FORUMS: list search recent posts

Did Adobe buy GM?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>

Shawn Miller
Re: Did Adobe buy GM?
on May 21, 2015 at 8:39:01 pm

[David Mathis] "Technology is not always a good thing, in fact it feels the exact opposite."

He said to the Internet. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Did Adobe buy GM?
on May 21, 2015 at 8:56:04 pm

I was waiting for that type of comment. :-)

Walked right into that one. Guess technology is like a bar. You say to yourself, "Just one more". You promise to resolve but all it takes is one sip too many. Then you are hooked you become an addict. You are glued to your tablet, your phone, all around you disappears. Then after hours of surfing, loosing your mind you look at the clock and wonder how long your friendly computer has taken control over you.


Return to posts index


Shawn Miller
Re: Did Adobe buy GM?
on May 21, 2015 at 10:53:12 pm

[David Mathis] " was waiting for that type of comment. :-)

Walked right into that one. Guess technology is like a bar. You say to yourself, "Just one more". You promise to resolve but all it takes is one sip too many. Then you are hooked you become an addict. You are glued to your tablet, your phone, all around you disappears. Then after hours of surfing, loosing your mind you look at the clock and wonder how long your friendly computer has taken control over you."


Doesn't that all boil down to how you're choosing to spend you're time though? :-) Mind you, I'm as guilty as anyone of being more interested in the NLE food fights on The Cow, than being "productive" during long renders... I just don't think it's a technology issue. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Did Adobe buy GM?
on May 23, 2015 at 2:12:39 pm

Used to be kids just vegged out channel surfing and talking on the phone. Now they spend all day reading and writing. SOUNDS like progress.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Did Adobe buy GM?
on May 21, 2015 at 10:56:16 pm

There has been a strong push to re define a lot of how business views its product - changing from selling and object to selling a service. Often it means that the focus can change from creating something with built in obsolescence to making something much more reliable and recyclable.

The principal is well defined by the Rocky Mountains Institute and the book Natural Capitalism. The book quotes many examples of how air conditioning companies like Carrier changed from selling air con units to managing the climate of buildings for a service fee. It meant that Carrier became responsible for the buildings climate and guess what - they found it more profitable to use passive control like triple glazing and air flow systems. In many cases they removed their old inefficient air con unit once they were responsible for the running and maintenance. Then they realised they should have made their units better if they were efficient, lasted longer with less maintenance and could be recycled.

There may be a huge advantage both to cost and the environment if car companies only sold a transport service not cars designed to fail. I know this is slightly different but as this was a dig at Adobe, then I want to offer the idea that providing software as a rentable service may mean the software is better in the long run.


Return to posts index


Paul Neumann
Re: Did Adobe buy GM?
on May 22, 2015 at 2:23:04 am

Yeah, John Deere has been pinching my farmer friends like this for quite a while. Monsanto owns the seed and John Deere owns the tractor.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Did Adobe buy GM?
on May 22, 2015 at 6:20:36 am

Monsanto is the antithesis of the idea of Natural Capitalism. They claim ownership of something they simply can't own just because they have fiddled with DNA which they didn't invent and make you buy their product and associated chemicals.

The idea of providing a service be it climate control or editing software and taking responsibility for providing that service for a rental fee is nothing like the Monsanto model. Monsanto is much more like pirating Adobe software and selling it after making some changes to a small part of the software.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Did Adobe buy GM?
on May 22, 2015 at 6:44:16 am

[Michael Gissing] "The book quotes many examples of how air conditioning companies like Carrier changed from selling air con units to managing the climate of buildings for a service fee. "

Interesting, I wonder how that would scale to a single family residential situation where you would be dealing with a large number of small installations vs a small number of large installations.


Return to posts index


Michael Gissing
Re: Did Adobe buy GM?
on May 22, 2015 at 7:06:17 am

[Andrew K] "I wonder how that would scale to a single family residential situation where you would be dealing with a large number of small installations vs a small number of large installations."

It is easier to do the large scale installations as there is often a single building manager for a large job plus better control over elements. There are other examples of smaller scale like carpets or washing machines but the large number of smaller installations are harder to manage.

Solar reverse grid systems are an example of large numbers of small installations that are providing a reverse service to big utility companies which is why equitable feed in tariffs matter.

I have thought long and hard about what Adobe is doing and I am about to subscribe to CC from CS6. I think a lot of opposition comes down to it being a new paradigm which is ironic when the criticisms are sometimes coming from early X adopters who have been chiding the dinosaurs.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Did Adobe buy GM?
on May 22, 2015 at 7:32:20 am

[Michael Gissing] "There are other examples of smaller scale like carpets or washing machines but the large number of smaller installations are harder to manage. "

Interesting. I've added the book to my reading list.

[Michael Gissing] " I think a lot of opposition comes down to it being a new paradigm which is ironic when the criticisms are sometimes coming from early X adopters who have been chiding the dinosaurs."

In America, at least, I think there is a deeply ingrained attitude that ownership is a sign of success and freedom (own a house, own a car, own your own business and you'll control your own destiny, etc.,. ) that factors into it as well. Ownership is assumed to be the best choice by default even if it's not.

I wish Adobe did a few things different with the CC plan, but for me it's really a pragmatic decision. Is it better for me and my business/career to have the Adobe hammer in my toolbox or not to have the Adobe hammer in my toolbox? Right now it's much better for me to have the Adobe hammer so I pay for CC.


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: Did Adobe buy GM?
on May 22, 2015 at 6:36:00 pm

And the Spotify model... you csn download songs for offline usage as long as you keep a premium subscription. Stop paying, those stop playing. You didn't really own them, just a license to them for the duration of the paid subscription.


Return to posts index


Thomas Frank
Re: Did Adobe buy GM?
on May 23, 2015 at 2:05:43 pm

And why is this in a Final Cut Pro X forum, did Apple buy Adobe?



Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Did Adobe buy GM?
on May 24, 2015 at 4:52:29 am
Last Edited By Michael Gissing on May 24, 2015 at 5:12:56 am

[Thomas Frank] " And why is this in a Final Cut Pro X forum, did Apple buy Adobe?"

Welcome to the FCPX or Not: The Debate forum. Have a look at four years worth of debate threads and you will answer your own question.

Please don't ask us to change the forum name.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Did Adobe buy GM?
on May 23, 2015 at 2:18:23 pm

Well then, I think some smart lawyer should point out to GM that if it's all about the software, which doesn't wear out or change, that any problem must be a bug. A defect in the software PART of the car and subject to recall and / or free replacement or repair.


Return to posts index


John Godwin
Re: Did Adobe buy GM?
on May 27, 2015 at 3:19:01 pm

I have to admit this was a little dig at Adobe, but I can understand why they would like a subscription model, and from their POV it's eminently reasonable. Also, the Adobe people that post here always are polite and entirely reasonable.

I'm hardly especially resistant to change - I jumped right into FCPX and many other changes since I started in this business, shooting and editing film - but I really do like the feeling of ownership. Even If I get stuck at a certain point, at least I can continue on in that state. Having someone else wanting my money monthly is just annoying. It's the same reason I don't lease cars, essentially, I save up and then buy them outright.

It's good to have options. Owning what I've paid for is the best option for me. So far.

Best,
John

Best,
John


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Did Adobe buy GM?
on May 27, 2015 at 5:25:09 pm

After a touch more reading I see that GM isn't saying it owns your car (though that does make for a better headline). GM is saying it owns the software that runs your car which is no different than the ownership claims that Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Autodesk, Google, RIM, etc., make. Users license the software, they don't own it.


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: Did Adobe buy GM?
on May 27, 2015 at 6:56:50 pm

That is an interesting differentiation - but one cannot buy a car now that does not have the software or be able to run without it so in the end, different wording, same end user result. NPR had a similar story on this as seen in this article with John Deere: http://www.agweb.com/blog/janzen-ag-law-blog/does-john-deere-really-own-you...

Michael


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Did Adobe buy GM?
on May 27, 2015 at 7:31:04 pm
Last Edited By Andrew Kimery on May 27, 2015 at 7:49:53 pm

[Michael Phillips] "That is an interesting differentiation - but one cannot buy a car now that does not have the software or be able to run without it so in the end, different wording, same end user result."

It's not the same end result though. Me owning my car is different than GM owning my car, and GM licensing its software to end users doesn't make GM own my car anymore than Apple owns the iPhone sitting on my desk or Sony the under-used NEX-5 in my closet. I can do anything I want with these devices (or to these devices) though some things might violate the ToS and/or copyright law.

Really no different than any other device that is a combination of hardware and non-open source software.

What's interesting is GM, John Deere, etc., aren't arguing for a *change* in the law they are arguing for the law to remain *the same* which means for decades we haven't owned our cars and we didn't even realize it! OMG!!! ;)

On one hand I understand people wanting the 'freedom' to hack their cars, on the other hand I understand the car companies not wanting to make it easy and legal to reverse engineer, modify, copy, and/or bypass their IP which controls critical functions to make the vehicles work safely and properly.

On a basic level, is this any different than media distribution? I mean, when I buy or rent media (either as a file or on a physical medium) I am paying for a limited use license for that piece of media.


Return to posts index

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