to a year later (or more), you are going to need all the updates in order to get to work, so you might as well pay up anyway when you need it.

[Andrew Kimery] "I'd like to see that too. Bundles like the CS bundles with a lower monthly rate since not everyone needs the Master Collection."

Ultimately, this is the point. We have a true working example of Adobe opening a dialog with what I would think is a rather large freelance customer base.

http://blogs.adobe.com/creativecloud/introducing-the-photoshop-photography-...

This is where freelance/part time video professionals need to lean on Adobe as it is a working model that seems to work a lot better for everyone.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 5:30:25 pm

I adobe added those that need to stay current to those who dont it would mean more money. catering to a couple million users and shoving off 4 or 5 million users is dumb business.

ricardo marty


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 6:06:07 pm

[Ricardo Marty] "I adobe added those that need to stay current to those who dont it would mean more money. catering to a couple million users and shoving off 4 or 5 million users is dumb business."

So you are saying there's 7 million Pr license holders? Or 4-5 million people that are potentially holding out on subscribing to CC? If that were the case, rest assured, Adobe would want to sign up at least HALF of that, and would lay down the red carpet to do so.

Let's be conservative and say it's a half a million part time users. Adobe could, if they wanted to, monetize that group of people differently and still keep all the advantages of a rental model, and offer no perpetual options beyond CS6.

Jeremy


Return to posts index


Ricardo Marty
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 6:25:17 pm

its on record that adobe had 8 million cs users and 4 million single product users. so i just took half of the cs userbase.

so indeed adobe gave up 3 or 4 times its costumer base for an unclud service.

ricardo marty


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 6:50:18 pm

[Ricardo Marty] "its on record that adobe had 8 million cs users and 4 million single product users. so i just took half of the cs userbase.

so indeed adobe gave up 3 or 4 times its costumer base for an unclud service."


Again, I think we have shown that the numbers can be skewed to include (or not include) certain groups of users.

Of those 8 million "CS Users" how many of those are paid users?

What version of CS? (The Creative Suite is more than a decade old)

When was the last time those 8 million people paid Adobe for software?

Without those numbers, we don't really know what Adobe stand to gain (or lose) in current and paying customers. They have had perpetual licenses for over 10 years, yet they still haven't ponied up to Adobe for updates.

This goes back to what I was saying about the need to stay current (or not). Adobe CC caters directly to a working customer base that needs to use the latest features in order to deliver.

Keeping those other x-number of millions of users where they are in the upgrade cycle won't be much of a loss to Adobe. Said another way, if Adobe offered some sort of off-ramp, or way out, my guess is that most of those users would stay right where they are.

Adobe is not looking to monetize that group. They should be looking to monetize the drastically smaller group that is currently on the fence (like, you know, the photographers), and of course, prepare for future users.


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 8:30:31 pm

if adobe stated they had 12 million you can be pretty sure tha they were paying clients. if they counted hacks it could probably tripe the legit users.

i cant understand why revrbing money from both camps is better than just receiving fron cc. i fail to see your logic.

ricardo marty


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 9:51:59 pm

[Ricardo Marty] "i fail to see your logic."

The logic is, a subscription off ramp isn't going to sign up 12 million more customers.


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 10:19:02 pm

Exactly, so why not have both cc and perpetuals.

Ricardo marty


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 10:28:19 pm

[Ricardo Marty] "Exactly, so why not have both cc and perpetuals. "

Because an off ramp won't sign up 12 million more customers?


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 6:54:38 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Apr 8, 2014 at 6:55:21 pm

[Ricardo Marty] "so indeed adobe gave up 3 or 4 times its costumer base for an unclud service."

Just based on the fact that Adobe haven't budged, I don't think that's true. We can manipulate numbers 'til the cows come home, but the proof is in the pudding. I think it's a very vocal, but relatively small group that has a problem with all this.

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 5:40:43 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Realistically, I can't imagine how you could use old "off-ramped" software with all of the new formats, resolutions, codecs, and available computing power today."


Jeremy,

I think this just shows how unaware you are of all the people still using FCP 1-7 - released in 2009 (arguable not substantially updated since 2007), and still a compelling solution five years later.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 5:44:28 pm
Last Edited By Andrew Kimery on Apr 8, 2014 at 5:45:06 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] ", I can't imagine how you could use old "off-ramped" software with all of the new formats, resolutions, codecs, and available computing power today."

A lot of people still use FCP Legend (which IMO hasn't had a significant upgrade since FCP 6 in 2007), I rarely land an Avid gig that's using the most recent version and CS 6 (which is just short of 2yrs old) is going to be used until the wheels fall off by users that don't like CC (see FCP 7). And when the wheels do fall off that user base will then move to Avid, FCP X, Lightworks or maybe even Resolve (if it keeps gaining NLE functionality).

If your workflow is typically self-contained (i.e. you aren't swapping project files back and fourth) it's pretty easy to use 'old' software. Even for out of house finishing all you need is the ability to send an OMF/AAF to the mixer and send an XML or EDL to the colorist and you are good to go.

Adobe doesn't even have to put forth any extra effort for support. Users can 'off ramp' with the software as is with regards to feature upgrades. Period. Locked. Done. It's frozen in time. Just like any other piece of perpetual license software.

Adobe has already said that, starting with CS6, it will continue to offer at least the last 5 major versions of all the Adobe software for CC customers which presumably means they will at least be a bare minimum of support (major bug fixes, security fixes, etc.,).


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 5:52:56 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I think this just shows how unaware you are of all the people still using FCP 1-7 - released in 2009 (arguable not substantially updated since 2007), and still a compelling solution five years later."

Honestly, I don't think it's the "compelling solution" part that keeps a lot of people on 7. It's familiarity. Here on the shop floor, so to speak, we cut "high end" stuff, but 99% of it is offline and gets finished out of house. As such, we don't need all the bells and whistles that are crammed into Pr, MC, and can be noted on to X.

Despite this, or maybe because of this, most folks here are still on 7. They are sometimes jealous of what I can do in X ("I gotta learn that...") and some dabble with Pr ("It's just like 7 but you don't have to render!") And yet... they just grind away on a discontinued, outdated NLE. It's inertia keeping them on it. They're pro's, they know how 7 works, and they don't have the time or inclination to learn anything new. Pr or X or MC. I'm the only person here who can jump between all of them. (though my MC chops suck these days...)

In that regard, I don't think we're unusual in this biz...

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 5:57:49 pm

[Charlie Austin] "It's familiarity. ... we don't need all the bells and whistles ... It's inertia keeping them on it. They're pro's, they know how 7 works ..."

Charlie,

This is precisely my point (though you express it by emphasizing the negative). Using a tool that does the job and achieves what is necessary is "compelling".

If a new tool comes along that seems worthwhile in terms of expense, time, effort, and capabilities, then people will be "compelled" to use it - they'll want to, they'll see value in it.

Newist is not always best.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 6:04:03 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Apr 8, 2014 at 6:05:09 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "This is precisely my point (though you express it by emphasizing the negative). Using a tool that does the job and achieves what is necessary is "compelling"."

In that sense i think we agree, and i really didn't mean it in a negative way. Except...

[Franz Bieberkopf] "they'll want to, they'll see value in it."

They do want to, and they see value in it. Having to re-render every time you make a change to a cut using a format, or composite level that 7 can't play is a huge time-suck. But learning new software, even something as similar to 7 as Pr, is not easy. So they grind away, marveling at the fact that newer NLE's play that sort of thing without messing a beat. A month of pain would save them a lot of time. oh well, eventually it'll break...

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 6:40:13 pm

[Charlie Austin] "A month of pain would save them a lot of time."

Or in the case of moving from FCP7 to Premiere Pro, a week.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 6:55:12 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Honestly, I don't think it's the "compelling solution" part that keeps a lot of people on 7. It's familiarity."

Exactly.

Franz, If someone is looking to buy his or her first editing system, do you think they are going to pick FCS3?

Are new DPs going to choose to shoot on film?


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 7:19:56 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on Apr 8, 2014 at 7:22:00 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Franz, If someone is looking to buy his or her first editing system, ..."

Jeremy,

You said you "can't imagine how you could use old "off-ramped" software" ... and then you stated that you use software right now that was discontinued in 2009.

As for new filmmakers, I certainly don't find it hard to believe there's someone out there right now shooting film for the first time.

Franz.

Edit: here's a random and anecdotal list from last year - when that software was 4 years out of support.

http://www.indiewire.com/article/sxsw-filmmakers-prove-crowdfunding-might-n...


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 7:34:41 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "You said you "can't imagine how you could use old "off-ramped" software" ... and then you stated that you use software right now that was discontinued in 2009."

Yeah, but I won't be able to for much longer. All new jobs for me, personally as editor, have been started in FCPX.

I finish jobs that other people have started in FCS3. I can't currently use Resolve for broadcast as I am dependent on my current AJA hardware. Thunderbolt will finally allow me to have much more flexibility in this regard, and really allow us to move on from FCS3.

We are extremely booked at the moment, and the office will be switching to FCPX for most editing once I can get the new hardware integrated and installed. FCS3 will still be installed on the new machines, mostly to update new projects, and for anyone that is having trouble with FCPX migration. It is a brand new system to learn, and I will expect real life hurdles. I am very realistic about this. I have been using FCPX on real jobs almost since it came out (three years), so I feel like I am in a confident enough situation to roll this out to everyone else at the shop.

CC will also be installed.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 7:42:33 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on Apr 8, 2014 at 7:44:12 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I finish jobs that other people have started ... I can't currently ... I am dependent on my current ... We are extremely booked at the moment, ... once I can get the new hardware integrated and installed. ... It is a brand new system to learn, and I will expect real life hurdles ... so I feel like I am in a confident enough situation ..."

In other words: momentum.

And you completely understand that older software is useful and why people use it - 5 years on - after it's been discontinued.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 9:30:04 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "In other words: momentum.

And you completely understand that older software is useful and why people use it - 5 years on - after it's been discontinued."


Only because I HAVE to, not really because I want to.

I have wanted something different and better than FCS3 for a very long time. I only use FCS3 because someone else hasn't moved on. When I start a new project, it is not with FCS3.

5 years from now, will I be able to use this current release of CC to get work done?


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 7:42:02 pm

With influential directors like Christopher Nolan still shooting on film I'd be willing to bet that new DP's have at least a passing interest in learning the ins and outs of shooting on film. With the resolution and range that film provides it is, with a proper projection system, the absolute best way to acquire and project images for the purpose of storytelling. Economics aside I don't know how anyone could argue that point.

Tim


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 9:27:26 pm

[TImothy Auld] "With influential directors like Christopher Nolan still shooting on film I'd be willing to bet that new DP's have at least a passing interest in learning the ins and outs of shooting on film. With the resolution and range that film provides it is, with a proper projection system, the absolute best way to acquire and project images for the purpose of storytelling."

Sure.

I can point to other "influential directors" who are done with film, too.

[TImothy Auld] "Economics aside I don't know how anyone could argue that point."

Economics aside, Adobe has done some great work on CC in the last few years, haven't they?

Sorry, but you have to argue the economics.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 10:09:34 pm

In an empirical sense (which is from whence I spoke) no, I don't. Film resolution and dynamic range beats any currently existing digital format all to hell. People have created great work in all formats and with all NLE's. But - again economics aside - if I had to pick an acquisition mode with the most flexibility and the best output that would have to -still - be film. If you are arguing that any current digital acquisition mode is superior in image quality to film the I have to suggest that you are wrong,

Tim


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 10:14:05 pm
Last Edited By Jeremy Garchow on Apr 9, 2014 at 3:46:51 am

[TImothy Auld] "If you are arguing that any current digital acquisition mode is superior in image quality to film the I have to suggest that you are wrong,"

That's not what I am arguing.

I am arguing that an off-ramp of Adobe CC is not what is going to save Adobe, and in my mind, it's not going to give me the user, anything more than what Adobe is already giving, or help me to secure any future business, or do anything, but perhaps make some subscribers feel better without any real change to what Adobe is already doing.

A lower price is a better talking point, at least it is in my feeble minded opinion.

I edited this post so it was easier to read. Sorry.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 10:25:21 pm

I understand. I cancelled my intro price subscription when the convergence of a project's end and my subscription year coincided. I can't justify paying double what I paid last year to have a bunch of resident software that I will never use. I may have to re-up with Premiere at $19/month but any other Adobe application I use will be from my perpetual CS6 license. Their CC pricing is just goofy.

Tim


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 11:20:20 pm

And here's a very nice, in depth comparison of Kodak 35mm film vs the Canon C500:

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2014/02/canon-c500-vs-film-camera-test/

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


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 11:25:45 pm

Yeah, film vs digital is getting a little far off track for this particular thread...but it's a conversation worth having.

Especially once lions like Deakins and Deschanel are saying that they now prefer digital, I think that the conversation goes beyond economics, beyond aesthetics, and into the world of 100% pure preference where it always belonged.

So maybe on another thread. Or in the Film vs. Digital or Not The Debate Or Not forum I'm about to go set up. Look for the link in a few minutes.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 11:35:42 pm

Pleasant idea Tim, but the barbarians are at the gate and there is no going back.

Tim


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 11:48:08 pm

[TImothy Auld] "the barbarians are at the gate and there is no going back."

Look man, if we let barbarians keep us from having debates, the COW is doomed.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 9, 2014 at 5:32:45 pm

"It's creamier."


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 6:01:56 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I think this just shows how unaware you are of all the people still using FCP 1-7 - released in 2009 (arguable not substantially updated since 2007), and still a compelling solution five years later."

Mmm no.

I am one of those users. FCS3 is getting harder and harder to use for me. It simply does not do what I need it to do anymore, at least not without a whole lot of hand holding.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 5:59:05 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "As Adobe, is this who you build your business around? The people who don't need to stay current? How much does that cost to keep track of the people that don't need the updates? Lawrence says it's minimal, and maybe he's right, but what is the true cost in potential revenue, in lost time updating older applications, and then the lost time trying to keep up with all the versions. How does Adobe service those customers? And if they don't service those customers, where is the good will?"

I don't think this an "either/or" situation.

Adobe can easily build their business around the subscription model while also offering a perpetual option for customers who want it. If Avid, Autodesk, Red Giant and others can do it, so can Adobe. They could start tomorrow if they wanted to. The technical infrastructure is already in place and is trivial to implement.

I only see upside for Adobe -- millions of customers who will never rent, again give Adobe their money. Win-win.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 6:17:16 pm

[David Lawrence] "If Avid, Autodesk, Red Giant and others can do it, so can Adobe."

Adobe did do it. The first year of CC was CS6 where you could subscribe, or buy, and then they cut the cord. How long until Avid, and Red Giant cut it? Autodesk, according to what Oliver Peters said the other day, is cutting it in 2015 for Flame, Flame Premium, and Smoke. After next year, you can stay on v2015 forever, or you rent, similar to CS6

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/67796

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/67881

[David Lawrence] "I only see upside for Adobe -- millions of customers who will never rent, again give Adobe their money. Win-win."

I don't doubt there's a win/win here. What Herb said is right, heat brings out the truth. Al Mooney might not quite have meant what he said, but I would certainly not ignore the sentiment.

Do you really think that Adobe would stand to gain 2 million more customers with a perpetual option? If so, why haven't they done it? I am sure Adobe has made, what they think, is a strong business move. If somehow doubling your customer base overnight by tweaking the license agreement was in the cards, I am 92.7% sure they'd act on that. Wouldn't you?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 6:57:59 pm
Last Edited By David Lawrence on Apr 8, 2014 at 6:59:58 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Do you really think that Adobe would stand to gain 2 million more customers with a perpetual option?"

Yes, easily.

[Jeremy Garchow] "If so, why haven't they done it? I am sure Adobe has made, what they think, is a strong business move. If somehow doubling your customer base overnight by tweaking the license agreement was in the cards, I am 92.7% sure they'd act on that. Wouldn't you?"

I think it's simple, really. Corporate arrogance and Wall Street greed. Adobe is doing this because management thinks they can get away with it.

Remember, Adobe is currently the seventh largest software company on Planet Earth and the only company on this list that makes general purpose creative software. They are the defacto creative software standard in most industries. They are making a bet that their software is so globally essential, they can get away with forced lock-in. Recurring revenue thru software rental has been the wet dream of the industry for decades. But most consumers hate it. Adobe is the first company willing to bet the company on it. And they're willing to dump millions of existing customers to reach that goal.

Let me turn the question around -

If a subscription-only model is so beneficial to everyone, why have none of the other companies gone this route yet? Why is even Microsoft is treading lightly here?

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 7:28:04 pm

[David Lawrence] "Corporate arrogance and Wall Street greed. Adobe is doing this because management thinks they can get away with it."

I think this is oxymoron. Get away with what?

If corporate greed was to make as much money as possible, how would doubling your subscriber base NOT make Wall Street happy?

I agree with you in that I think Adobe is making what they think is the most profitable move, and wants to squeeze as much juice out of current subscribers as possible (if that is what you mean by get away with it).

[David Lawrence] "Remember, Adobe is currently the seventh largest software company on Planet Earth and the only company on this list that makes general purpose creative software. They are the defacto creative software standard in most industries. They are making a bet that their software is so globally essential, they can get away with forced lock-in. Recurring revenue thru software rental has been the wet dream of the industry for decades. But most consumers hate it. Adobe is the first company willing to bet the company on it."

Yes. There is no question that Adobe can heft their weight here. It is a big risk to take, and I am sure they are planning on it working, and other companies are watching.


[David Lawrence] "Let me turn the question around -

If a subscription-only model is so beneficial, why have none of the other companies gone this route yet? Why is even Microsoft is treading lightly here?"


I just looked up all of the other companies and nearly all of them offer some form of software as a service.

I can't answer why Microsoft is treading lightly. It might be because they are, according to that wikipedia, bring in 18 times the money that Adobe does, which probably points to a much larger customer base, and simply can't turn on a dime the way Adobe did, publicly, over the period of about 2 years.

Perhaps other companies have too much to lose. Adobe, obviously, is willing to risk it.

Maybe I need to re-read the tweet and shut up. :)


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 7:52:49 pm
Last Edited By David Lawrence on Apr 8, 2014 at 8:14:43 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think this is oxymoron. Get away with what?"

Get away with lock-in. By that I mean forcing customers to pay rent or not be able to open their native files. No software company of Adobe's size or market clout has ever attempted this before. I think it sets a terrible precedent for the entire software industry; which is why I continue to speak out against it and encourage others to as well.

How would you feel if you had to rent every piece of software on your PC? What if the cost of using your personal computer eventually added up to the cost of your cable or cell phone bill? It's a rhetorical question but that's the direction things will head if everyone follows Adobe.

[Jeremy Garchow] "If corporate greed was to make as much money as possible, how would doubling your subscriber base NOT make Wall Street happy?"

Wall Street is happy now, but this is short term. Adobe is still bleeding money and if the model doesn't pan out, Wall Street will bail. They're already starting to catch on. I've always said this is a long game -- we won't know the score until 2016.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I just looked up all of the other companies and nearly all of them offer some form of software as a service."

Yes, but they also offer perpetual options. Why not subscription-only? I say it's because they know customers would hate it.

[Jeremy Garchow] "It might be because they are, according to that wikipedia, bring in 18 times the money that Adobe does, which probably points to a much larger customer base, and simply can't turn on a dime the way Adobe did, publicly, over the period of about 2 years."

Or maybe they know there are many viable alternatives to their Office Suite (many free) and don't want to lose customers?

[Jeremy Garchow] "Maybe I need to re-read the tweet and shut up. :)"

Oh no, this is fun! :)

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 8:28:48 pm

[David Lawrence] "Or maybe they know there are many viable alternatives to their Office Suite (many free) and don't want to lose customers?"

Yup, that and the fact that different customers have different needs... an individual user, or a 10 to 15 person accounting firm is going to have different needs than an enterprise with a 100,000+ person workforce. That's why you have the option to rent 365, or 'buy' 2013. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 9:50:51 pm

[David Lawrence] "Get away with lock-in. By that I mean forcing customers to pay rent or not be able to open their native files. No software company of Adobe's size or market clout has ever attempted this before. I think it sets a terrible precedent for the entire software industry; which is why I continue to speak out against it and encourage others to as well."

That's cool. I'm on the fence.

If it's cheap enough for me to start and stop, why should I care if I have the latest version or not when I am not using the software? If I am using it, why shouldn't I pay for it?

I just think that asking for a lower price, or a better deal is more feasible. I will, again, bring up the deal Adobe made with photographers.


[David Lawrence] "How would you feel if you had to rent every piece of software on your PC? What if the cost of using your personal computer eventually added up to the cost of your cable or cell phone bill? It's a rhetorical question but that's the direction things will head if everyone follows Adobe."

I don't think it will eventually cost significantly more than that, unfortunately, as it already does. If you add up everything that is purchased and divide it buy 12 mo/it's way more than a cable bill.

[David Lawrence] "Wall Street is happy now, but this is short term. Adobe is still bleeding money and if the model doesn't pan out, Wall Street will bail. They're already starting to catch on. I've always said this is a long game -- we won't know the score until 2016."

[David Lawrence] "Yes, but they also offer perpetual options. Why not subscription-only? I say it's because they know customers would hate it."

[David Lawrence] "Or maybe they know there are many viable alternatives to their Office Suite (many free) and don't want to lose customers?"


I guess I just don't see it that way. This is the precursor to all software being a service, cloud computing, and thin clients. In my mind, this is a fairly unstoppable force. I think I will be best served if we get the best deal possible. Right now, CC isn't that great of a deal, in my opinion. Some want an off ramp, fine, I want lower prices. I need to stay current. If there ever become a time when I don't, then I am happy to not pay for the software.

This will probably bother you, but we just signed up for Office365. It allows us access to Office on many more machines/devices than buying it outright. Also, the price is right.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 9, 2014 at 2:41:53 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "This will probably bother you, but we just signed up for Office365. It allows us access to Office on many more machines/devices than buying it outright. Also, the price is right."

This doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm happy that Microsoft is offering you options, I'm happy that Quicken offers the same type of options in accounting software. I was happy when Adobe offered the CC as an option a year ago. When I go to buy a car I have the option to rent or lease - and I get to choose what works best for me. Personally, I always buy and it works for me because I generally keep a car about 7 years and drive more than 12000 miles per year.

I am curious to know what Microsoft's plan is if you stop renting 365 - any off ramp? Oh yes, of course, you could at that point simply buy it. Or save all your files to earlier formats and use your older programs to open in up. Jeez, under those conditions I can see where a rental strategy would sound reasonable if the price were right.

While your biggest issue seems to be keeping the current CC price down, for me it's the uncertainty of the future price. Let's say I use CC for the current season, which is my intention, and then drop it for Lightworks next year. To re-open old CC projects it currently costs just a months subscription - no big deal. What if, and I don't think it's unlikely, Adobe in the future does away with month to month rentals and has as a minimum a 6 month or 1 year rental. Now it's $300 - $600 to open a project. Suddenly it does become a bigger deal.

It's true that if Adobe would get the monthly price down based on a smaller package of software, even a yearly rental wouldn't scare me off, but so far I see no indication of either happening, so Al Mooney is just gonna have to continue hearing the complaints.

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: The New Adobe
on Apr 9, 2014 at 2:53:33 pm

[Herb Sevush] "While your biggest issue seems to be keeping the current CC price down, for me it's the uncertainty of the future price. Let's say I use CC for the current season, which is my intention, and then drop it for Lightworks next year. To re-open old CC projects it currently costs just a months subscription - no big deal. What if, and I don't think it's unlikely, Adobe in the future does away with month to month rentals and has as a minimum a 6 month or 1 year rental. Now it's $300 - $600 to open a project. Suddenly it does become a bigger deal."

I think keeping the price down, and also offering more temporary microtranscation options.

Like .99 for 24 hours of InDesign (or whatever it is you need).

Right now, Adobe CC is a whole lot of software, not a lot of service.

[Herb Sevush] "I am curious to know what Microsoft's plan is if you stop renting 365 - any off ramp? Oh yes, of course, you could at that point simply buy it. Or save all your files to earlier formats and use your older programs to open in up. Jeez, under those conditions I can see where a rental strategy would sound reasonable if the price were right."

If the price is right, I won't mind paying a little money to use the service. You have to remember I won't have been paying anything while I wasn't using it.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 11, 2014 at 6:26:38 pm

I'd like to apologize, specifically, to everyone.

It's not that I want Adobe to "win" and grind us in to the ground. I don't want us to "win" and grind all of Adobe in to the ground. It's not that I don't think the current CC model is the way of the future, nor do I think perpetual licenses are silly.

I want what is best for everyone (including Adobe, so that we can foster a healthy market), and I don't want to take away from what you guys think is the best way to do this. This usually involves compromise.

If having an Avid style exit ramp, that costs more money in the long run is something that is of interest, fair enough. That is completely valid and it seems like it's something Adobe could do, and really, it would be great for Adobe, less great for me (it's $1300 to turn the subscription back on instead of $50).

I think that the long term price (and I hope to have a long career yet) is where I am looking. And in the long term, $50/mo forever for a ton of shit I don't use is not a good deal. I don't care about the rental model, I don't care if I "own" the software, I just want to be able to use what I want, when I need it, and get charged a fair rate. Yes, it's more complicated for Adobe. So what? As Lawrence points out, they are the seventh largest "software and programming" company in the world, they should be able to figure this out.

So, I'd like to apologize and reiterate that I'm on the end user side. I DO want what is best for us, collectively, even if we may disagree on the best way to accomplish that goal.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 11, 2014 at 6:44:41 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "f having an Avid style exit ramp, that costs more money in the long run is something that is of interest, fair enough. That is completely valid and it seems like it's something Adobe could do, and really, it would be great for Adobe, less great for me (it's $1300 to turn the subscription back on instead of $50)."

Just a quick thought on this - it's only more expensive to go with a perpetual license if you purchase it and don't keep up with your $299 support contract for at least three years (roughly the break even point). Your initial buy in is $1,300, plus two years of support/upgrades at $299/year. So in three years you've spent $1898.

If you subscribe on the annual contract then you're at $50/month ($600/year). At three years you've spent $1800, and if you stop subscribing you lose everything. With perpetual you can stop subscribing and keep using your software forever. And if you're using it on even a semi regular basis, it's cheaper to just pay the $299/year support and buy a perpetual license. I mean, how many people bought FCPX because it was only $300? Even if you only use it for one project it should pretty much pay for itself.

If Adobe would have offered the same deal (keep your license but pay $299/year support, or even $499), I think they would have had a massive uptake of the creative cloud suite. The cost doesn't seem to bother most people (I completely agree with you that paying for every program sucks, though. The need tiers) - it's the lack of an exit that people hate. And if you make it cheap enough to just autorenew but really expensive if you drop it completely you can pretty much lock in your customers without all the ill will.

I think Avid's plan is pretty smart. Adobe should pay attention to it. I'm interested to see how it all shakes out.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 12, 2014 at 7:43:15 pm

[Michael Hancock] "Just a quick thought on this - it's only more expensive to go with a perpetual license if you purchase it and don't keep up with your $299 support contract for at least three years (roughly the break even point). Your initial buy in is $1,300, plus two years of support/upgrades at $299/year. So in three years you've spent $1898. "

I have said from the beginning that this is not about the money, but it is certainly about the money.

It's not about the overall cost, it's about how often it's spent and for what.

For Adobe, I'm sure a big reason to not offer an exit strategy similar to what we talk about here, is that a whole lot of people, the "millions" of people that are supposedly not subscribing because of a lack of perpetual license, or ownership, those millions who upgrade occasionally, those millions would give Adobe $50 and then turn off the subscription, and receive a large set of tools for nothing.

This is not to say that the current CC model is the only way forward. Adobe could figure something else out.

[Michael Hancock] "And if you make it cheap enough to just autorenew but really expensive if you drop it completely you can pretty much lock in your customers without all the ill will."

Sure, it just seems like somewhat of a hoodwink to me, personally.

It's not quite forcing you to subscribe, but you will pay for the privilege of not subscribing, and if and when you want to stop subscribing and then subsequently want to resubscribe. So why not just subscribe?

I think it is much easier, or at least makes much more sense in Adobe's case, to pay for what you use, when you use it, especially when there's 35ish apps of which 29ish are fairly useless to me. Basically I would use 3-4 apps a lot, the rest of the apps rarely, most of them not at all. If it's truly a rental system, let's make the system rentable.

At least with Avid, I know exactly what I'm paying for.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 9, 2014 at 2:22:33 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I can understand his frustration. It seems to be the same argument, over and over."

Pardon me if, having been out of town for a few days in Dallas watching my son's team win the Final Four, I come a little late to this party.

If Adobe, and their employees, including [Jeremy Garchow] "I can understand his frustration. It seems to be the same argument, over and over."

Pardon me if, having been out of town for a few days in Dallas watching my son's team win the Final Four, I come a little late to this party.

If Adobe, and their employees, including Al Mooney, expected a different reaction at NAB, after watching the FCPX roll out debacle that directly led to the advancement of PPro, then they are, how shall I phrase this nicely -- imbeciles: blind, arrogant and foolish - or as Bugs would say "real ultra-moroons."

There is an implied relationship between a software vendor and it's core users - not written, not legal, not binding, but still there none the less. When a vendor chooses to break that bond typically all hell breaks loose - the larger the customer base, the more significant the software is to that base's income, the bigger the change, the hotter the furnace.

This does not mean a company doesn't have the right to do anything they want with their products, it just means acting all surprised and huffy when the heat gets turned up makes you seem like a clown -- what did you expect would happen when you deliberately dumped about 4 million users? Parades and balloons? If over the long run it works out for Adobe they will be a more profitable company. Both they and their employees should be happy with that, "love" from the adoring millions is somewhat out of the question.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 9, 2014 at 2:24:53 pm

[Herb Sevush] "If Adobe, and their employees, including Al Mooney, expected a different reaction at NAB, after watching the FCPX roll out debacle that directly led to the advancement of PPro, then they are, how shall I phrase this nicely -- imbeciles: blind, arrogant and foolish - or as Bugs would say "real ultra-moroons."
"


Welcome back Herb!

Steve Connor

Class Bully


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 9, 2014 at 2:49:17 pm

[Herb Sevush] "This does not mean a company doesn't have the right to do anything they want with their products, it just means acting all surprised and huffy when the heat gets turned up makes you seem like a clown -- what did you expect would happen when you deliberately dumped about 4 million users? Parades and balloons? If over the long run it works out for Adobe they will be a more profitable company. Both they and their employees should be happy with that, "love" from the adoring millions is somewhat out of the question."

Again with the millions. Could we prove that a perpetual model would have signed up millions for CS7. It's easy to say, I don't think it would have been done. I guess if Adobe let's those numbers out, we could see how many new CS6 licenses were purchased vs CC.

If that was the case, I think Adobe would have kept the buy now model and staggered release schedule and forgone all the frustration.

I'm not saying Adobe's model is the best for me, clearly I have issues with it if you read through this long thread. From what we have learned from Adobe employees, is that the subscription model is better for development. If it is better for development, it will be better for me, now we just have to make on getting the deal a bit better, financially, for us.

As Andrew Kimmery said, not everyone needs the Master Collection. I don't either, so I don't really want to pay for it. Right now, there is no other option.

For me, it's not about the money of a constant rental plan, it's about the money that I don't need to spend on products I don't use. I think this is a better fight to fight as there could actually be an outcome instead of stalemate. We have a working example of it, as does Adobe.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 9, 2014 at 4:44:15 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Again with the millions. Could we prove that a perpetual model would have signed up millions for CS7."

There were Adobe published numbers that showed something like 4 million current CS users vs a desire for 2 million CC subscribers. While you are correct that not all those CS users would have subscribed to CS7, they might have waited till 8 or 9, but most would have eventually moved on when their workflow / clients required it.

I have 3 different versions of Photoshop, 2 of AE and 3 of PPro - since it was never my main tool I upgraded irregularly but I did upgrade. Adobe was NOT dying without CC, their users were upgrading, just not as frequently and predictably as Adobe thinks they can get with CC. But yes, there are millions of users that Adobe has lost with CC. Adobe knows it, they've made the calculations, and they've moved on. But let's not pretend that those folks are not there. That's why Mr. Mooney is getting an earful.

[Jeremy Garchow] "For me, it's not about the money of a constant rental plan, it's about the money that I don't need to spend on products I don't use. I think this is a better fight to fight as there could actually be an outcome instead of stalemate. We have a working example of it, as does Adobe."

I believe both battles are worth waging, I don't see either one as more winnable than the other. Lower prices now can very easily be rescinded when the heat dies down.

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: The New Adobe
on Apr 9, 2014 at 5:24:26 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I believe both battles are worth waging, I don't see either one as more winnable than the other. Lower prices now can very easily be rescinded when the heat dies down."

Due to the legalities of the perpetual license, I think perpetual is dead in the eyes of Adobe.

I guess I am foolish in taking that to heart, but I'd rather follow the path that has already been trailblazed by photographers.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 3:02:04 am
Last Edited By Bret Williams on Apr 8, 2014 at 3:43:58 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "This is on the eve of a free NLE from Blackmagic and a rental offering from Avid."

Blackmagic are really sneaking in their edit system in Resolve. Every year they make improvements, but don't hype it too much to rock the boat. I predicted that this year they'd be ready to go, and v11 looks pretty close. With improvements to text, plugins, and better trim and keyframe tools than X, it looks like the best of X without a magnetic timeline and premiere put together plus resolve built in. And it's free.

So they sort of have the same model as Apple. Practically give away their software to sell hardware. But their software is moving forward immensely faster than Apple. 3 major updates in 3 years.

70 new edit features in resolve. If anyone is unfamiliar with how the editing is progressing in resolve, they should check out the below video. 3 years (well, 14 overall) we ask for decent key framing and we still don't have it. Resolve does. We still don't have dynamic trimming. Resolve does. And what? Transitions have alignment settings in Resolve? Crazy stuff. After 3 years Apple still can't figure that out. Here's a color grading app that has arguably better edit tools than X. If not, they will soon. They've specifically designed just about every hot key to be the same as FCP legacy and X as well. Guess they know their target.

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve/edit


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 3:14:38 am

That link seems busted, Bret.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 3:43:24 am

Must be some sort of changing link? Worked a little while ago.

it was just the video from the edit page on their site.
http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve/edit

I'll update the post...


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 1:13:34 pm

[Bret Williams] "With improvements to text, plugins, and better trim and keyframe tools than X, it looks like the best of X without a magnetic timeline and premiere put together plus resolve built in."

Having played with Resolve 10 editor, it is VERY basic and needs alot more than 70 improvements to be productive and fast. This will be interesting to watch, however.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 1:28:26 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Having played with Resolve 10 editor, it is VERY basic and needs alot more than 70 improvements to be productive and fast."

As I've pointed out a few times here the history of the industry has consistently shown that it takes around 5 major versions (over about 5 years) for an NLE to reach a mature enough level that it can be adopted as a standard. Maybe BM can speed it up but it doesn't appear that Apple has, despite its great resources.

David
http://AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 3:26:22 pm

[David Cherniack] "Maybe BM can speed it up but it doesn't appear that Apple has, despite its great resources."

Understood. But, like Premiere, BM has years of track based NLE's to work from, so to say it looks like Premiere or FCP8 is easy....because that's where it's based. The ramp up time is much quicker getting there. Apple, whether you like it or not, changed the way one can edit. It's creating this as it goes. Better or worse? That's a personal and business decision.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 3:48:09 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "But, like Premiere, BM has years of track based NLE's to work from,"

Despite Adobe having a 10 year history with Premiere, when they came to re-write it as Premiere Pro in the early 2000's it still took until version 5.0 until it even began to work well. Some would argue that it took until 7.0 (cc) that it matured. But it should be pointed out that Adobe didn't really start throwing resources in a major way at Premiere's development until Apple's Götterdämmerung gave it an opening. I'd argue that NLEs are such complex applications that whether it's Apple or BlackMagic it's still going to take about 5 years.

David
http://AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 4:35:14 pm

Bret, yes, I'll keep a watch. I looked at exactly those Resolve 11 features longingly, especially transition control and keyframe control. These may not seem like much to someone working fast & furious, but asymmetric transitions and subtle key framing control of layering can really make the effect work. Also it's why we need key framing in color correct. If you can begin and end the dissolve when and where you want it, control the curve as particularly light or dark parts of the frame come up and then go away, you can make transition that don't even look like a dissolve ... more of a melt that slips by, almost ... "visually inevitable."

In my high school class, I like to show the opening of Apocalypse Now, mainly to make the point that months were spent getting the compositing laid out just right -- the ceiling fan overlaying Martin Sheen's eye socket perfectly -- but a modern NLE can do it "live."

But some of the subtleties are not going to happen using out-of-the box FCPX.

Doug D


Return to posts index

Justin Crowell
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 4:25:00 am

Just so we're clear...

Al retracted that tweet. I know you can't REALLY do that...once it's out there, it's out there...but he copped to making a big mistake, and regrets it.

Editor, Producer, DP
JustinCrowell.com


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 1:57:52 pm

[Justin Crowell] "Al retracted that tweet. I know you can't REALLY do that...once it's out there, it's out there...but he copped to making a big mistake, and regrets it."

Indeed. Mistake made, apology offered, nothing else to do but move on. To those of you who know Al, he is without doubt, one of the most sensitive people I know. NAB for a vendor is also pretty stressful. That's not an excuse nor does his retracted statement reflect Adobe's commitment and passion to our customers. He said something in the heat of the moment and quickly said, "I said something really stupid the other day, and I am really sorry. Thanks for calling me out. Normal service is resumed."

'nuff said,
Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 2:07:58 pm

Apology accepted. I know this has been a tough time for you guys and you have my respect. You, Todd, and Kevin are a great bunch of people. Often we hear too many complaints and not enough positive feedback. I feel positive feedback is just as important, if not more so than all the negative stuff that goes on. I just see CC as a business decision, nothing more. Might not agree with it, but accept the fact that it is just a business decision.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 2:36:12 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "That's not an excuse nor does his retracted statement reflect Adobe's commitment and passion to our customers. He said something in the heat of the moment "

Heat often reveals truth, and while it might not be diplomatic, I believe that statement perfectly distills Adobe's position. That won't stop me from switching over to CC next month, but to quote Julia Child, all he did was call a spade a shovel.

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


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 10, 2014 at 2:28:05 am

[Dennis Radeke] "Indeed. Mistake made, apology offered, nothing else to do but move on. To those of you who know Al, he is without doubt, one of the most sensitive people I know. NAB for a vendor is also pretty stressful. That's not an excuse nor does his retracted statement reflect Adobe's commitment and passion to our customers. He said something in the heat of the moment and quickly said, "I said something really stupid the other day, and I am really sorry. Thanks for calling me out. Normal service is resumed."

'nuff said,"


Unfortunately this like discussing the Obamacare website. The underlying problem still exists with the program itself.

I'm not trying to be flip, but the unhappiness is with the subscription model and no misstep or apology takes that away. The problem is still there.

If you don't believe me, look at what happened at the SuperMeet at NAB. Virtually no applause when Al came out. Damn little applause during his presentation, and damn little when he left. It was quite frankly, painful to watch... I felt bad for the guy. Lots of people left when he started. Almost no one had left up until then.

Is this because everyone is still mad at Al. I can't speak for others, but I'm guessing not. I think that unfortunately his comment has made him the defacto poster boy for the subscription model. You're right about Al... he's a really nice guy. Anyone who has spent time around him knows that. I just think that this has become a case of "killing the messenger" so to speak...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 7:25:06 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "".... if you don't want to buy our products, just don't buy them. And, you know, SHUT UP."
April 2014, Al Mooney, Product Manager for Adobe Premiere Pro
https://twitter.com/al_mooney/status/453033347837485057
"


I guess Aindreas finally got to him

Steve Connor

Class Bully


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 11:28:23 am

yes. my verbose diatribes on rentier capitalism and the working man doubtless had a big impact on him alright.

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


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 11:57:09 am

[Steve Connor] "I guess Aindreas finally got to him"

More than likely it was all the dickheads on the NAB floor who were loudly venting their fury at a product manager who had no part in the subscription decision. Undoubtedly the best product manager the Adobe video apps have ever had.

Though you're joking about it I feel obliged to point out that Aindreas is not a dickhead. Though the "or not" forums seem to bring out the dickhead in some people, I've never felt he's gone beyond gleeful skewering to the point of impolite churlishness.

Personally, I wish the subscription model had a little more flexibility, if only to calm the dickheads so they could return to nursing their fetishes quietly.

David
http://AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Paul Neumann
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 1:08:02 pm

I have a nursing fetish. Oops! Wrong forum. Carry on.


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 1:15:43 pm

[Paul Neumann] "I have a nursing fetish. Oops! Wrong forum. Carry on"

Yes. Best to head on over to the hospital cafeterias forum.

David
http://AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 7:19:33 pm

[David Cherniack] "Best to head on over to the hospital cafeterias forum."

I believe that you mean the "Hospital Cafeteria Or Not" forum.


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 7:58:10 pm

[Tim Wilson] "I believe that you mean the "Hospital Cafeteria Or Not" forum."

Dear me. Things change around here too fast to keep up.

David
http://AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 9:45:45 pm

[David Cherniack] "Undoubtedly the best product manager the Adobe video apps have ever had."

you'd thump the table for that. look at what we all got. i took a swipe at him on the other place over the tweet and I rather regret it. hard not to think he is a lot responsible for willing a top flight edit system in the FCP mold into being for the people who were begging him for it. some gift. when you watch him on stuff, he seems to bleed the product.

reading now back between the lines I think he may have been addressing a specific situation with that tweet - that arose for people on the adobe panel. basically I think he might have been speaking in defence of other participants on the panel. calling someone a shill is a pretty low blow.

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


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 8, 2014 at 11:43:01 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "i took a swipe at him on the other place over the tweet and I rather regret it. hard not to think he is a lot responsible for willing a top flight edit system in the FCP mold into being for the people who were begging him for it. some gift. when you watch him on stuff, he seems to bleed the product."

You're not alone in feeling that. If you go over to that thread, you'll see that several other members deleted their own posts as well. I'm glad that people are able to see the humanity of that tweet for what it is re: Al's own dedication to customers, and for what it isn't re: the corporate debate.

There was a time that you couldn't delete your own posts from the COW, mostly because we didn't want people coming in to do hit-and-run trolling. At the same time, people really do regret what, or more often HOW they say things, and we're glad to have added the Delete Post option. I additionally added the "removed by author" notice in the thread view to underscore that, yeah, being in an online community ain't easy. People deserve not to be remembered forever just for the one stupidest thing they said.

As a very emotional guy who's fast on the keyboard myself, I'm grateful that twitter wasn't around when I was a product manager.


Return to posts index

walter biscardi
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 17, 2014 at 2:16:33 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Cross posting this from the Adobe CC Debate forum, because it's pretty stunning to me."

When you have to deal with the garbage Al and the rest of the Adobe Technical team have had to put up with for the past two years, he's allowed to have a "moment." All the vitriol directed towards people who had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to go subscription does wear on you after a while. People on this very forum seem to be openly cheering for Adobe to fail. How do you think that reads to the people who are simply creating great software for us to use? They are working their butts off to get new features, fix bugs and in general make our lives easier. All the while seeing people on forums just like this one openly cheering for Adobe to fail.

Adobe is not some nameless company. For me Adobe is Al, David, Todd, Dennis, Megan and a bunch of other really great people. It doesn't make work pleasant when the same people have nothing better to do than to whine and complain day after day after day after day.... .and cheer on the hopeful failure of their company.

If you know Al, and I'm VERY fortunate to have known him for three years now, you know he is probably THE most positive person in the industry and well loved even by his competitors for just being a nice guy. It's very uncharacteristic for Al to have public moment like this, but he's also human.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Craft and Career Advice & Training from real Working Creative Professionals

Blog Twitter Facebook


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 17, 2014 at 4:14:39 pm

I havnt read anything on wanting adobe to fail as a company, most of us whant the subscription only to fail and will do anything to make our voices as loud as can be. That said i think that all of us have the highest regard for all the adobe people except for a few that took the gastly decision and even those i am sure have redeeming qualities.

the fire is not directed at you guys though you are in the general direction of it so take cover and bare with us the fire will continue.

ricardo marty


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 17, 2014 at 7:28:12 pm

[walter biscardi] "... he's allowed to have a "moment.""

Walter,

While I find your embrace of emotion reassuring, it should probably be applied to all, including those in the forum who occasionally have an outburst.

[walter biscardi] "All the vitriol directed towards people who had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to go subscription does wear on you after a while."

The other Walter expresses the opinion that for Adobe the "business model" and the "development model" are linked - that one informs the other. In response, it's fair to note that for users, the features and the "business model" are linked - one affects the other and it's quite fair for them to discuss all aspects. And users also had "nothing to do with the decision to go subscription" - one might claim they are also not responsible for the repercussions.

It seems clear that one of Adobe's PR strategies on this is not to have anyone available to discuss the subscription controversy - you won't find it in the forums except in carefully qualified statements. It's probably a savvy strategy (from a business point of view), but the weight of that is going to fall on people like Al Mooney and Todd and Kevin here in the forum. If they think they can simply dismiss discussions with claims of "not my department" they're being naive about their role and the intelligence of those posting here.

Or, to put it another way: if Adobe wishes to relieve Al Mooney from questions about the subscription model, who did they send to NAB to discuss it?

Franz.


Return to posts index

walter biscardi
Re: The New Adobe
on Apr 17, 2014 at 8:59:57 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Or, to put it another way: if Adobe wishes to relieve Al Mooney from questions about the subscription model, who did they send to NAB to discuss it?"

There appeared to be approx. 50 - 100 Adobe Team personnel on site at NAB this year. Any public comments are made through their PR department. Al was there to meet with company representatives and to make public appearances at events like the SuperMeet.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Craft and Career Advice & Training from real Working Creative Professionals

Blog Twitter Facebook


Return to posts index

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