FORUMS: list search recent posts

Apple and Adobe Software: Together

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Jason Jenkins
Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Oct 29, 2015 at 4:25:27 pm

If that isn't a warm and fuzzy subject line, I don't know what is.

I'm curious how many here "own" and use both the Apple Pro Apps and the Adobe Suite. I like having it all at my fingertips. I really enjoy editing in FCPX and I use Audition regularly for audio. Photoshop is used daily for photo and graphic editing. Gotta have Illustrator for working on vector art. I find I can do so much in FCPX with plug-ins that I don't go into After Effects more than a couple of times a month anymore and I haven't had a good excuse to really dig into Motion either. I haven't had much use for Premier Pro either, but if I do, it's only a click away.

Sometimes when reading this forum it's starts feeling like an either/or proposition. I say have it all together in one big happy family!

Jason Jenkins
Flowmotion Media
Video production... with style!

Check out my Mormon.org profile.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Oct 29, 2015 at 4:43:25 pm

[Jason Jenkins] "Sometimes when reading this forum it's starts feeling like an either/or proposition. I say have it all together in one big happy family!
"


I agree 100%,


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Oct 29, 2015 at 5:24:21 pm

We use AE, PS, IL, FCPX, Motion and Compressor heavily. Lately our Art Director has just been building heavy graphics in AE, then publishing them to Motion as Generators with editable text so editors can change titles on the fly.

The new Trapcode Suite 13 will probably drag me back into AE for some playtime soon. I like all the toys. There's always room for improvement.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index


Larry Watts
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Oct 29, 2015 at 5:31:25 pm

Yes, I use them all!

My preferred editor is FCPX, but I also us Audition since I've used it since it was called Cool Edit.

I use after effects since I owned it when it was called COSA After Effects, but I love Motion.

I'm fixing some audio for another producer whose project is in Premiere, so it helps to keep up to speed on it. It's amazing how similar Premiere is to Sony Vegas which I like very much except I'm a mac shop.

Apple tends to be more intuitive, but I can learn Adobe too!

Larry



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Oct 29, 2015 at 6:03:14 pm

In the past 10 days I have hopped between three different jobs on three different NLEs (FCP 7, PPro, Avid). Haven't done anything beyond basic poking around in X due to being busy and the lack of demand for editors that know X in my neck of the woods.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Oct 29, 2015 at 6:31:12 pm

I jump between X (preferred), Premiere (second choice) and FCP 7 (please die) all the time. I'll often keep X and Pr open (same media) at the same time when in Pr, as it's quicker to audition Sound FX and find shots in X and go right to what i need in Pr. Honestly, FCP X is the best Premiere accessory you can buy. :-)

I also own MC 8 and Resolve 12 though I don't use 'em much. I've got Hit Film, and Lightworks too but I haven't touched 'em in a long time.

No other CC stuff, I use Motion a little to make templates/generators for X and Logic for some sound design. Any Photo stuff I do in Pixelmator or Affinity and, believe it or not, Photos in El Cap with various extensions. :-)

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

~ 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


Bret Williams
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Oct 29, 2015 at 8:29:01 pm

That was my experience before Adobe went rental. I've been using AE since 1996 and my distaste for the subscription model is so that it sent me looking for other solutions to AI (easy) PS (not as easy) and AE (most difficult). Motion is a great app and in many ways superior, and in many other ways inferior. It's a wash. But in a wash with an important app like that the tie goes to the market leader AE just because they have an enormous user base and support base. That said, the Motion user base, which was previously next to nil, has increased probably 100 fold since CC.

Everybody wants $10, $20, $50 a month from me. Apple Music, cable, phone, etc. and it's annoying. I was a Master Collection owner of CS5 so my qualm isn't so much about the cost. I rented CS6 for half price. Yep early subscription adopter. But THAT was when there was also a purchase option. The $25/mo was cheaper for sure. I figured I might go back to discs in the future. Then with CC they eliminated that option and I felt FORCED to rent for another year at $50 a month. At that point I upped my motion skills and bought PS and AI replacements. I quickly learned and realized if I didn't I'd be forced into the next CC to open my previous CC projects and so on. I don't like that feeling. So, I now try to use Adobe sparingly. Paying for it only when a project requires it.

BUT I don't know how long that can last. Adobe is so entrenched and so much the Microsoft Word of photo/video that it's getting harder and harder to avoid. That's even more true for larger companies and facilities. And that frustrates me even more. And so on...


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Oct 31, 2015 at 3:21:23 am

[Jason Jenkins] "Sometimes when reading this forum it's starts feeling like an either/or proposition."
That's what Adobe has turned it into isn't it? It's not about the tools. It's about whether you can agree to pay a monthly subscription fee or risk that your tools will stop working completely. I won't put myself in that position so while I purchased Adobe CS4, CS5, CS5.5 and CS6. Adobe won't get another penny out of me because there is no way to opt out of their subscription model and still be able to edit old projects.

I now use Final Cut Pro X for NLE, Motion for compositing, Sound Forge for audio editing, Affinity Photo for image editing, and Affinity Design for vector graphics. I have no need of any Adobe products anymore and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the tools are good or bad; I just can't agree to their business model.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Oct 31, 2015 at 4:09:20 am

[John Rofrano] "That's what Adobe has turned it into isn't it? It's not about the tools. It's about whether you can agree to pay a monthly subscription fee or risk that your tools will stop working completely."

I don't think it's really any different than deciding that Company X's software is overprice for what you get so you don't buy it, or you disagree with Company Y's business practices so you don't do business with them. I mean, I know people that avoid Windows because they are still mad that MS 'stole' the GUI concept from Apple (whom of course 'stole' it from Xerox), and people that still avoid Avid because of bad customer relations from nearly a decade ago. The decisions have little to do with the products themselves but a lot to do with the company behind the products.


Return to posts index


Jason Jenkins
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Oct 31, 2015 at 5:48:08 am

[John Rofrano] "It's about whether you can agree to pay a monthly subscription fee or risk that your tools will stop working completely."

That's not a risk; it's a fact. If you stop paying, you don't have access to the software. You pay again and you get it back. It's your call if you don't think it's worth the money, but I don't think it's any riskier than using any other software.

Jason Jenkins
Flowmotion Media
Video production... with style!

Check out my Mormon.org profile.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Oct 31, 2015 at 7:29:37 am

I might gently disagree with this. I didn't know it at the time, but I "stopped paying" for FCP X 4 years ago. Say in two years they want me to pay again. (Doubtful, but let's imagine so.) And I elect to refuse. If I then want or need to go back and revise a FCP X Project from this year, even tho I stopped paying under price protest - all my work is still mine and fully accessible for me to revise and manipulate at will. In the subscription model, my access ends unless I start paying again. Worse than that - If some company next year invents OmniEdit Extreme that I get excited about - Apple has to compete for my loyalty strictly on merit. I can leave X l on my computer and keep all my historic work live and intact forever. Under Adobes system, to make that move I have to abandon all my historic file access or keep paying for software I no longer use to access my own archive. I'd say that's a significant difference. Adobe has structured the carrot of continued access to my own work as an incentive on par with program improvement to make me keep paying. That was not required nor necessary. It was the executive suite putting their emphasis on profits over not just customer satisfaction, but over what I feel should be the customers intellectual property right to perpetually control their own creations. Not a business strategy worthy of my support. That's all.

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


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Oct 31, 2015 at 4:35:21 pm

[Jason Jenkins] "That's not a risk; it's a fact. If you stop paying, you don't have access to the software. You pay again and you get it back. It's your call if you don't think it's worth the money, but I don't think it's any riskier than using any other software."
Actually as Bill pointed out, it is different. it is very different. It's not my choice to pay again. If I don't pay, I don't get to work with old projects. I don't get a choice. I stopped using Vegas Pro and switched to FCP X. I can go back and re-edit any of my old Vegas Pro projects that a client might want changed without having to re-pay Sony. Adobe would have you pay $75 for that privilege for a month. I'd rather spend hat $75 of new plug-ins for FCP X. That's how Adobe's model got the name "ransom-ware". It's not about the subscription model as much as it is about not being able to ever opt-out of paying and continuing to work.

The subscription model itself is a very slippery slope. First it's Adobe for the NLE. Then it's GenArts Saphire (a plug-in company). What if every application and plug-in on your Mac demanded a monthly fee. How expensive would it be to use a computer? How selective would you get about what you can afford to rent? I predict the software industry will implode if it goes down that path. Like the computer giants of the 1960's and 70's where only very large companies could afford the monthly rental fee of a computer.

Were would we be then? I'll tell you where we will be... we'll have to go back to editing video with stone knifes and bearskins and nobody wants to go back there (you can quote me on that) lol ;-)

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Oct 31, 2015 at 9:17:23 pm

[John Rofrano] "What if every application and plug-in on your Mac demanded a monthly fee. How expensive would it be to use a computer?"

Of course a bit of irony is people loving Apple and Blackmagic's business model while condemning Adobe's even though the inexpensive-software-that-requires-our-hardware approach is helping to drive down software prices, which makes it harder for software companies to make money, which is part of the reason we are seeing more software companies explore other business models such as subscriptions, freemium and ad supported.

And it's not just in post. The devaluation of software (and IP in general) is happening across the board (from video games to business apps to software for post/production).

The doom-and-gloom of all software being subscription would be bad, but so would all software being tied to specific hardware. I, for one, don't want to go back to the days of needing this card for Product X, that card for Product Y and of course the cards conflict with each other so you can't have both products installed on the same machine at the same time. I'm already running into a bit of this with Resolve. The BM products I've used have been flakey with Avid and PPro but Resolve won't work with AJA.

In the parts of the industry I came up in it was normal for the Avid's to be rented/leased so not owning your NLE wasn't a foreign concept to me when Adobe when subscription only.


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 1, 2015 at 1:54:25 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Of course a bit of irony is people loving Apple and Blackmagic's business model while condemning Adobe's even though the inexpensive-software-that-requires-our-hardware approach is helping to drive down software prices, which makes it harder for software companies to make money, which is part of the reason we are seeing more software companies explore other business models such as subscriptions, freemium and ad supported."

Well, but I still think Adobe's price for the CS6 suite was fair (in the US at least... for us in Europe it would be 50 percent more expensive, even when doing a download from a US server... which was a big rip-off also - and Adobe's explanation didn't got much further than "well people pay it in that market" ... like they had a choice). I consider FCPX to be dirt cheap, and if Apple or Adobe launches a great suite tomorrow for 1000 euros again, I could buy it like I bought Final Cut Studio in the past. I don't need a professional suite to be less then 500 euros if I think it's a good business investment. But only subscription makes the program at least 600 euros a year, as long as you want to use it. That's different then buying a 1500 euro suite that you can use for 5 years for instance.

I agree, if everyone starts doing subscription, it gets to be very expensive to use a computer. For smaller and bigger businesses it's doable. For a freelancer, much less so.

https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 1, 2015 at 2:26:18 am
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Nov 1, 2015 at 2:50:29 am

[Andrew Kimery] "In the parts of the industry I came up in it was normal for the Avid's to be rented/leased so not owning your NLE wasn't a foreign concept to me when Adobe when subscription only."

Yes Andrew, but you were conditioned that the tools and the seat would be the property of the COMPANY. If anything has changed over the past decade it's the end of the "only a commercial enterprise can afford the means of production" era.

What happens when the "hot editor" can simply come with his or her workstation in a bag, jack in - and contribute at the same level as the dedicated suite editor of today? Or even drop in via Skype, edit and upload a scene and log off?

Increasingly this industry is about intellectual capital as opposed to brick and mortar capital. What you know rather than what you own.

Everything current I read about "big time" editing now seems to be a management team in LA, the Director in London, the EFX crew in Bangkok and what does it really matter where the editor is sitting? I know corporate cutters in Albuquerque working with scene loggers in Birmingham, England.

Honestly, that's why I'm shutting down my studio, consolidating "stuff" and moving this week. I've been siting in my custom built dedicated editing space that I designed and configured 15 years ago with EIGHTY SEVEN 110 Edison sockets within 10 feet of my edit desk (counted them for fun when I moved my desk yesterday but sitting here writing this I've had to revise the number twice as I spy more quad boxes close by!) - and for the past 6 months, I've actually needed FOUR plugs with any regularity to get my past 50 programs edited and delivered.

Office space is EXPENSIVE. I know because I paid for it for 20 plus years. Thank you, no thank you. Not any more.

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


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 1, 2015 at 5:32:31 am

[Mathieu Ghekiere] "For a freelancer, much less so."

I think it depends on the individual situation. For example, with the freelance work I've been doing in LA I've found that being flexible is very important (in the past two weeks I've used FCP 7, PPro and Avid) and that means NLEs having a lower cost of entry is very advantageous.

I don't remember the math off hand, but I think the break even point for an Adobe subscription vs the old perpetual license cost is something like 6 or 7yrs (assuming you upgraded every year). Maybe I'll subscribe to CC continuously for that long, maybe I won't. The NLE market is changing so much in my neck of the woods (just look at all that's happened since 2010) that trying to guess what NLE I'll be using in 2020 is just about pointless. Doing the work I do in LA it's a pretty safe bet that Avid will still be a widely used in the year 2020, but beside that it's a total crap shoot.

Other people might have more control over which NLE they use so projecting long term can be a bit easier, but for me I wouldn't even try to guess beyond 2-3yrs.


[Bill Davis] "Yes Andrew, but you were conditioned that the tools and the seat would be the property of the COMPANY. If anything has changed over the past decade it's the end of the "only a commercial enterprise can afford the means of production" era.

I'd say I was exposed to it more than conditioned to it because I've had a foot in both worlds for a long time. For example, around the century (I love being able to use that phrase) I built a PC running Premiere (the old Premiere) with a Matrox RT2500 card for I/O and hardware acceleration to cut my own projects, but at the day job they leased all their Avid hardware.

Off-the-shelf desktop hardware becoming 'good enough' certainly broadened the playing field and allowed a much more 'horses for courses' type approach as opposed to the one size fits for all, 'big iron' approach of the past when the investment in all the required gear was such a massive expensive.

But coming back to my point, if I had only been exposed to the "I've always owned what I use on a daily basis" scenario then I would think what Adobe is doing is completely out of left field, but I wasn't so I don't.


What happens when the "hot editor" can simply come with his or her workstation in a bag, jack in - and contribute at the same level as the dedicated suite editor of today? Or even drop in via Skype, edit and upload a scene and log off?
"


It depends on the situation. If all that is required from the hot editor is a final QT then the bring-your-own-NLE approach works very well. But what happens when the hot editor has to conform to an existing workflow but doesn't have a copy of the required NLE? Certainly a case can be made for renting/subscribing being a better solution to that problem than having to pay full price for a perpetual license that you might only use for a matter of weeks.

I ran into a situation kinda like that last year. Long story short, I came in as a 2nd editor on a doc (working out of the company's office, the main editor worked from home) and it was only for a couple of months so they subscribed to Avid MC for the two months as opposed to buying a perpetual license. After the project ended everything got boxed back up and put into storage (the director/producer only rents office space when projects are in post).

[Bill Davis] "Everything current I read about "big time" editing now seems to be a management team in LA, the Director in London, the EFX crew in Bangkok and what does it really matter where the editor is sitting? I know corporate cutters in Albuquerque working with scene loggers in Birmingham, England. "

It depends. It matters if the people involved want to make it matter. AFAIK much of the FX work that gets farmed to India or Southeast Asia is more along the lines of manual labor (wire removal, rotoscoping, etc.,) where as the final touches and more skill/creative work is done more local to where the production is based. Same thing when there was an animation work exodus in the 90's to the same region. The creative work was done in Hollywood, but the actual coloring of the animation was done overseas. Apple is another example. Their products (besides the nMP) say "Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China" on the back.

FWIW I've read that some big VFX shops in India and SE Asia that sprouted up 5-10yrs ago to do Hollywood movies have started shuttering recently. I'm not exactly sure why but I assume part of it is that the labor isn't as cheap as it used to be (and it has to be really cheap to make sense). That's a big reason why Vancouver's film/TV industry, which was called 'Hollywood North' in the 90's, crashed. The exchange rate between the Dollar and the Looney started evening out and more US (and Canadian) municipalities started offering film financing kickbacks. When Vancouver stopped being ridiculously cheap productions moved on to greener pastures. But now I'm just rambling...

Getting back to editing remotely, it really depends on the people involved in the project. For example, I do a lot of doc work where the producers/directors are very personally invested in the project so bringing in an editor is like bringing in a new member to the family. It's not taken lightly so trying to score that gig from 1000 miles away is incredibly difficult. And on the flip side I've landed other types of gigs after only a phone interview. Just boils down to the situation and those involved.

One of my long term goals when I moved to LA was to build up a network and then hopefully be able to someplace else once technology made remote editing feasible. The longer I'm out here the less likely I see that as happening because of the type work I typically do it. Even when tech makes remote editing viable I still need to be local to continue to seek out, create, and cultivate these personal connections.


[Bill Davis] "Office space is EXPENSIVE. I know because I paid for it for 20 plus years. Thank you, no thank you. Not any more."

I'll have to take your word for it as I either edit out of my home or out of someone else's office.


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 1, 2015 at 1:22:54 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Certainly a case can be made for renting/subscribing being a better solution to that problem than having to pay full price for a perpetual license that you might only use for a matter of weeks."

I agree with that, that's why I think the subscription is a fantastic OPTION.
Not as the only way of using the program.

https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 6, 2015 at 6:02:21 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Nov 8, 2015 at 9:37:29 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Of course a bit of irony is people loving Apple and Blackmagic's business model […] the inexpensive-software-that-requires-our-hardware approach"

I personally have yet to hear of anyone buying a Mac for the sole purpose of using FCP X, as opposed to people already owning a Mac and deciding to use FCP X. So whether it requires a Mac or not really becomes pretty irrelevant in the vast majority of cases I'd say.

And how do I require BMD hardware to use the software? I use both Resolve and Fusion and have no BMD hardware whatsoever.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 6, 2015 at 6:53:29 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "I have yet to hear of anyone buying a Mac for the sole purpose of using FCP X, "

You have now. Our Mac Pros and my 5K iMac were purchased specifically with FCPX in mind, all the way to contacting Apple about which options provided the best FCPX performance.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 6, 2015 at 7:54:35 pm

[John Davidson] "Our Mac Pros and my 5K iMac were purchased specifically with FCPX in mind"

Then I guess I should have been more specific: Anyone that didn't have a Mac before. Ever. And would have otherwise not considered getting one. As in moved from Windows or elsewhere exclusively for the sake of using FCP X. Something I'm assuming wasn't the case with you? Because as far as that's concerned, I myself obviously buy my machines to best suit to my most common workflow demands too, yes. Or rather, even if I were still on Avid or PPro I'd still be buying a Mac even though Windows is an option.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Dominic Deacon
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 6, 2015 at 8:27:19 pm

Not FCX but I bought a Mac for Final Cut Pro 5 back in the day. Never had one before and won't be buying one again. Of course back in those days everyone told you up front that you had to have a Mac to edit. Certainly not the case but a very widely held view at the time.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 6, 2015 at 11:15:14 pm

Well, if you don't even know what it is you in fact need and just buy blindly, anything you get will be wrong. The OS being the least of your worries.

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 7, 2015 at 2:45:51 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "Then I guess I should have been more specific: Anyone that didn't have a Mac before. Ever. And would have otherwise not considered getting one. As in moved from Windows or elsewhere exclusively for the sake of using FCP X."
Oh, you are about to. ;-)

Sony just announced end-of-life for Vegas Pro after 13 versions and there are a number of Vegas Pro users who have only used Windows and are asking me about switching to FCP X because they hate Adobe and are seriously considering buying a Mac for the first time for the sole purpose of moving to FCP X with no previous Mac experience. So people absolutely switch platforms because of an application that they need which is core to their business.

Here is one such conversation that went on just this week: Question for John Rofrano on system.

This is *exactly* how you should be selecting a computer. You should first select the applications you need to use and then buy the computer than can run those applications. Windows or Mac is irrelevant. It's all about the applications you can run. Of course now it's also about the business model. I would much rather record software as a capital purchase which increases the value of my company as apposed a subscription expense which devalues it as a liability.

...and BTW, after owning and building Windows computers for 30+ years, my 2010 Mac Pro is built way more solid than anything that PC manufactures sell you. Being the geek that I am, I stripped my Mac Pro tower down to the motherboard (to vacuum out the pet dander from the previous owner) and I was flawed at the construction of the build. Did you know that every single screw in the Mac Pro tower has lock-tight on it so that they don't loosen? I've never seen that used in a PC build. I would gladly pay a premium for Apple hardware craftsmanship after seeing it first hand for myself because IMHO, it's worth every penny.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 7, 2015 at 6:52:02 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "Then I guess I should have been more specific: Anyone that didn't have a Mac before. Ever. And would have otherwise not considered getting one."

I never owned a Mac before. Ever. Until I bought one specifically so I could use FCP 3. Now the fact that FCP Legend is gone and FCP X isn't doing much in my neck of the woods and all my other primary software tools are cross-platform means buying another Mac for work is much harder to justify for me. In chatting with other editors I've found many of them thinking the same thing. FCP Legend was the 'killer app' for the Mac for them, and me, so w/o it sticking with Apple for work machines isn't the obvious choice like it was in the past.



And how do I require BMD hardware to use the software? I use both Resolve and Fusion and have no BMD hardware whatsoever."


AFAIK BMD video I/O devices are the only ones that work with Resolve (never looked into Fusion).


[Bill Davis] "I don't have time to respond point by point due to my life being in boxes as I'm moving. "

Moving, always fun. Remember to lift with your knees and have some cold beers ready for the end of the day.


[Bill Davis] "I am amused by the number of "weasel words" (old copywriters term for fuzzy terms like "approximately" and "in our opinion") used to be purposefully vague."

Love me some linguistics. Got in a fight w/a GF once because she asked if I *could* ever cheat on her as opposed to if I *would* ever cheat on her. Being technically correct didn't seem to help me in that situation.

Of course only insiders know what really went down, but the educated guesses don't seem that off especially considering the regulations I linked to, Apple citing accounting regulations, and Avid saying that the software updates it provide to customers free of charge were accounted for incorrectly. These days unless you have given Avid money in the past 12 months (either via subscription or annual support contract) you aren't getting a thing from them, not even bug fixes, and that's a far cry from a company that routinely provided free bug fixes going back 2-3 versions.


[John Rofrano] "...and BTW, after owning and building Windows computers for 30+ years, my 2010 Mac Pro is built way more solid than anything that PC manufactures sell you"

I agree with you about the build quality, but I'm not really a fan of the lack of user upgradeability (especially with the nMPs still costing top dollar even though they haven't changed in two years). With so many apps leveraging the GPU these days just swapping out an old GFX card (or cards) can breathe new life into a machine.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 7, 2015 at 5:12:39 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Got in a fight w/a GF once because she asked if I *could* ever cheat on her as opposed to if I *would* ever cheat on her. Being technically correct didn't seem to help me in that situation."

OK - THIS made me laugh. And after a couple of days of quite a bit of generally enjoyable head down physical labor, it felt really good to laugh. Thanks.


[Andrew Kimery] "With so many apps leveraging the GPU these days just swapping out an old GFX card (or cards) can breathe new life into a machine.
"


Sure. But what troubles me is that while it can certainly "breath new life" into something - it seems to me that in these days of amazing leaps in technology - an old box with "new life" is going to be increasingly hard to justify when the distance between last years tech and this years tech keeps growing.

My last hardware refresh kinda clouded my perceptions about putting too much money or time into keeping older hardware going because the performance improvement I saw was SO big. Even 5 years ago, a new computer got me incremental performance increases. This last time, it was honestly a night and day difference. And the personal productivity boost was SERIOUS. Sic transit technology.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 8, 2015 at 8:34:55 am

[Bill Davis] "OK - THIS made me laugh. And after a couple of days of quite a bit of generally enjoyable head down physical labor, it felt really good to laugh. Thanks."

My pleasure. Yeah, it wasn't that great of an experience at the time, but it's pretty funny in hindsight.


[Bill Davis] "Sure. But what troubles me is that while it can certainly "breath new life" into something - it seems to me that in these days of amazing leaps in technology - an old box with "new life" is going to be increasingly hard to justify when the distance between last years tech and this years tech keeps growing.
"


That kinda goes along with what I'm saying, doesn't it? If things are changing so fast wouldn't being able to install improved components as they come out be a good thing as opposed to buying a 'disposable' computer every couple of years? Sure, there are major architecture changes that wouldn't be backwards compatible but those types of changes are much less frequent than things like an increase in CPU or GPU speed.

I'm kinda eyeballing new machines right now and if I go with a Mac I'd like to get the number of ports and GPUs reserved for the MP line, but there's no way I'm paying top dollar for tech that's already at least two years old. The MP used to have a pretty predictable upgrade cycle (like all the Macs) but now... is it going to be 2yrs between MP updates? 3? 5? I know there potential hints of a new MP in some code in El Cap, but it's still anyone's guess as to when it will actually happen. If the machines were more upgradeable I'd be less weary of them.

In the past couple of years I've upgraded my Macs with things like SSDs, new GPUs, eSATA/USB 3 cards, etc., and that's kept them useful for day in/day out editing for me. The stock versions of the Macs would at best be really slow and at worst unusable. It was either upgrade or buy new machines and I obviously chose to upgrade (in part knowing that the longer I wait to buy, the more I'll get for my money). Talk to the 2010 me (or especially the 2001 me) and I would have said 2-3yrs is the max life of an editing machine and once you hit 5yrs you might as well take it in the backyard and shoot it. And this was certainly true in the 90's but these days we aren't seeing the same type of massive year over year gains that translate into night and day differences in real world usage.

I think a lot of the relatively recent real world speed increases have come from things like switching to SSDs (HDDs have been a longtime bottle neck) and having more apps taking advantage of GPUs. Once those changes have been made then I think it's back to more iterative changes (faster SSDs, faster GPUs, etc.,). Oddly enough one of the weak links in the old Mac Pros is turning out to be the power supply. Modern GPUs pull more juice than what the MP was designed to handle so people are having to hookup external power supplies if they want to run some of the more power hungry GPUs.

With all that beings said, i'm sure to some degree I'm overestimating my needs, but I've developed a hope for the best, plan for the worst mindset over the years so I'm more comfortable having something I don't need than needing something I don't have.


-Andrew


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 8, 2015 at 9:19:13 pm

If you want some fun with weasel words Bill, check out Comcast trying to explain how awesome it's new 300gig data caps are.

http://www.theverge.com/smart-home/2015/11/7/9687976/comcast-data-caps-are-...


-Andrew


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 8, 2015 at 9:32:31 pm

Send lawyers, guns, money and creative writers for our new terms of service. The s*** has hit the fan.
; )

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 8, 2015 at 9:36:58 pm

[Bill Davis] "Send lawyers, guns, money and creative writers for our new terms of service. The s*** has hit the fan.
; )"


haha!


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 8, 2015 at 10:05:38 am

[Andrew Kimery] "AFAIK BMD video I/O devices are the only ones that work with Resolve"

Have never and don't ever plan to need video i/o for Resolve other than to and from my disk. For me Resolve is no where near to being a usable NLE.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 8, 2015 at 9:33:00 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Have never and don't ever plan to need video i/o for Resolve other than to and from my disk. For me Resolve is no where near to being a usable NLE."

Um, okay. So you color grade using what you see on your computer monitor and never need any baseband video input. Not everyone works that way. Regardless of what YOUR personal needs are it doesn't change the fact that Resolve won't work with non-BMD I/O hardware and, to my broader point, that hardware companies can offer software for peanuts if they want where as software companies have to find ways to sufficiently monetize their software in order to keep the lights on.


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 7, 2015 at 7:20:28 pm

[John Rofrano] "...and BTW, after owning and building Windows computers for 30+ years, my 2010 Mac Pro is built way more solid than anything that PC manufactures sell you."

I have both a Mac Pro and several PC towers. I've used both platforms for many years.

While the MacPro was a wonder of engineering design and functionality for 2004, by 2010, it had several worthy competitors. I have posited for a while that the original Z800 chassis by HP was the first that 'out-Appled Apple' in the form and functionality department. Complete tooless entry without sharp edges, superior hard drive bay chassis, of course more expandability, superior power supply, great air flow and cooling design and for the time, a very strong aesthetic. Again, people will disagree and that's okay, but I think the point is that one person's idea of solid is different from others.

I will add that I think chassis design is an important part of the picking your overall computer. For example the current Mac Pro has some great features and limiting factors that make the discussion all the more interesting.


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 8, 2015 at 1:03:12 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "I have posited for a while that the original Z800 chassis by HP was the first that 'out-Appled Apple' in the form and functionality department. Complete tooless entry without sharp edges, superior hard drive bay chassis, of course more expandability, superior power supply, great air flow and cooling design and for the time, a very strong aesthetic. Again, people will disagree and that's okay, but I think the point is that one person's idea of solid is different from others. "
I've seen the insides of the HP Z800 at NAB one year and I have to agree with you that it's also very well constructed. If I ever needed to buy a PC again, HP Z Series would be my first choice. When Windows users ask me what PC to buy, I always recommend HP workstations.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 8, 2015 at 6:45:56 pm

I've seen good things come recently from other manufacturers as well. Dell which for a while was all about supply chain since going private, I think is making some great hardware as well.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 8, 2015 at 9:56:17 am

[John Rofrano] "Sony just announced end-of-life for Vegas Pro after 13 versions"

Really? Certainly not the scene I follow, but I also wasn't able to google anything definitive either. Just seemingly rumors from the last NAB. Do you have a link? But I've heard various VP users say that FCP X struck them as being the closest to what they are used to, yes. Not knowing the first thing about Vegas, I have no idea how much truth there is to that.


[John Rofrano] "So people absolutely switch platforms because of an application that they need which is core to their business."

Again, I was only speaking from personal experience and FCP X. Obviously there are always exceptions to every rule, yes. Those numbers imho not being more than a fraction of a fraction. I'm sure that FCP can very well be a big contribution for fueling a move like that in general, sure, just not all deciding. But that certainly could change. Who knows. We'll see.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 9, 2015 at 2:27:52 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Just seemingly rumors from the last NAB. Do you have a link?"
No link, but the "rumor" came from a very reputable source who I know and trust. What was said is that Vegas Pro 13.0 will continue to be maintained and supported and has not been discontinued (and I believe that). The "rumor" also said that there are no plans for Vegas Pro 14.0 (that's what's unknown). Since we usually get a new version of Vegas Pro every year, and this year we did not get one, the rumor seems to be holding true. It looks like they are focusing all of their efforts on the new Catalyst Suite and that's a good thing because Vegas Pro needed a complete re-write and perhaps Catalyst Edit will be that re-write. But it has stirred up a lot of concern in the Vegas Pro community.

No one is more concerned than me... I write productivity plug-ins for Vegas Pro so I'm seeing my whole business implode! I'm now investigating if I can write similar plug-ins for FCP X. Vegas Pro has a very powerful script API that I took advantage of and FCP X doesn't have this but perhaps I can leverage the XML import/export to do some similar things. We'll see.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 9, 2015 at 4:03:43 pm

[John Rofrano] "I write productivity plug-ins for Vegas Pro so I'm seeing my whole business implode! I'm now investigating if I can write similar plug-ins for FCP X. Vegas Pro has a very powerful script API that I took advantage of and FCP X doesn't have this but perhaps I can leverage the XML import/export to do some similar things. We'll see."

John,

Let me know if you'd like to get connected to our team around plug-ins and what we do behind the scenes. We offer a lot of resources and assistance. From a business point of view, if you're looking for a lot of potential seats (cross platform), then we're worth a look. ;-)

Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 1, 2015 at 4:44:01 am

[Bill Davis] "I can leave X l on my computer and keep all my historic work live and intact forever"

Until your new Mac requires a new OS that does not support FCP legacy.

Forever is a mighty long time.

Though I balk at paying a monthly fee for software. Because that's not a slow transition but immediate.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 1, 2015 at 5:39:01 am

[Craig Alan] "Until your new Mac requires a new OS that does not support FCP legacy. "

Keep an old Mac 'frozen in time' until it breaks and can no longer be repaired. Personally, I prefer Walter Soyka opinion on this problem, push for more open project formats so it's easier to take a project from one NLE to another.

[Bret Williams] "Not being able to open old projects just because you didn't pay the bil"

If you can't save or export what are you going to do with it? You could download a free, 30-day trial.


[Craig Alan] "Or maybe just allow end users to buy the current version of the software for an additional fee. Kinda of like buying the car you have been leasing."

Tim has mentioned before how this option isn't very viable due to unintended consequences from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.


-Andrew


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 1, 2015 at 2:59:31 pm
Last Edited By Tim Wilson on Nov 1, 2015 at 3:30:35 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "[Craig Alan] "Or maybe just allow end users to buy the current version of the software for an additional fee. Kinda of like buying the car you have been leasing."

Tim has mentioned before how this option isn't very viable due to unintended consequences from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act."


It was an intended consequence, but yeah. :-) Not to say that it CAN'T be done, but in the real world, once you see what's required, I honestly can't believe that anyone can imagine a company that would want to try.

(Related, anyone heard the word "upgrade" from a publicly traded company lately? Even Avid's "upgrade" language is "buy an annual service contract and receive any upgrades issued during that time." I'm thinking that we've just about seen the end of a pure "upgrade" as we understood it 5 years ago to be gone, for the same reasons.)

Avid's "buyout" solution is the only one that will actually work, which is, at whatever point you've decided that you're ready to stop subscribing and would like to buy, you can buy at full price. Full stop. No discounts.

Of course, any scenario anything like this would also require Adobe selling software again, which, while undoubtedly appealing to a number of customers, is also long past the point of feasibility.

I could say that that's beyond debate, but debating whether it's debatable is a debate for another forum. :-)


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 1, 2015 at 4:50:07 pm

Ok. But bottom line is there is something deeply wrong that unless you continue to subscribe you loose access to your own intellectual property.

I remember Final Draft had a free program that allowed anyone to be able to read Final Draft scripts.

There should be a way that a former subscriber of Premier can read and export the projects and media to other programs or quick time files or whatever.

Or some sort of contract where you own a given version of the software but do not receive updates unless you continue to subscribe.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 1, 2015 at 5:54:50 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Tim has mentioned before how this option isn't very viable due to unintended consequences from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act."

I know this is becoming the conventional wisdom, but I really think it's deeply flawed thinking.

My perception of Washington regulation is that they gleefully regulate right up until some party with massive clout doesn't like the regulations - then they find a clever way to make the regulations moot. See all those CEOs and CFOs languishing in jail after nearly tanking the US economy in the 90s? Didn't think so.

So the REAL question might be "What does the investor class LIKE about SOX in a practical sense. And one thing MIGHT be that it's GREAT cover to let executives pry more money out of their customers while saying "WE HAVE TO - it's the LAW."

In reality, big business has a pretty spotless record over long periods of getting around ANY regulation that restrains profits.

Then they move on to the even bigger game - finding ways to REGULATE consistent profits.

For a subscription editing service such as we're discussing, I guess what I'd REALLY want - is to try to convince BIG EDUCATION to teach it to the exclusion of other, competing solutions. (We're teaching what the INDUSTRY wants!) Maybe lowering prices to students to get them to learn and LOCK IN as customers - so that they have to continue the habit after they graduate at full price.

But that will NEVER happen, of course.

Lots of Chicken and Egg stuff right here.

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 1, 2015 at 8:19:19 pm

[Bill Davis] "My perception of Washington regulation is that they gleefully regulate right up until some party with massive clout doesn't like the regulations - then they find a clever way to make the regulations moot. See all those CEOs and CFOs languishing in jail after nearly tanking the US economy in the 90s? Didn't think so. "

Spot on, Bill.

Adobe is the one of the largest software companies in the world and CEO Shantanu Narayen sits on President Obama's Management Advisory Board.

Does anyone honestly believe that if Adobe wanted to sell software, they would be allowed or couldn't work out a loophole to make it possible?

If so, I have some awesome bridge front property I'd be happy to sell you , lol! ;)

_______________________
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

Bill Davis
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 1, 2015 at 9:46:37 pm

Oddly, I was scanning Reddit this morning and came across a post where an email marketer was talking about strategies that are available to "opt out" email operations.

AM NOT IMPLYING THAT ANY ONE COMPANY WOULD OR WILL DO ANYTHING LIKE THIS.

It just is a general comment on how Opt Out arrangements CAN be used by the unscrupulous to lock profits in general. The post reinforces my belief that opt out payment systems can be VERY consumer hostile and should be avoided unless you have a very high degree of faith in the vendor. (Which many here do about Adobe, in fairness.)
Cut and paste from a Reddit post:
(I've censored for language)

Hi there.

I did professional email marketing consultation for years.

There are lots of ways around requiring an opt-out.

For example, you have to provide an opt-out link, but the regulation doesn't say the link has to *work.*

So you just oops a typo into the link or remove the opt-out form from the server and you're good.

You also don't have to make it *easy* to opt out.

Another nice trick is to require the user to create an account and log in to opt out.

Weasel words work really well too.

You'll notice that sometimes when you opt out you get a message that says "you have been removed from *this* mailing list."

That implies that you have not been removed from all mailing lists.

If you opt out of a mailing list the sender doesn't have to stop sending you mail, they just have to stop sending mail from that specific mailing list.

There are two tactics at work here: For high value targets email marketers will often add their email address to anywhere from two to two hundred mailing lists, and for every one you opt out of they'll have a rule that automatically adds you to another.

A lot of times marketers will download a list of people who opted out and upload that list directly into a new mailing list. They call that "re-engaging."

Sometimes they'll throw in a coupon or come-back offer, but most of the time, especially **** spammers, they give zero ****s. They just dump all the email addresses into a new list and rotate IP addresses to get around spam blockers.

Another tactic marketers use is to make the opt-out link the same color as the background so you can't see it, and make it plain text and not a hyperlink, because the regulation doesn't specify that the link has to be visible in your mail client or that it has to be a clickable link.

Oh my there are so many tactics.

________

If you want to up-vote the post for helping spread some light on these shady internet practices the original post link is :http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/3r00lr/prez_rick_perry_selling_his_mailing_list_today_i/cwju961

This is just about general email subscription and not about software subscription - but it shows some of the overall thinking in modern "opt out" marketing - part of what makes the act of signing up for any "automatically OKed" action a pretty big red flag for me.

YMMV

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 1, 2015 at 10:54:00 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Avid's "buyout" solution is the only one that will actually work, which is, at whatever point you've decided that you're ready to stop subscribing and would like to buy, you can buy at full price. Full stop. No discounts."

To expand on this, once you pay full price for a perpetual license (which includes a one year service contract valued at $299) you have to keep paying for the $299 service contract each year if you want any (and I mean ANY) new code from Avid. If you don't renew the $299 service contract then you have to pay full price again ($1299). Given Avid's history of releasing bug fixes for old versions of MC I was very surprised to see that perpetual license owners no longer get bug fixes unless they have an active annual support contract.

So, for example, you might be eligible to get MC 9.0.0 when it comes out, but if you let your support lapse and then 9.0.1 comes out with a lot of bug fixes you are stuck with 9.0.0. The only way to get access to 9.0.1 is to pay the full $1299 again or to go the subscription route.



[Bill Davis] "I know this is becoming the conventional wisdom, but I really think it's deeply flawed thinking."

Can you expand with specifics on why you think SOX having an impact on software monetization practices by publicly traded companies is deeply flawed thinking?

Apple cited having to comply with certain accounting practices (presumably SOX) when it charged for things like iOS updates to iPod users and FaceTime and 802.11n upgrades to Mac users.

Adobe employees have publicly commented on how going to a subscription model has changed how they can do business (in part because of SOX).

Avid had some accounting problems that need to be fixed (presumably to comply with SOX) and it took so long that they got delisted from NASDAQ until they finally started filing paper work with the SEC again.

Whether or not the regulations were created in back rooms filled with conspirators puffing on cigars is a separate issue than whether or not the regulations are applicable to the situation(s) being discussed.



[David Lawrence] "Does anyone honestly believe that if Adobe wanted to sell software, they would be allowed or couldn't work out a loophole to make it possible? "

That's never been up for debate, David. Adobe can choose to sell software or choose to offer it as a subscription or choose to buy up all the Hostess IP and include Twinkies and Ho-Hos with every new subscription. But... for publicly traded companies in the US the rules are different if a product is being sold vs a subscription being sold, and that's where SOX comes in.

Could Adobe do the same thing Avid is doing? Yes, though I think it would be significantly more difficult for Adobe to pull it off because they offer so many more programs than what Avid is offering. Could Adobe offer an 'off ramp'? I'm not an accounting expert so I don't know, but just from what I've read it doesn't seem like that's feasible (Avid doesn't offer an 'off ramp' from it's subscription service either). Could Adobe offer different bundles (kinda like the different CS bundles)? I don't see why not and it's a suggestion I've officially submitted to Adobe.

To be honest, when Avid announced its new business model last year I talked with a number of editors that wondered why can't Avid just make it as simple as Adobe? It also doesn't help that Avid lost SciptSync, downgraded to Boris Lite, etc.,. I think that added to the confusion as well. As Apple has proven, there is something to be said for not giving people options (even if people ask for them).

I don't think it's just a coincidence that NONE of the big three, publicly traded companies that sell NLE software offer a 'traditional' upgrade path anymore. It's currently either subscription, pay once and get free upgrades for life (so far), or buy an annual support contract. The days of paying full price on the onset and then paying a reduced price (via an upgrade discount) on the new version every year or two seems to be dead.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 2, 2015 at 1:17:25 am
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Nov 2, 2015 at 6:14:29 am

Andrew, I'm simply reacting to the almost TOTAL lack of news reports of any penalties beyond wrist slaps being levied for ANY corporate malfeasance in the modern era. The group in our society that is supposed to provide the "stick" to motivate corporations to be concerned about penalties for infractions is government itself via lawmakers and regulation - but the regulatory system has been so crippled by political influence that it is widely acknowledged to be useless. If you aren't actively killing people with tainted food or something similar - you're kinda home free. Screw the consumer all you like. Certainly if you can boost profitability! This is still the era of "go for it if there's a financial incentive, and we'll just have to maybe pay the fine if we get caught."

I'm not any wiz at business, but I know that "keep the money flowing" is the ONLY real business rule that can't be broken.

It's been a decade since SOX was passed. And I can't think of ONE company executive who's gone down because of it. Are you telling me that not a single executive has done wrong in the whole decade?

To me that's the definition of toothless regulation.

What I think SoX HAS done, is give companies a nice excuse to promote software as a service - which as its practiced today - by PURE coincidence turns out to make it EASIER to auto-tap electronic accounts and lock-in customers.

What an AMAZING result!

Hint, when an industry is NOT spending money to actively overturn a regulation - that might be evidence that it's actually helping them MAKE money. Just a wild theory.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 3, 2015 at 1:15:36 am

[Bill Davis] "Are you telling me that not a single executive has done wrong in the whole decade? "

No, what I'm telling you is we are having two separate discussions. I'm discussing how SOX impacts how publicly companies in the US do business (specifically, Adobe, Avid and Apple). You are speculating on the politics behind the law.

Who wants a car analogy? Everyone? Great! I'm saying a speed limit of X influences the speed people drive because they don't want to violate the law and get a ticket. You are saying the set speed limit is only set at X because government lackeys want to help line the pockets of their private industry masters. I'm not agreeing with you or disagreeing with you, I'm just not having that discussion.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 3, 2015 at 5:56:59 am

And Andrew I'm saying that SOX being essentially NEVER used to punish anyone - makes it the functional equivalent of a speed limit sign on a dirt road in the middle of nowhere.

If it's not enforced against anyone - it constrains nothing. And so it won't be the REASON to moderates anyone's speed.

If any company says they MUST do something because of the threat of a fine - that nobody actually ever pays - they are being irrational - and so there must be another valid reason they choose to behave the way they do.

Oh look - the big scary REGULATION also gives our business an excuse to change to a MORE profitable economic model AND shift transactional power away from the buyer and toward the seller via new opt-out default transactions regulated via new business friendly banking laws that we lobbied for - and that consumers haven't got the institutional clout to control.

What a massive coincidence.

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


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 3, 2015 at 10:29:06 am

[Bill Davis] "And Andrew I'm saying that SOX being essentially NEVER used to punish anyone - makes it the functional equivalent of a speed limit sign on a dirt road in the middle of nowhere.

If it's not enforced against anyone - it constrains nothing. And so it won't be the REASON to moderates anyone's speed.

If any company says they MUST do something because of the threat of a fine - that nobody actually ever pays - they are being irrational - and so there must be another valid reason they choose to behave the way they do."


I tend to stay out of these conversations but I will say that Adobe is VERY, VERY concerned about Sarbanes-Oxley legislation. It is one of the key legal drivers for all software companies. For you to dismiss it is simply wrong.

Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 3, 2015 at 3:13:07 pm

Does SoX generate some corporate "concern?" Sure Dennis. But concern seldom motivates anything but caution in my experience. Caution is fine. But caution seldom leads to behavorial change. Concern? Worry? Fear? Those drive change. Again, I'm focused on change that benefits us consumers. I'm hoping (along with many others?) that the trend to limiting consumer rights in micro transactions like monthly subscriptions can be rolled back. Yes as Tim points out there are a few "high profile" skirmishes like the Google SoX battles (battles? Hardly blips to their successful on-going operations, really.) but that doesn't comfort me much. Not in the face of the potential shift towards an economy where literally hundreds of millions of automatic transactions will be relentlessly ytriggered monthly - transferring wealth from consumers to corporations without those corporations being required to deliver any actual incremental increase in product value to their customers in exchange. And there's a case to be made that such a decoupling can become increasingly consumer toxic over time. At LEAST require the benefiting parties to do more than increase their marketing, lobbying and political expenses to get the huge potential benefits of this shift. I know - it's CRAzY thinking on my part. But if in 5 years we're all shoehorned into aggregate monthly creative tool subscriptions bigger than our electric bills - and we can't ply our trades without them - I will be OK if my record was one of pushing against that future. Things are changing. Right now. And I think this is very much worth talking about.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 4, 2015 at 12:06:12 am

Dennis - call a spade a spade - your company is involved in rentier capitalism. You are leveraging decades old software to produce free frictionless money. You're a stale landlord. You have digital land, and now you're looking to rent the soil. Everyone knows that's what you're doing, there wasn't that much of an uprising, but then, the middle class is largely broken in the west to begin with.

American / Western wages have been frozen for thirty years now, and credit expanded exponentially, to the point where the fiat currency system almost broke in 2008. If you think Adobe aren't a nefarious actor here, trying to re-assert wealth through capital - money made from money - you're kidding yourself.

Adobe are an aspect of the condition. You probably think you're doing something valid in the market, but you're not. You're a description of the problem.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 4, 2015 at 1:03:51 am

Aindreas,

It's not Dennis's fault. The fault is with the executive suite. Let's keep the blame focused where it's deserved.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 4, 2015 at 1:52:30 am

[Bill Davis] "The fault is with the executive suite."

I sort of thought that for a bit, but I think people are under-recognising how mad things are lately. Companies like Adobe are fixated now on existing assets and the profit they can derive from them. They don't want it to happen through sales any more. They want rentier relationships now.

If you think Apple is different, I would direct you to their new rolling rent iphone sales programme, their rental music service, and their rental icloud storage system backing up the entire iOS system. There is a difficulty growing in the entire social relationship.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 4, 2015 at 6:38:07 am

We're not that far apart on some of this thinking - BUT - guys like Dennis don't make the decisions that cause these problems. These are executive decisions. Beyond that actually, they are political decisions. In the sense that society has allowed corporations to have statutory requirements to put investor interests over those of customers or workers. Without rules otherwise, capitalist competition usually means charge as much as the metrics will allow - and pay as little as you can for materials and labor - then divert as much margin as possible to your investors. It's how capitalism works for better or worse.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 5, 2015 at 8:29:55 pm

hey totally - I know. I'm just giving him stick because he's the poor guy left here representing adobe.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 6, 2015 at 7:15:52 am
Last Edited By Andrew Kimery on Nov 6, 2015 at 5:00:37 pm

Sorry for the slow response, but got pretty busy at work this week.


[Bill Davis] "If any company says they MUST do something because of the threat of a fine - that nobody actually ever pays - they are being irrational - and so there must be another valid reason they choose to behave the way they do."

Your opinion about Adobe is pretty clear but you haven't said much about Avid or Apple. If these accounting regulations don't matter then why did Avid withhold filings from the SEC, get delisted from NASDAQ, sit back as their stock tanked and possibly open themselves up to a class action lawsuit from the segment of the investor class that invested in Avid? Why not just keep doing business as usual? Or if they want to switch gears (dumping the old upgrade model in favor of a subscription option and an annual support contract option) then why not just switch gears like Adobe did with CC?

Why voluntarily go through all this headache?
http://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Avid+Tech+(AVID)+Unlikely+to+Re...

"As previously reported, the Company is in the process of restating its financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 and for its quarterly periods ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, June 30, 2012 and 2011, and March 31, 2012 and 2011. The restatement relates to the Company's accounting treatment of certain upgrades, enhancements and compatibility extensions (collectively "Software Updates") it previously made available to certain of its customers at no-charge. The Company has determined that such Software Updates should have been accounted for as implied post-contract customer support ("PCS") under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). As a result of the pending restatement of prior financial results, the Company is not current in its periodic report filing requirements with the SEC.
.
.
.
Company has made significant progress toward completion of the restatement, including evaluating transactions over an eight-and-a-half year period, encompassing a review of approximately 5 million transaction lines and 700 software releases.
.
.
.
The Company cannot at this time estimate the full impact of the adjustments of revenue and costs, and the related impact on income taxes, on any previously issued financial statements for any individual reporting period, although it may be significant. "




With regards to Apple, I'm trying to think of the end game for charing iPod users for iOS updates (but not iPhone users), for charging to enable 802.11n wifi on Macs with 802.11n radios (initially disabled because the spec wasn't ratified before the Macs went on sale), and for requiring Mac users at one point to buy FaceTime for 99 cents from the Mac App store. One the surface it seems rather arbitrary and not like Apple, but if you look at it through though the prism of this discussion you might notice a pattern (and a lack of subscriptions).

I stumbled across this article from 2007 about Apple and charging for the wifi upgrade. It says many of the things Tim has already said in multiple threads, but it's still worth reading.
http://www.cnet.com/news/apples-802-11n-accounting-conundrum/

"'During the past several months Apple has shipped some Macs with the hardware to support 802.11n, but the draft of the 802.11n specification was not complete enough to create the required software," Apple spokeswoman Lynn Fox said in an e-mail to CNET News.com. "Now that the draft specification is complete, we are ready to distribute the software to make the 802.11n hardware in these Macs come to life."'

But because the company has already recognized all the revenue from the sales of those computers, it has to now charge customers at least a nominal fee in order to establish the value of its software upgrade and satisfy an obscure accounting regulation known as SOP 97-2, said Fox.

Apple didn't have to do it this way, say accounting experts. But the company most likely faced difficult choices in relation to the upgrade: It could have held off on shipping the new Macs until the upgrade software was ready. It could have skipped the 802.11n capabilities altogether. Or it could have deferred revenue from the new Macs until the software was ready--all unlikely and unpalatable options.
.
.
.
That means a company in this situation would have to defer all the revenue associated with the product until it can establish the value of the Wi-Fi upgrade, or until it delivers the complete set of software, said Brett Trueman, a professor of accounting with the Anderson Business School at the University of California at Los Angeles. So, Apple would have had to defer all the revenue for Macs sold with the 802.11n chips from September until it delivers the upgrade in February, and that's not a realistic option.
.
.
.
There's absolutely nothing in the GAAP requirements that says Apple must charge its customers for that software upgrade. The only requirement imposed by GAAP is that Apple must account for the separate value of the 802.11n capability, said MIT's LaFond."



That last part goes back to the point that of course no one forced Adobe to go subscription only, but the laws are different if you sell a subscription vs sell a production.


Just for a bonus, he's a bit I found about why software companies are always vague about upcoming features/roadmaps.
http://blog.bi101.com/revenue-recognition/roadmaps-and-revenue-recognition-...

"Although sales may like roadmaps, accounting does not. According to GAAP rules on revenue recognition for software companies, producing a roadmap can be viewed as a commitment to provide the customer all of the services and enhancements listed. If the contract is construed in such a way that the roadmap appears to be a commitment to provide future services, all revenue has to be deferred until the enhancements have been delivered."



Besides not really talking about Avid or Apple you also haven't really spoke to other related things I've brought up like the rise of subscription, ad supported and/or freemuim business models across many different types of software. I don't think it's a coincidence that the business models for selling/monetizing IP (software, music, movies, TV shows, etc.,) have really diversified over the last 5-10 years. The landscape is shifting and it many cases it's being driven by consumer behavior. Look at music sales for example. A decade ago it was all about the iTMS, and subscription streaming services like Rhapsody were pin-head sized blips on the radar. Now downloadable music sales have leveled off and the big growth sector is streaming music services.

With regards to companies longing to get your CC #, I agree and it's why Apple routinely trumpets that it has hundreds of millions of active iTunes users with credit cards on file. That certainly makes it an attractive looking business partner since getting customers to open up their wallets can be a big sticking point.


Since the broader economic/political discussion seems unavoidable, I generally agree with what you have said Bill though sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.



-Andrew


EDIT: Fixed some spelling errors. Sure there are more.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 7, 2015 at 12:25:42 am
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Nov 7, 2015 at 4:37:14 pm

I don't have time to respond point by point due to my life being in boxes as I'm moving. So just two small things. As I'm reading the parts you're quoting compared to your own writings, I am amused by the number of "weasel words" (old copywriters term for fuzzy terms like "approximately" and "in our opinion") used to be purposefully vague. I use them myself all the time - but the number that show up in discussions of actual accounting "standards" always amuses me. GAAP itself - it's only Generally Accepted - makes me laugh. But one thing I know for a fact is that the more successful an entity - the more lawsuits it will face from parties eager to litigate themselves a slice of that success. So if Apple is super diligent about how it does its accounting - so be it. And if the other As play the same game, fair is fair.

As to the Apple credit card file, the reason I'm OK with them doing that but NOT with Adobe doing the same is that Apple doesn't post a charge UNLESS I elect to make a purchase. Whereas Adobe demands not just my card info but also the ability to auto-charge me monthly unless I opt OUT. As I've mentioned before it's precisely THAT difference I object to. I believe it's a powerful shift of transactional power that puts consumers at a distinct disadvantage.

Let's say I die tomorrow. How many months until my wife recovers from her grief and jumps through the hoops to turn off my photo subscription money drain? I'm positive that's not Adobes overt intent with the subscription switch - but it is one tiny exemplar of the consumer hostility of the model. Opt-out is crap. I still get "emails" and "tweets" from a friend I served with on a charity board of directors - and he tragically died four years ago! His linkage to auto triggered actions have out-lived him! Allowing auto draws from my checking account to anything even vaguely like that? No thank you.

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 2, 2015 at 5:45:32 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Could Adobe do the same thing Avid is doing? Yes, though I think it would be significantly more difficult for Adobe to pull it off because they offer so many more programs than what Avid is offering."

I honestly think you guys are way overthinking this. ;)

As I pointed out in another thread, all Adobe has to do is apply the Acrobat DC model to the rest of their creative applications. Or they could do what Avid is doing, or maybe get creative and invent something new. Choice would not be rocket science *if* they wanted to offer it.

_______________________
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

Tim Wilson
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 2, 2015 at 5:46:49 pm
Last Edited By Tim Wilson on Nov 2, 2015 at 6:42:30 pm

[David Lawrence] "Or they could do what Avid is doing, or maybe get creative and invent something new. Choice would not be rocket science *if* they wanted to offer it."

Yes.

With one major note, to underscore why Senator Sarbanes, Representative Oxley and I were invoked: Avid does NOT apply subscription dollars toward discounted purchase, rent to own, or any of the other ideas implied in words like "off ramp."

That is ALL I was talking about, and the only part of the subscription-purchase matrix that I think Sarbox applies to. Certainly the only area to which I referred. VERY VERY NARROW.


[Okay, I came back and deleted a whole chunk of stuff that I meant to come off humorously that in retrospect sounded way snarkier than I intended, and not funny at all. Apologies.

The short version: the subscription-free Google will confirm the baselessness of any suggestion that there haven't been scores of convictions under Sarbox, and that corporatist America hasn't been fighting this tooth and nail. There have been, and they are.]



To circle back to my agreement with David's point, and my reiterating the narrowness of what appears to me to be the applicability of Sarbox in this context, I'll point you to Avid.

Anybody remember what got them booted off the stock exchange? A disagreement with the SEC over the distinction between a bug fix and a new feature. Avid had to hand re-cipher 5 million transactions...but ONLY for customers who were NOT on service contracts. Anyone on a contract, there was no problem.

Avid's solution from then out: service contracts, or no upgrades. Your choice.

Net effect: subscribe until you're ready to buy. No discounts, no transfers, no off-ramps. True for Avid, true for anyone else....

....aside from a few theoretical, honestly not very realistic scenarios I described in forum where this is only slightly more on topic. LOL



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 18, 2015 at 6:20:30 am
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Nov 18, 2015 at 6:28:39 am

[Tim Wilson] "The short version: the subscription-free Google will confirm the baselessness of any suggestion that there haven't been scores of convictions under Sarbox, and that corporatist America hasn't been fighting this tooth and nail. There have been, and they are.]"

Sure they fight it. It's inconvienient Tim. But I still contend that even if there's been 100 cases - it doesn't really do anything but require executive types to find a new way to shuffle the same old papers.

Karen Seymore who was chief of the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan noted in 2012... after 10 YEARS of SOX!

"But in practice, exceedingly few defendants have even been charged with false certification, and fewer still have been convicted. The most notorious SOX criminal case, against former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, ended in an acquittal in 2005. In 2007, the former CFO of a medical equipment financing company called DVI pleaded guilty to mail fraud and false certification and was sentenced to 30 months in prison. In a more recent case, a SOX false certification charge against former Vitesse CEO Louis Tomasetta was dismissed. (Tomasetta’s trial on other charges ended in a mistrial in April.) The Justice Department doesn’t directly track Sarbanes-Oxley prosecutions, so there may be another case here or there. Even four or five SOX criminal cases in 10 years, though, makes them as rare as a blue moon."

We have tens of thousands of corporations operating out there.

And a VIOLATION of the act requires someone to prove you KNOWINGLY falsified reporting.

So sorry, but I SOX regulation can be seen as the really having much to do with the primary REASON Adobe went subscription. Maybe it was one small factor. But the reason? Hardly, I think.

Subscription is a better profit model. Period. And that would be fine. Except the way it generates profit is PRIMARILY shifting to an opt out payments system where inattention, illness, theft, vacation, fire, cataclysm or ANYTHING else that arrives to interrupt your daily life will still NOT interrupt the agreed to monthly auto-draw. As I've said time and time again - a shift from deciding to SPEND money - to being required to decide NOT to spend money - is a HUGE deal.

THAT is why it's popping up everywhere. Heck, today I went to a new CarWash in my new neighborhood. Seemed like a nice place. At the entrance where you put your credit card into the payment slot there were guys in red shirts "helping" us to use the system. Guess what they were hawking? Yep. Sign up for a Monthly Car Wash SUBSCRIPTION! Only $16 bucks a month and you get UNLIMITED car washes! - just OK the monthly auto-draw by signing right here and NEVER worry about having a clean car again!!!

For a brief moment I thought about explaining that when I'm on a big project months might go by where I hardly leave the house - and my garaged car stays clean enough. But then I just sighed and politely declined.

The "carwash subscription" sales guy seemed bummed.

Again, it's TOTALLY possibly to do subscriptions ethically and in a customer friendly environment. Just make it as easy to unsubscribe as it is to subscribe = and code in a mechanism that allows the content creator unfettered access to their own creative work done via the software - permanently. Then I'm fine with it

FWIW.



.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 18, 2015 at 8:47:49 am

[Bill Davis] "So sorry, but I SOX regulation can be seen as the really having much to do with the primary REASON Adobe went subscription. Maybe it was one small factor. But the reason? Hardly, I think."

To the best of my knowledge no one (outside of making a straw man argument) has stated the SOX forced Adobe to do what it did or that SOX was the primary reason Adobe went CC only.

The decision to go CC only was multifaceted and the point of brining up SOX and accounting is to shed light on why Adobe can do some things but not others after going CC. For example, Adobe can offer much more specific product roadmaps and release feature upgrades whenever they want** now that they offer just a subscription. One thing they apparently can't do (and I wish they could) is offer some sort of loyalty 'buy out' option (ex. after X amount of years of subscribing you get a perpetual license for whatever version you currently have). As Tim has pointed out this 'rent-to-own' option can't work accounting wise which would help explain why Avid offers two paths (maintenance contract or subscription) that never intersect.

I think Adobe's main goals were to become more nimble (more frequent feature upgrades), branch out into services that their competitors lack (Cloud storage, BeHance, the marketplace, etc.,), and generate a more reliable revenue stream. For example, I think when CS 5 came out Adobe announced that they were going to a 12mo cycle, as opposed to an 18-24mo cycle, and that upgrade discounts would only be applicable if you were upgrading from the previous year. So, basically, if you skip a version (skip a year) then you have to pay full price. Presumably this would motivate a lot more people to upgrade every (more steady revenue stream), and make Adobe a bit more nimble (shorter release cycle) but it could also piss people off, it wouldn't solve the problem of people that are okay skipping multiple versions, and even feature upgrades once a year might not feel fast enough for users that are increasing exposed to software upgrades multiple times a year.

As I mentioned in another post ( https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/85551 ) Adobe could have technically gone a similar route as Avid, but given the number of Adobe products I don't think it would be very practical.

On a related note, if the product teams are to be believed then life under the CC model is an improvement for them as well. They are allowed to communicate more openly with customers, spend more time responding to users requests, and there is less emphasis on upgrades that 'demo well.'


Coming back to the accounting rules, if it the accounting rules were total BS why would Apple charge for a software update that activated a WiFi radio and why would Avid tank it's stock by not submitting required paperwork to the SEC and get delisted from NASDAQ? Maybe there are so few issues with SOX cases because doing the accounting wrong and hoping not to get caught is more trouble than just doing it right in the first place? Maybe someone with ethics is running the accounting department? Maybe the investor class as a whole doesn't take too kindly to massive companies losing 76% of their stock value overnight (see WorldCom) and that puts non-governmental pressure on companies to not cook the books the way Enron did?

[Bill Davis] "Just make it as easy to unsubscribe as it is to subscribe = and code in a mechanism that allows the content creator unfettered access to their own creative work done via the software - permanently. Then I'm fine with it"

I agree that signing off should be as easy as signing up though I'm obviously not as averse to it as you are. My major complaint with Adobe CC, which I have voiced many times before, is that I don't feel like there are enough Cloud/service offerings. I'm still waiting for the, "Yup, there's no way in hell they could've done something this awesome and useful under the old CS business model" moment. There have been a lot of improvements to existing products, but I still think Adobe CC, as a concept, is still missing its killer app.


**Yes, Adobe could try to figure out a way to determine fair market value to every feature upgrade and withhold accounting that amount of revenue from every perpetual license sale until the feature upgrade is released, but the logistics of that for a company with as many product as Adobe has just doesn't seem viable at all.


P.S. Wrote this piecemeal while working so apologies if it is a bit scatter brained.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 3, 2015 at 1:22:09 am

[David Lawrence] "As I pointed out in another thread, all Adobe has to do is apply the Acrobat DC model to the rest of their creative applications. Or they could do what Avid is doing, or maybe get creative and invent something new. Choice would not be rocket science *if* they wanted to offer it."

Or not, (see linked thread for my previous response).

All companies fail to offer choices that would suit all potential customers. I'd be happier with Apple if they offered more choices on a number of fronts, but they don't so I shop elsewhere. C'est la vie.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 17, 2015 at 3:58:42 am

For anyone looking for yet another example/illustration of SOX here is one from Walter from another thread:
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/378/11382

[Walter Soyka] "SOX doesn't care what you charge for a sale. It cares when you put that sale on your books.

SOX is accounting regulation, and the key element we discuss here is about revenue recognition: specifically, when can a company say they've earned revenue on a sale?

Let's put software aside for a moment, discuss a different example. Let's say a company's business is trading complex energy contracts. Under previous accounting rules, they could have made the unexpected choice to use mark-to-market accounting, which would allow them to show the net future cash flow of a contract as its current value today.

The idea behind mark-to-market is to try fairly indicate the value of something on your books by "marking it market" or declaring it's worth what you could sell it for on the market. However, when misused (such as in cases of highly complex contracts that are difficult to value or actually liquidate), mark-to-market lets you count unrealized, future profits as if they were real and current on your books.

This method of accounting, thus misused in conjunction with a complex business model and some other accounting tricks, is highly misleading to investors. Reviewing a company's books would show lots of healthy revenue from trading activity, not lots of dangerous liability from risky contracts. Sprinkle a little fraud on top, and you can completely misrepresent your business to investors.

This was the basis for the Enron accounting scandal, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 sought to make sure Enron could never happen again. SOX is meant to make a company's accounting more transparent to prospective investors.

To address the above scenario, SOX prohibits the recognition of current revenue for the future delivery of some value. In software, that means that if you deliver software today, but then improve the software later, you may not recognize the full value of the software sale right now. You must leave some of that value on your balance sheet as a deferred revenue liability, even if you've already collected the cash, until the value you charged for is realized. Otherwise, you are essentially able to count future profits today instead of tomorrow.
"


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Oct 31, 2015 at 9:07:50 am

I'm with you John. Not a fan of the 'subscription' only approach. I have found the same
alternatives as you, although I'd add Resolve 12 to the mix, as well as my old
versions of CS6 if needed. If it works for someone, knock yourself out,
I sure am not going to support the 'software as a subscription' thing....

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Oct 31, 2015 at 10:06:01 am

To be honest I don't care about the cost, it's no more of an issue than paying my mobile phone bill, however Adobe aren't doing themselves any favours by adopting the subscription only approach, but for the me the cost is low and I'm getting value back from my subscription.

However if the price goes up substantially, or the development pace slows considerably then I would reconsider.


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Oct 31, 2015 at 11:47:32 am
Last Edited By Mathieu Ghekiere on Oct 31, 2015 at 11:56:28 am

I also made my computers Adobe-free.

At the job where I freelance, we have CC subscriptions, mainly for Photoshop because for the rest we also work with FCPX-Motion-Compressor, and it works well.

CS5.5 didn't work very fast on newer operating systems, which was the last version I had personally. And all my editing has been in FCPX anyway. So the only things I really miss was Photoshop, but I now use Pixelmator and don't really miss Photoshop. Maybe looking an eye out for Affinity Photo. I never used After Effects, so I didn't miss any of that.
Audition is a great program for which Apple doesn't have a substitute anymore, and I would like it if they made another Soundtrack Pro X, or made more stuff in Logic geared towards filmmakers as well.

But I *really* don't like the subscription model. For moderate businesses it's okay to have a subscription but for my personal work, I don't want it. I like it as an option, not as the only choice. If Apple falls to far behind with FCPX one day, and Adobe is making a killing, I will switch, but it will be relunctantly. And I still love FCPX and it's model, but sometimes I would like to have the higher pace of developing that Adobe has. Their development team seems to be doing a good job.

https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 1, 2015 at 4:57:01 am

My problem isn't so much the cost, but the feeling of being trapped. Not being able to open old projects just because you didn't pay the bill. I have a simple suggestion to Adobe that would alleviate this problem with many. Change only ONE thing. If you haven't paid your bill, the save and export functions are disabled if you make any change. That's it. You can open old projects, even adjust them. But if you want to keep it or export it, you've got to pay.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 1, 2015 at 5:18:16 am

How about if you want out you just can't edit with it but you can open projects and export them to whatever codec you need or to other software. not being able to open your own intellectual property is anti-democratic, anti-free-enterprise.

Or maybe just allow end users to buy the current version of the software for an additional fee. Kinda of like buying the car you have been leasing.

If the company continues to innovate and make the product better, most of their users will keep paying the monthly.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Jason Jenkins
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 2, 2015 at 7:10:07 pm

Dang it. This thread was supposed to be warm and fuzzy.

Jason Jenkins
Flowmotion Media
Video production... with style!

Check out my Mormon.org profile.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 2, 2015 at 10:26:10 pm

[Jason Jenkins] "Dang it. This thread was supposed to be warm and fuzzy."

You should know better, ;-) lol

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

~ 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

Andy Field
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 17, 2015 at 7:08:08 pm
Last Edited By Andy Field on Nov 17, 2015 at 7:32:15 pm

What is the incentive to constantly improve its product if everyone says - "Gee - your 5 versions ago software is fine - i'll pass." They quickly go out of business. Apple gives you a dirt cheep editor in order to sell more macs...if you buy it once - they're done with your software business...so instead they keep improving their hardware - faster, better etc..in fact they change the operating software so eventually your "older, it's just fine NLE doesn't work so well, or at all in the future...and you see value so you upgrade the computer. Or you stay with an older computer and software that doesn't play well with new video formats. Your choice.

I'm not thrilled with Adobe's subscription model, but i use their software to make a living - if you can't afford the 30 40 or 50 a month for that, then you need to find another business......

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 17, 2015 at 7:22:59 pm

[Andy Field] "if you can't afford the 30 40 or 50 a month for that, then you need to find another business......"

And if you think it's somehow a matter of "being able to afford"... oh well.

So I guess you never have to upgrade your hardware, being an Adobe user and all.

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 17, 2015 at 7:35:05 pm

i upgrade it all - every minute the better software or hardware saves us, the more profitable our time is. When you stop paying for the "software" on your phone through your provider you no longer have access to the service, your voice mail ..the internet etc...... That's a subscription model I get that you don't like it - i don't either -- When someone comes up with better software that does it better than Adobe for us - we'll give it a look and move on - for now - it does exactly what we need at a reasonable cost and frequently value added upgrades

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 17, 2015 at 8:37:59 pm
Last Edited By David Lawrence on Nov 17, 2015 at 8:43:33 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "And if you think it's somehow a matter of "being able to afford"... oh well."

Yep, I guess some people are fine with letting a multinational corporation control access to their native project files because for them it's all about business. They forget this is not true for everyone who uses creative software tools.

_______________________
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

Jim Wiseman
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 17, 2015 at 8:56:16 pm

+10, David Lawrence

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.2, Final Cut Studio 2 & 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC: Mid 2015 MacBook Pro Retina 15": 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro Retina 2015, i7, 500GB, M370X 2GB: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 17, 2015 at 8:56:23 pm

[David Lawrence] "Yep, I guess some people are fine with letting a multinational corporation control access to their native project files because for them it's a'll about business. They forget this is not true for everyone who uses creative software tools."

Fortunately for us all the free market gives us options


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 17, 2015 at 8:57:35 pm

Not with monopolies like AE.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.2, Final Cut Studio 2 & 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC: Mid 2015 MacBook Pro Retina 15": 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro Retina 2015, i7, 500GB, M370X 2GB: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 17, 2015 at 9:02:38 pm

[Jim Wiseman] "Not with monopolies like AE."

That's true, is there much discussion about it on the AE COW? I would have thought it would have been a huge issue over there.

I don't use it much, Motion's enough for me


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 17, 2015 at 9:18:03 pm
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Nov 17, 2015 at 9:23:32 pm

Same for me. Motion does me fine. $49.95. Once. And AE Cow is not titled as a "Debate" forum.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.2, Final Cut Studio 2 & 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC: Mid 2015 MacBook Pro Retina 15": 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro Retina 2015, i7, 500GB, M370X 2GB: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 17, 2015 at 9:49:23 pm

[Jim Wiseman] "Not with monopolies like AE."

How is AE a monopoly? It' the most popular application in its tiny little niche... but so is Mocha. It's not like Adobe bought competing products and then dropped them off the market.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 18, 2015 at 3:38:28 am

[Shawn Miller] "How is AE a monopoly? It' the most popular application in its tiny little niche... but so is Mocha. It's not like Adobe bought competing products and then dropped them off the market. "

Anyone remember Freehand. Better than Illustrator. Bought by Adobe and dumped.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.2, Final Cut Studio 2 & 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC: Mid 2015 MacBook Pro Retina 15": 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro Retina 2015, i7, 500GB, M370X 2GB: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 18, 2015 at 4:27:51 am
Last Edited By Shawn Miller on Nov 18, 2015 at 4:30:30 am

[Jim Wiseman] "[Shawn Miller] "How is AE a monopoly? It' the most popular application in its tiny little niche... but so is Mocha. It's not like Adobe bought competing products and then dropped them off the market. "

Anyone remember Freehand. Better than Illustrator. Bought by Adobe and dumped."


I thought we were talking about After Effects. My point was that Adobe didn't buy and then kill applications like Combustion, or Commotion or Hitfilm to gain market dominance for After Effects... which you called a monopoly.

We can discuss the practice of companies buying other companies for specific applications or technologies, and then subsequently dumping those applications or their user base to increase market share if you'd like though. No one's hands are clean on that account.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 17, 2015 at 10:38:00 pm

mo·nop·o·ly
noun
1.
the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.

Adobe is not a monopoly - it has plenty of competition

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 18, 2015 at 7:58:20 am

[David Lawrence] "Yep, I guess some people are fine with letting a multinational corporation control access to their native project files because for them it's all about business. "

Or just pragmatism. Best tool for the job and all that. I'm certainly not all about business (if I was I'd seek out more lucrative work as opposed to more enjoyable work), but editing does have to keep the lights on and put food on the table so the business side is inescapable if you do it for a living.

[David Lawrence] "That's it. SOX and business arguments aside, there's no technical reason whatsoever why Adobe couldn't offer perpetual copies of their creative applications if they wanted to"

Business and/or SOX arguments aside, there's no technical reason whatsoever why OS X can't run on non-Apple hardware and Avid can't give away upgrades for free. Take business and/or SOX arguments into consideration and we have Apple's DRM preventing OS X from running on anything but Apple hardware and Avid won't even give you a bug fix anymore unless you have a current maintenance plan or subscription. Putting aside business considerations means putting aside major factors in the decision making process I mean, aside from the business argument that I'll very quickly go out of business, there's no technical reason why I can't edit for free.

Could Adobe take the same path as Avid? Technically yes, although the size of Adobe's product offerings makes it impractical IMO. And, to be honest, I'm not overly keen on Avid's setup because of the massive penalty for letting your maintenance subscription lapse.

For example, a few weeks ago I went to upgrade my Avid from 8.0 to 8.4.2. But I had accidentally let my maintenance contract lapse so I couldn't go beyond 8.4.0. If I wanted the two rounds of bug fixes (8.4.1 and 8.4.2) and to be running the same version as my collaborators I'd either have to pony up $1300 or signup for a subscription. Both options felt like a kick in the nuts due to my own mental lapse, but thankfully Avid customer service took pity on me and allowed me to re-up my maintenance contract for the normal $299 rate. Now, the backward compatibility with Avid is excellent so I probably would have been okay on that front, but what I really wanted were the latest bug fixes. Having to live being capped at 8.4.0 wouldn't have set well with me.

If Adobe had a similar offering, then new users would probably pay $2500 up front for the whole suite and then $600/yr for the 'maintenance contract'. This would satisfy the perpetual license seekers but what about the downside? What if you accidentally let your maintenance contract lapse? That's another $2500 if you want to get back on the perpetual license upgrade wagon. Or what if you let it expire on purpose (say CC2016) but you later need to collaborate with someone and it requires CC2017? Of course you can just sign up for a month of CC2017 to get the work done, but now you have work in CC2017 that might not be openable in CC2016 which defeats the purpose of buying the perpetual license so you'd always be able to open your work.


To be 100% honest I feel more locked in to paying Avid annually to keep my maintenance contract active than I do to Adobe to keep my CC subscription active.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 18, 2015 at 8:35:25 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Or just pragmatism. Best tool for the job and all that."

I'm all for pragmatism. But I'm not happy about having less choice as a customer.

[Andrew Kimery] "Putting aside business considerations means putting aside major factors in the decision making process I mean, aside from the business argument that I'll very quickly go out of business, there's no technical reason why I can't edit for free."

No one's asking Adobe to give away software for free. Just the opposite. I want to give them my money. There are many possible scenarios that would work. We've discussed this for years. The key is a fair exit strategy instead of "Like it or leave." I don't think this is asking too much.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research

linkedIn: http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
vimeo: vimeo.com/album/2271696
web: propaganda.com
facebook: /dlawrence
twitter: @dhl


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 18, 2015 at 8:53:33 am

[David Lawrence] "I'm all for pragmatism. But I'm not happy about having less choice as a customer. "

As am I, though obviously we have different preferences when it comes to which choices we can life with and without.


[David Lawrence] "The key is a fair exit strategy instead of "Like it or leave." I don't think this is asking too much."

Does any public company similar to Adobe have a fair exit strategy though (a system that allows you to take what you've already paid for a subscription and apply it towards purchasing a perpetual license)? Even with Avid there is no off ramp from their subscription. They just offer a totally different road (buying the perpetual license + maintenance contract).


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 17, 2015 at 9:24:24 pm

Well....I could 'afford' to pay an African witch doctor $50 a month
to shake a bone rattle over my head to drive out the evil
spirits that hinder my business too....but I think I'll pass.

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 17, 2015 at 11:10:35 pm

[Gabe Strong] "Well....I could 'afford' to pay an African witch doctor $50 a month
to shake a bone rattle over my head to drive out the evil
spirits that hinder my business too....but I think I'll pass."

Just as well Adobe isn't selling a service that has no evidence of working. What I don't understand is most people are happy with subscription services in many areas like telephony, Internet ISPs etc but baulk on creative software.

When I need to upgrade from CS6 to CC I will do it because I can afford it when I need those tools and that is all that is on offer. At the moment I don't but when I do I will pay just like I do for so many other services in life. I would dearly like to buy a liftime's garbage collection but the bloody council insist I pay quarterly subscriptions called rates for such services.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 18, 2015 at 12:10:07 am

[Michael Gissing] "What I don't understand is most people are happy with subscription services in many areas like telephony, Internet ISPs etc but baulk on creative software. "

Michael, I'm sure you already know this but it bears repeating - the reason so many of us baulk is because unlike all the services you mention, software is not a consumable. Personal computer software has historically been an integral component of a personal computer system. Without software, your computer is an expensive brick. The only technical difference between Adobe Creative Cloud applications and Adobe Creative Suite applications is internet enabled DRM and optional online features. That's it. SOX and business arguments aside, there's no technical reason whatsoever why Adobe couldn't offer perpetual copies of their creative applications if they wanted to. This is completely different than consumable subscriptions that only have a single possible use.

_______________________
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

Michael Gissing
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 18, 2015 at 12:50:48 am

[David Lawrence] "unlike all the services you mention, software is not a consumable."

But that is a historic viewpoint. Years ago I read a fascinating book called Natural Capitalism by Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountains Institute. He was outlining that so many things we think of as products can and often should be redefined as a service. An example was Carrier who made air con systems. By selling building climate control services on rolling subscription, rather than air con hardware, they were able to hugely increase both the efficiency and reduce the cost of providing the service by preventing and passively controlling humidity and temperature fluctuations. What they found was that putting in an air con system was wasteful and not as good as passive systems, triple glazing etc. In other words offering a service was better business for everyone including the environment. Reducing waste was the growth area in a competitive market.

So although we see software as a product, not a consumable or service we may be missing the point that a subscription service may prove to be more efficient, better for both company and user and be far less wasteful or inefficient. I am not saying that is currently the case but I do think we should not base our perceptions in what has been 'normal' to date.

In my case I was on the verge of subscribing but was able to hold off until Resolve developed as a viable finishing tool. If I had needed to go to CC and paid a full fee to own it, I might have ended up with an expensive suite that I didn't really need. Just recently two jobs came in that were cut on CC and I was able to work with the xml and OMF files and didn't need to subscribe to do the job. But the situation is that if I need to, the cost is small compared to a complete investment in a system that will ultimately become out dated. So in my case the subscription model allows me to come and go as required for a nominal monthly fee. Annoying if the client wants the project reopened a few months later but certainly still more cost effective in my case than a full buy out.

All that said, we are talking about a tiny cost compared to a typical program post budget and in the grand scheme of annual turnover, I spend more on client coffee. So although I totally get the reticence and don't understand why Adobe doesn't offer a software buy out I think this is a case of perceptive inertia.

One reason why Adobe should offer a buy out option is that it will encourage people to get a cracked copy in the future if they have let subscriptions lapse.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 18, 2015 at 2:17:42 am

[Michael Gissing] "If I had needed to go to CC and paid a full fee to own it, I might have ended up with an expensive suite that I didn't really need."

Absolutely. For the type of usage case you and many others have, a subscription makes perfect sense. Subscription is especially ideal for situations where seats need to be temporarily ramped up on project basis. The argument has never been against subscription. It's about removing a perpetual option choice for customers who don't want to change their business model just because Adobe wants them to.

_______________________
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

Gabe Strong
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 18, 2015 at 12:21:30 am
Last Edited By Gabe Strong on Nov 18, 2015 at 12:26:18 am

[Michael Gissing] "Just as well Adobe isn't selling a service that has no evidence of working. What I don't understand is most people are happy with subscription services in many areas like telephony, Internet ISPs etc but baulk on creative software.

When I need to upgrade from CS6 to CC I will do it because I can afford it when I need those tools and that is all that is on offer. At the moment I don't but when I do I will pay just like I do for so many other services in life. I would dearly like to buy a liftime's garbage collection but the bloody council insist I pay quarterly subscriptions called rates for such services.
"


I think a basic point may have been missed. The basic point is that
it's not about what I can 'afford'. I have grown more than tired of
people making comments like

'If you can't afford to pay $50 a month, there is something
wrong with your business model."

B.S. I know plenty about business and running one. I even own another
business besides my video production business.....part of a national franchise
chain.. One of the first things, I know, is that you don't spend money on unnecessary
expenses. Radio people try to get my other business to spend 'only $200 a month' on
radio spots....even though radio spots have been shown in our market to give you a
hot cup of jack squat in return. Why would I waste the money that way? So while there
are a lot of things I could 'afford' to spend my money on, I don't spend money on
things for my business unless they actually can help me make money. And people
telling me things like

'your business model must suck if you can't afford $50 a month'

are totally missing the point. Sure I could 'afford' it. But using Adobe doesn't make
me anymore money than using FCPX, Compressor, Motion, and Resolve. Which cost
less than a year's worth of using CC. Why the heck would I spend money on CC
when it just would cost me money but add nothing to my business?
I totally understand for some people CC works well. I don't tell people

'You are wasting money on CC'

because they may be working as part of a team or for an agency that requires
them to use the latest version of CC, or something similar. If it works for your business
model and makes you more money, go crazy. For a small video production house that
does end to end stuff and has no need to collaborate with others (like me) it is just
a big waste of capital.

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 18, 2015 at 12:42:32 am
Last Edited By Andy Field on Nov 18, 2015 at 12:43:05 am

If something saves you time, and your business is selling creative time, then it saves you money. The continuing improvements on CC saves me time and makes me money. I will reiterate again -- i'm not thrilled paying per month. But I am one of the people who upgraded each time, because the company made it worthwhile to do so with time saving, productivity improvements. I'm still doing that - just one month at a time. When I'm done doing this I'll turn off the meter and move somewhere else. Right now I can easily move XML versions of a cut to other NLE's if I need want to.....

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 18, 2015 at 1:04:30 am

Gabe at no stage would I miss the obvious point that spending any money on something that doesn't pay for itself is bad business. I went freelance in 1981 and am still successfully running my business. But your example wasn't making that point at all.

I presume it was designed to imply that people are paying for something demonstrably useless and that is not the case for many industry professionals when it comes to Adobe software. I call that BS.

So on your point of not wasting money on something you don't need but could afford - totally agree.


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 18, 2015 at 2:50:29 am
Last Edited By Gabe Strong on Nov 18, 2015 at 2:57:15 am

[Michael Gissing] "Gabe at no stage would I miss the obvious point that spending any money on something that doesn't pay for itself is bad business. I went freelance in 1981 and am still successfully running my business. But your example wasn't making that point at all.

I presume it was designed to imply that people are paying for something demonstrably useless and that is not the case for many industry professionals when it comes to Adobe software. I call that BS.
"


As we say up in Alaska
"I'm not really concerned with what they are doing 'down south.'

People have said over and over, that there is 'something wrong' with
your business model if you 'can't afford' CC...to the point of me being pretty
sick of that stupid argument. Others tell me how 'it's less than your morning
coffee' (which is wrong by the way because I don't drink coffee) or similar
arguments. I say there is something wrong with your business model if you pay
"for things that you don't need. I need to edit together video, create motion
graphics, add VO's, music and the other things that constitute a complete video.
There is no requirement I use something that anyone deems as 'industry standard'.
FCP X is every bit as fast as CC, if not faster, so it's not going to 'save me time'
by using CC. I've been running my business for 15 years, not
as long as you, but I am the only person in my entire market that runs a full
time video business. Anyways, basically you shouldn't read too much into it,
my example was exactly what it said.....

I (notice emphasis on 'I') could 'afford' to pay a witch doctor
$50 a month to shake a bone rattle over my head.....but I'm going to pass


For you guys that make more money somehow off using CC, go fot i! I totally
understand! All it would do for me (and plenty of other small time video companies)
is cost me money. It's not any faster to edit a promo video in CC than it is in FCP X....
not technically that is. A person may be more 'adept' at editing one way or another,
but even then....I was a speed demon in FCP 7 and switched the keyboard shortcuts
in CS 6 to the FCP 7 ones, and it is still faster for me to edit in FCP X even though
I am not that good in it. And before you say it, I tried the CC free trial. It's fine, I have
no problems with it, but I'm not going to pay $50 a month for who knows how long,
if it's not somehow doing something for me. There needs to be an actual reason for
me to use CC, not just because someone tells me that 'many industry professionals use
it.' So you can call B.S. all you want, but you'll have to forgive me if I ignore it as
another person from a big city that doesn't understand.

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 18, 2015 at 8:28:38 am

[Michael Gissing] "I would dearly like to buy a liftime's garbage collection but the bloody council insist I pay quarterly subscriptions called rates for such services."

An obvious non sequitur.


[Andy Field] "The continuing improvements on CC saves me time and makes me money."

Huh? So how exactly do "continuing improvements" not apply to any and every other NLE on the market... only in most cases WITHOUT the monthly expense?? Apparently you missed the fact that the software I paid for ONCE over four years ago has had over FIFTEEN updates for naught ever since? Never mind that that figures out to roughly six bucks a month (and getting less by the day).

No idea why you appear to want to sell us on the idea that PPro/Adobe are somehow following some brilliantly unique master plan that everyone else is missing out on. But then I guess they are, just that there a lot of people that in fact want no part of it. To each his own. Just try not to justify your own decision by suggesting everyone else is a clueless doofus because they made a different choice and lack your superior "pro" vision and business sense. That truly does not help your position the least bit.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 18, 2015 at 10:51:42 am

On the thread in general - always an interesting conversation albeit, the same folks are always adamantly staking out their same positions...

[Robin S. Kurz] "Huh? So how exactly do "continuing improvements" not apply to any and every other NLE on the market... only in most cases WITHOUT the monthly expense?? Apparently you missed the fact that the software I paid for ONCE over four years ago has had over FIFTEEN updates for naught ever since? Never mind that that figures out to roughly six bucks a month (and getting less by the day)."

Certainly, there have been some terrific updates from FCP X (and all other NLE's for that matter). However, I would politely argue that no other NLE has had the scale and enormity of improvements, fixes and innovation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Premiere_Pro#Features

Just counting from CC (not four years ago from June 21, 2011 - launch date of FCP X), I can casually add up about 200 items that don't include all of the small features or bug fixes that we incorporate into any release. And of course, stay tuned, we'll have something for you shortly that will add to this list...

That is the basic value proposition of the subscription - we provide continuous improvement that is addressing the market needs - and as others have pointed out, if we fail to meet your needs, you have an immediate out. As I've said before, the subscription model puts the onus of delivering excellent releases on a continual basis - something that a perpetual model does not.

And with the greatest respect let me just suggest that some of the 'features' that some folks talk about over the last few years were things being added back that were in the previous iteration. Broadcast output, tape lay back and a source monitor are all ones that come to mind.

As always, if it (insert current NLE) works for you great! If it doesn't, you have many great choices you can look at and try (for free).

Cheerfully,
Dennis


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 18, 2015 at 8:05:30 pm

I agree. However my concern is an exit strategy. How can I opt out to move to another software if at ANY time in the future I decide to not renew my subscription?

For media creators we are talking massive libraries of data. I still have a way to play my projects from 10 years ago. Will I be able to do this if I cancel CC?

The rest is just money. Do I want to spend x amount for so and so. I think FCP X has been a great bargain but with the need to only use Apple Hardware which does have some concerns like not having a modular system that has been kept current (MacPro is getting old in the tooth). Adobe software however is just scary for me to consider cause I don't see the long term ownership of my own media.

Kinda like if the only road leading to your home was a privately owned toll road.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 21, 2015 at 4:35:08 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Nov 21, 2015 at 4:35:48 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "I can casually add up about 200 items"

Yes, well, if Apple were to pad their lists with such things as "Back button added", "Preference to display the end of sequence indicator", "Search Bins", every little OpenCL optimization etc. etc., I'm fairly sure their lists would be considerably longer also, yes. And never mind that version 10.1 alone featured hundreds of new features... after the hundreds before that. Most definitely ones of that magnitude. Only not every last gory detail is listed somewhere, since I guess Apple's not into the "Mine is bigger than yours" game?


[Dennis Radeke] "Broadcast output, tape lay back and a source monitor are all ones that come to mind."

Of course they are. Whereby we'll just ignore that those are all features that were added within the first six months of its development cycle. :D So maybe listing those points of all things is disingenuous if not simply gratuitous at best? I'd say you're rather late to that game... so by about 3.5 years. ;)

And yeah, everything ever added was only to get it up to speed with 7. Since, as we all know, X has absolutely nothing unique to show for in terms of features in comparison. Funny how I keep forgetting that. Weird. Almost as if it were a completely fallacious, nonsensical argument.

:)


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 21, 2015 at 5:27:21 pm
Last Edited By Steve Connor on Nov 21, 2015 at 5:29:16 pm

You can judge for yourselves here https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT201237

and here's a wiki for PPro, not sure how reliable it is though

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Premiere_Pro


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 21, 2015 at 5:29:32 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Nov 21, 2015 at 5:32:52 pm

[Steve Connor] "You can judge for yourselves here"

And again, not nearly all new features etc. are listed. Not even close.

But even so, there are 241 LISTED features, yes.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 21, 2015 at 5:32:28 pm
Last Edited By Steve Connor on Nov 21, 2015 at 5:32:56 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "And again, not nearly all new features etc. are listed. Not even close.
"


Care to enlighten us then Robin? Would love to know if Apple have added more features that aren't on that list, just in case I'm not using them.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 21, 2015 at 5:40:06 pm

Sorry if I'm not about to go through all of the 241 LISTED features just to figure out which others aren't in fact listed, just to satisfy the "Mine is bigger than yours" fraction. I'm pretty sure everyone actually using X on a daily basis has found a plethora of them on their own. Certainly countless amounts along the magnitude of "Added back button".

But then I don't measure software quality or usability by a feature list i.e. PR-savyness either way. So sorry for not keeping score.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 21, 2015 at 5:46:12 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "I'm pretty sure everyone actually using X on a daily basis has found a plethora of them on their own. Certainly countless amounts along the magnitude of "Added back button". "

Robin, I use X on a daily basis and have been since launch, I've edited hundreds of projects on it including corporates, documentary, event, short films and even a feature on it so I'm just intrigued by your claim of these undocumented features.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 21, 2015 at 6:40:35 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "But even so, there are 241 *listed* features"

Oh, and just a minor side-note as far as the "gotcha!" point is concerned...


[Dennis Radeke] "Just counting from CC […] I can casually add up about 200 items that don't include all of the small features"

An interesting claim, since I'm curious to know how that works out. Seeing that I can only conjure up 187 bullet-points i.e. new features since CC from that page. Casually or not. And yes, that's including several points I think anyone would consider small features.

So if I'm to take that as the ultimate demonstration for superior quality/usability or whatever else between two apps... oops. Then I guess in this case X is roughly 30% better! :D

But, I fortunately prefer to judge a tool by its practical merits in the context of my personal needs, not by the power of the PR-machine behind it or even by what the most belligerent ones screaming the loudest say is THE thing to use. So even switching the (utterly meaningless) numbers and multiplying them wouldn't change squat for me. I guess I'm just weird that way.

:)


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 21, 2015 at 6:42:59 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "or even by what the most belligerent ones screaming the loudest say is THE thing to use"

Ha!


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 22, 2015 at 1:47:38 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Huh? So how exactly do "continuing improvements" not apply to any and every other NLE on the market... only in most cases WITHOUT the monthly expense?? Apparently you missed the fact that the software I paid for ONCE over four years ago has had over FIFTEEN updates for naught ever since? Never mind that that figures out to roughly six bucks a month (and getting less by the day)."
I think it's safe to say that Robin's original argument still stands. FCP X users have had hundreds of new features added at no additional cost. In fact, I stopped editing for about 6 months this year while I worked on another project that didn't involve editing and so by not being a CC subscriber, I saved myself $300 because I didn't have to pay for a subscription that I wasn't using. For me, that makes FCP X way more economical than CC will ever be and I didn't have to sacrifice continuous improvements to get it.

So...

Cost to own FCP X for 4 years = $300.

Cost to own Adobe CC for 4 years = $2,400.

Savings of $2,100 ... Priceless! :-D

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 22, 2015 at 3:54:45 pm

[John Rofrano] "For me, that makes FCP X way more economical than CC will ever be and I didn't have to sacrifice continuous improvements to get it.
"


I don't think anyone has argued that PPro CC is better value as an NLE than FCPX and no-one is saying that FCPX is not being developed, it's the pace of development that is under discussion at the moment.

We could move it on a bit by talking about how FCPX has a fantastic amount of third party plugins available that could be viewed as a type of "feature enhancements" and even if you pay for these, the cost is still less than PPro?


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 22, 2015 at 4:34:43 pm

[Steve Connor] "it's the pace of development that is under discussion at the moment."

What about it? X's updates have come at an average of three, at the very most four months apart. Some of the most recent PPro updates have been up to SIX months apart (not that I actually care either way or even think that THAT is some sort of yardstick of overall quality etc. either, just another justification fallacy). So... I'm not sure in who's favor you think you are arguing. All I can say is, that if my bank account were being hit on a monthly basis, that's just about the cycle I would expect between updates, too. So I guess it's all relative.


[Steve Connor] "FCPX has a fantastic amount of third party plugins available that could be viewed as a type of "feature enhancements" and even if you pay for these, the cost is still less than PPro?"

You tell me. What is it you need above and beyond what X offers by default? Then you know the answer. But you sure would have to buy A LOT of additional stuff to get to the aforementioned price tag, yes. And you obviously have to differentiate between actual, continuous NEED (e.g. X2Pro) and simple effects and/or templates. In which case you can mark up about an additional $200 on my end. And those altogether 500 bucks wouldn't even get you a year of CC, for what it's worth, as they say.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 22, 2015 at 4:52:21 pm

I know it's one of those tedious "opportunity costs" things that only accountants get shivers thinking about - but basically by choosing X 4 years ago, I can now basically choose a brand new nicly loaded MacBook Pro or maybe half off a nice C-100 or a Ursa Mini as my bonus gift with the money I would have dripped away on my software subscription over the same period. And it's kinda hard to see how choosing what is in the subscription package would have earned me one extra dime toward the difference in the same period. YMMV.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 22, 2015 at 5:02:40 pm

[Bill Davis] "And it's kinda hard to see how choosing what is in the subscription package would have earned me one extra dime toward the difference in the same period. YMMV."

That's obvious, if you don't actually NEED then it could be seen as a waste of money. I get thrown AE or PPro projects to work on so I do NEED it, but then it's billed for and it recoups the cost.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 24, 2015 at 6:27:42 am

[John Rofrano] "So...

Cost to own FCP X for 4 years = $300.

Cost to own Adobe CC for 4 years = $2,400.

Savings of $2,100 ... Priceless! :-D"


[Bill Davis] "And it's kinda hard to see how choosing what is in the subscription package would have earned me one extra dime toward the difference in the same period. YMMV."

To riff on this, return on investment is probably a better barometer to go by that just price. For example, there is currently little-to-no FCP X work in my corner of the world, but there is a growing amount of PPro work, so even though Adobe CC is more expensive than X it's also significantly more lucrative for my situation.

So even though


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 23, 2015 at 10:51:56 am

Hi Robin,

You're passionate about FCP X and that's great.

The go to market models of Adobe and Apple are very different - Adobe with a subscription and Apple with the hardware dongle. Both have their merits, undoubtedly both have their detractors too.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Yes, well, if Apple were to pad their lists with such things as "Back button added", "Preference to display the end of sequence indicator", "Search Bins", every little OpenCL optimization etc. etc."

Well, the back button added to the Media Browser is an added functionality to a key feature differentiator to most NLE's. Preference to display the end of sequence indicator is a customer requested feature and Search Bins is a major organization feature, so all have merit there. OpenCL optimizations are germane to the product and most importantly often add support for new and more powerful chipsets, so definitely important.

Are some features more important than others on the Premiere Pro list? Absolutely. However, how you stack rank the list is absolutely different than everyone else though, right? Eye of the beholder and all that?...

[Robin S. Kurz] "Yes, well, if Apple were to pad their lists with such things as "Back button added", "Preference to display the end of sequence indicator", "Search Bins", every little OpenCL optimization etc. etc., I'm fairly sure their lists would be considerably longer also, yes."

Again, eye of the beholder, but I think some would say that some "features" in almost everyone's list are less impressive than others. For example, on the most current two releases you referred to, I see:
- Improves performance when loading text styles
- Motion Title templates with published text layout parameters now export correctly
- Addresses issues with timing on certain animated effects
- Fixes render errors that could occur when using reflective materials with 3D text
- Restores support for Panasonic AVCCAM video at 25p and 30p
- Fixes an issue that may cause Final Cut Pro to quit on launch

In fact, about half of the above are defined as bugs and not features, whereas the imperfect, non-Adobe wikipedia list truly lists features as far as I can tell.

My point is that I would very respectfully contend that for most professional folks in the community Premiere Pro has probably had more feature and workflow innovation over the last few years. Does that make it a better product in your eyes or anyone else's? Absolutely not. Are we going to agree to disagree? Probably. There is a very competitive NLE marketplace and a number of very caring and passionate people to defend all points of view and products.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Of course they are. Whereby we'll just ignore that those are all features that were added within the first six months of its development cycle."

Yes, they were added back within the first six months. There's an unsaid point here though.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Since, as we all know, X has absolutely nothing unique to show for in terms of features in comparison."

You will never see or hear me say anything to that effect. I personally admire the organizational keywording features of FCPX and its background transcoding workflow is interesting.

I've maintained the idea (publicly) for about 20 years that every NLE has something unique and positive to offer.

As always with the threads, I will give you the last word and wish you continued success with your chosen tools.

Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 24, 2015 at 3:33:32 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Nov 24, 2015 at 3:36:56 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "and Apple with the hardware dongle"

Well, Dennis, tell me: exactly which software doesn't have one of your "hardware dongles", meaning nothing other than needing a computer? Or are you saying PPro runs on Linux now? No? Then, by that logic, it has one, too. It's just a stitch more flexible?

And we'll just conveniently forget that Premiere itself existed exclusively on the Mac for a very long time (along with every other Adobe product), then didn't exist on the Mac AT ALL for another extended period of time.

So… is someone duplicitously calling the kettle black? Well, if you ask me...


[Dennis Radeke] "is a customer requested feature "

Right. Because, as your explicit double emphasis is clearly meant to suggest, there have never been any new features or functions added to X just because users asked for them, only to PPro? Nor have Apple ever worked directly with users to improve X by request, only Adobe? The built-in menu point in almost every Apple app leading directly to a feedback page is of course also just ruse, too. They, unlike Adobe and everyone else, are the evil overlord dictators working in a vacuum? :-)))


[Dennis Radeke] "Again, eye of the beholder…"

Okay. In which case, again, do explain which of the "200 items" you were able to "casually add up", did your "not includ[ing] all of the small features"-eye behold "just counting from CC", if not those I listed? Of course 187 minus anything makes for even less than 200 either way.


[Dennis Radeke] "There's an unsaid point here though."

Oh? That being?


[Dennis Radeke] "[Robin S. Kurz] "Since, as we all know, X has absolutely nothing unique to show for in terms of features in comparison."

You will never see or hear me say anything to that effect."


Oh, okay. Then I guess I completely misinterpreted what…
"the 'features' (in quotes of course... how could I have misunderstood what that suggests?? Weird.) that some folks talk about […] were things being added back that were in the previous iteration"
… was meant to imply. Not the "nothin' special to see here, just the same ol' same ol' as 7" that I thought. My bad. Clearly.

Oh, and I'm just curious by the way: how much actual editing do you do or have you done, Dennis? And how much of that was or is ever done with X? Just so I know what we're talking about here and don't accidentally make any further false accusations or silly assumptions.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 19, 2015 at 12:34:41 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Just try not to justify your own decision by suggesting everyone else is a clueless doofus because they made a different choice and lack your superior "pro" vision and business sense. That truly does not help your position the least bit.
"


Did he say that?

[Robin S. Kurz] "Huh? So how exactly do "continuing improvements" not apply to any and every other NLE on the market... only in most cases WITHOUT the monthly expense?? "

True, but his point is the PPro has had many more features added and enhancements than other NLE's

To be fair they haven't added 3D text though, so they are lagging behind in that area


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 19, 2015 at 6:50:39 pm

[Steve Connor] "To be fair they haven't added 3D text though, so they are lagging behind in that area
"


Absolutely. Which of course means that X would have a MUCH easier time accurately re-creating a HUGE percentage of the television ads, movie trailers and promo videos we all see every day.

Oh well. You can always do it the traditional way - hire it out to a 3D shop!

Fits right in with the "traditional" 1980s style non-magnetic timeline. Retro editing FTW!

(teasing mode off)

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 19, 2015 at 7:12:05 pm

[Bill Davis] "Oh well. You can always do it the traditional way - hire it out to a 3D shop! "

Or do it with something like this:

http://www.borisfx.com/videos/bcc-10-quick-look-title-studio/

;)

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research

linkedIn: http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
vimeo: vimeo.com/album/2271696
web: propaganda.com
facebook: /dlawrence
twitter: @dhl


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 20, 2015 at 12:40:06 am

[Bill Davis] "Absolutely. Which of course means that X would have a MUCH easier time accurately re-creating a HUGE percentage of the television ads, movie trailers and promo videos we all see every day. "

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there 3rd party plugins that use the 3D text 'engine' (for lack of a better term) in FCP X to allow users to work with other things in 3D, not just text? This keeps with the 'FCP X as a platform' direction that was talked about when X first launched. It seems like 3D text was the low hanging fruit feature that Apple provided, but FCP X has more 3D capabilities than that if 3rd parties want to tap into them.


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 19, 2015 at 7:10:00 pm

I don't want to sell you on any idea -- as for the x number of improvements on FCP X -- that's pretty funny --- the "updates" were to get it close to parity with the product apple had previously sold and then abandoned - Apple is in the HARDWARE business - they use the software to entice you to buy beefier hardware. That's why you get the updates for free.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 20, 2015 at 1:04:33 am

[Robin S. Kurz]"[Michael Gissing] "I would dearly like to buy a liftime's garbage collection but the bloody council insist I pay quarterly subscriptions called rates for such services."

An obvious non sequitur."

Ah Robin, you do cause me great mirth. I am sure like all editors that you can stitch dubious relationships together to create an entertaining story. But I suspect you prefer the art of trailers where dialog lines are taken out of context to create tension. Keep up the good work.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 20, 2015 at 1:53:57 am
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Nov 20, 2015 at 1:57:06 am

[Michael Gissing] "Ah Robin, you do cause me great mirth. But I suspect you prefer the art of trailers where dialog lines are taken out of context to create tension."

For heaven's sake please don't tell me you're one of those guys who looks down on the ancillary niche editors with distain?

Movie editors who knock news editors - who would knock trailer editors - who would knock corporate editors - who would then turn around and knock wedding editors should ALL know better.

One of our local big time TV anchor women got married in a VERY high profile ceremony. And of course the in-house team pitched in to shoot edit HER wedding. It was AWFUL. Yeah the cuts were competent - but they missed half the important stuff and it was FLAT and totally uninteresting. Hint: 3 shoulder mounted Betacams weilded by guys used to covering car crashes and getting a 35 second slot on the nightly news does NOT a competent event shooter make.

Honest work is honest work. And I know a whole bunch of wedding folk who can hold their own with some of the so called "professional" shooters I've worked with. And they do it week after week under huge pressure covering "once in a lifetime" no do-over events.

And those trailer guys?

I wonder how many tens of millions of dollars they've generated over time for otherwise misfired movies that needed the boost so that the filmmakers can come back and try again? It's not hard to make a great movie look enticing in 30 seconds. But to help somebody's project generate enough to maybe get a second chance when the footage you're working with doesn't have all that much sparkle? That takes talent.

And if it requires somebody with an ear and eye for creating a silk purse trailer out of sows ear footage - you know what I call that?

A good editor. Period.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 20, 2015 at 2:53:43 am

[Bill Davis] "For heaven's sake please don't tell me you're one of those guys who looks down on the ancillary niche editors with distain?"

It's not about you Bill. Take the blue pill.

I know internet forums are so often plagued by lack of context but really, the only disrespect I intended was for people who take things out of context. Like you just did.

Yawn.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 20, 2015 at 6:19:42 am







Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: Apple and Adobe Software: Together
on Nov 18, 2015 at 8:23:40 am

[Andy Field] "What is the incentive to constantly improve its product if everyone says - "Gee - your 5 versions ago software is fine - i'll pass." They quickly go out of business. Apple gives you a dirt cheep editor in order to sell more macs...if you buy it once - they're done with your software business...so instead they keep improving their hardware - faster, better etc..in fact they change the operating software so eventually your "older, it's just fine NLE doesn't work so well, or at all in the future...and you see value so you upgrade the computer. Or you stay with an older computer and software that doesn't play well with new video formats. Your choice.
"


Well....I'm using a 2009 Mac Pro to edit with the latest version of FCP X and it
works just fine. Plays with all new video formats and does so even faster than CC.
So not really sure about that argument. If Apple had made it impossible for the older
computers to use the new version of FCP X, I'd say you had a pretty valid point, but
that is certainly not the case.

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index

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