FORUMS: list search recent posts

What Amazon Users think about Clouds...

COW Forums : Adobe Creative Cloud Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Rainer Schubert
What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 12, 2015 at 5:06:35 pm
Last Edited By Rainer Schubert on Mar 12, 2015 at 5:07:25 pm

For those who are of the opinion that this "cloud" named thing is loved by most users...
Only a few old world fellows don´t like to rent...
A view ratings of CC at Amazon (where it´s available):
USA: 1.5 Stars (Amazon USA)
Germany: 2 Stars (Amazon Germany)
Japan: 3.5 Stars (Amazon Japan)
UK: 2.5 Stars (Amazon UK)
(Compared to CS6 Master Collection: US: 4.5 Stars (Link) D: 5 Stars (Link) J: 5 Stars (Link) UK 3.5 Stars (Link)


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 12, 2015 at 9:25:19 pm

[Rainer Schubert] "For those who are of the opinion that this "cloud" named thing is loved by most users..."

Yawn.


Return to posts index

Tero Ahlfors
Re: What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 13, 2015 at 5:48:44 am

Oh noooo... That's like 150 reviews and most from people who haven't probably even used CC.


Return to posts index


Rainer Schubert
Re: What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 13, 2015 at 1:40:24 pm

150 or less…
It´s taken as an indicator for what users thinking about…

[Tero Ahlfors] "most from people who haven't probably even used CC"
It´s more interesting that they like to but do not use that CC named...
(especially if it´s that overwhelming)


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 13, 2015 at 8:25:20 am

Hey Rainer,

[Rainer Schubert] "For those who are of the opinion that this "cloud" named thing is loved by most users..."

If only they knew ;-)

However, the most hilarious is that "the cloud" is a major profit centre for Amazon. And if they could do away with anything physical and expensive such as warehouses and distribution, they would do so in a heart-beat. But I am guessing that if you are anti CC, you would not know what a Kindle is? That thing that Amazon normally tried to get you to purchase first, which is their version of what "iPhone/iPad is to iTunes".

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 13, 2015 at 1:10:16 pm
Last Edited By Rainer Schubert on Mar 13, 2015 at 1:54:54 pm

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] ""the cloud""
You mean Amazons cloud. Which means it is more a online-storage/-warehouse than cloud computing. Or?
Adobes "cloud" is a bit different.
They sell some local running (like before) Apps, bundled with a bit online storage (you can get for the price of an egg everywhere) and misleading call it "cloud" (which implies cloud computing at the software sector).
I´m not against cloud-business, cloud-computing or online-shopping, but I´m against software as a rental business.
(If Adobe would offer real cloud-computing as a service - Lot´s of virtual CPU power f.ex - that would be something total different, and would make sense for rental - like render-farms)

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "If only they knew ;-)"
Isn´t necessary. They can offer what ever they want - I don´t rent (the access to my files).

PS: WTF is kindle ;)


Return to posts index


Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 15, 2015 at 6:24:42 pm

[Rainer Schubert] "I´m not against cloud-business, cloud-computing or online-shopping, but I´m against software as a rental business."

Rental business, I am not sure that I would describe it as such as you are not physically taking an object from Adobe, which you then deliver back to them. I think that the word "subscription" is a better word for it, as you can use it for as long as you please. Even if you stop the subscription, you can pick it up again.

[Rainer Schubert] "PS: WTF is kindle ;)"

I often wonder that myself, and was hacked off with the last one (Fire) that broke and can't be fixed, that ours have been replaced by a HP Slate running Windows 8. At least HP and Microsoft have an idea about customer service.
BTW: It cost £74.99 and came with a one subscription to Office365 and 60 monthly free minutes for Skype... :-D

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 16, 2015 at 10:43:19 am

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "as you are not physically taking an object from Adobe"
If I think of the access to my files, they hold the key, which I rent and give it back to them.
Not physical - indeed - but virtual & with the same effect.
In case of an typical subscription - as far as I know - you don´t have to give back all you got during the subscription.


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 16, 2015 at 8:34:50 pm

[Rainer Schubert] "If I think of the access to my files, they hold the key, which I rent and give it back to them.
Not physical - indeed - but virtual & with the same effect."


I'm not concerned about whether you perceive it as a rental, or whether you should think of it as a subscription.

However, for those who have just entered this forum: You will never loose access to your files.
Neither does Adobe have a digital "key" which you will be hold to ransom with.
And, you can always create master files that can be opened in other programs or printed out, regardless of whether you are continuing your subscription to the relevant Adobe CC package.
But if you wish to no longer use Adobe, you must be bright enough to ensure that your files are saved (or mastered out) in an interchangeable format.

Alternatively, you can always resume your subscription to Adobe CC - which can be by the app, on a monthly or annual basis.

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 16, 2015 at 11:42:11 pm

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "you can always resume your subscription to Adobe CC - which can be by the app"
As I wrote, or?
You can rent the key to access again.

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "you can always create master files that can be opened in other programs"
Tell me the "Master-Format File", you can save an InDesign Document (and the Application, which is able to open & handle that with FULL FUNCTIONALITY)
Tell me the "Master-Format File", that you can save out from Illustrator, that can be opened with (what?) alternative Application & FULL FUNCTIONALITY?
Tell me the File-Format, that I can use for Premiere, to open it with FULL FUNCTIONALITY (and also the alternative Application, that will do the job)
Tell me what File-Format should I use for a Photoshop File, to save a 3D Geometry, and the Application, that can open and handle it with FULL FUNCTIONALITY?

(For all: If I used PlugIns or not)
And show me the guaranty, that Adobe will never change their documents to proprietary formats.


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 17, 2015 at 12:15:43 am

[Rainer Schubert] "[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "you can always create master files that can be opened in other programs"
Tell me the "Master-Format File", you can save an InDesign Document (and the Application, which is able to open & handle that with FULL FUNCTIONALITY)
Tell me the "Master-Format File", that you can save out from Illustrator, that can be opened with (what?) alternative Application & FULL FUNCTIONALITY?
Tell me the File-Format, that I can use for Premiere, to open it with FULL FUNCTIONALITY (and also the alternative Application, that will do the job)
Tell me what File-Format should I use for a Photoshop File, to save a 3D Geometry, and the Application, that can open and handle it with FULL FUNCTIONALITY?"


And After Effects. Really interested in that option. My credit card is ready and waiting to purchase that app. Which one is it?


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 17, 2015 at 9:23:31 am

So this post is in reply to Rainer and Chris with regards to "files":

Dear Rainer and Chris,

Please accept my apologies upfront, as I will be sounding patronizing, but not intending to be sarcastic.

The main issue for Rainer was: (https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/378/10230)
[Rainer Schubert] "access to my files"
Files are no different than U-Matic video tapes, old type setting kit, dos saved data files and anything else that you can think of: they from time to time needs to be either converted, or "saved in a format" that other and/or newer readers/technologies can open. Alternatively, one will need to have and maintain legacy software and hardware - nothing wrong with that choice, many others before you have, and are continuing to do so.

The word "access" is a very different definition to "edit", "manipulate", "change" etc. One more time: (https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/378/10231)
[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "you can always create master files that can be opened in other programs or printed out, regardless of whether you are continuing your subscription to the relevant Adobe CC package.
But if you wish to no longer use Adobe, you must be bright enough to ensure that your files are saved (or mastered out) in an interchangeable format."



OK, from previous threads on this forum, I understand that this is an alien concept, so here are the mechanics (again):
Part of my background is editing and mastering On-Line Broadcast and Feature Film deliverables for overseas and far-flung clients. Often with different language requirements both for vision and sound.

On the "tape" itself, all "dirty" video elements with graphics, would be added as "clean" video after the end of the program. All sound would be delivered with a split mono or stereo mix with Speak, Nat and Music on separate channels. In some extreme cases, one would have to supply an edl (Edit Decision List) and source footage - although this is not the norm, and often frowned upon by the creatives. But in any case, all different items would be supplied, sometimes with a manual, so anyone, anywhere, can pull all of those elements together to look as good as the original, using what-ever professional brand of equipment they have available.

The deliverables could be on tape, or in a digital file format, but the production would always need to ensure to the distribution company that they could be viewed/used on a internationally recognized player/editing system - hence why they are "interchangeable".

You may argue that to do so, whether for print, graphics, webdesign, audio work, visual fx, editing etc, that is a very long and convoluted way of doing it, and expensive too. Yes, you are right on that point. But for large scale distribution you don't really have a choice unless you don't want to sell your goods.

For small scale, you have the choice between saving all your photoshop and/or AE layers (or similar) individually, or as one master Tiff, video file or similar. Or to keep on maintaining your legacy system. Or, wait for it: follow the upgrade path provided by the software (& hardware) suppliers.

But you cannot seriously claim that you will never be able to access your files again. Because this is not true. Unless, like U-Matic or similar, the manufacturer stops manufacturing it, at which point you will need to return to the top of this post about keeping and updating your legacy files to stay in a current format.

In case you missed it: My definition of a Master File is very different to that of the file format that your original project data may have been saved in. In any case, you have the option whether to chose the easy upgrade path (at a monthly/annual/per use cost) or the open more expensive way of saving/exporting every individual item. You could just let the competition glide by whilst you continue to use your legacy software as is - there are nothing wrong with any of those choices.

Hope this helps?

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 17, 2015 at 6:00:46 pm

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "My definition of a Master File is very different to that of the file format that your original project data may have been saved in. In any case, you have the option whether to chose the easy upgrade path (at a monthly/annual/per use cost) or the open more expensive way of saving/exporting every individual item. You could just let the competition glide by whilst you continue to use your legacy software as is - there are nothing wrong with any of those choices.

Hope this helps?"


Jumping in here - Mads, thank you for the thoughtful post. I think it does help clarify why we see the issue differently. To me, the project files are the true digital masters. Here's what I wrote when Adobe announced their decision almost two years ago:

[David Lawrence] "I think of my project files as the true project master. Any output is simply an instance of the work rendered for a specific purpose. But the project file allows all possible instances and even content revision if necessary."

more here:
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/378/4100

_______________________
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

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 17, 2015 at 10:20:46 pm
Last Edited By Mads Nybo Jørgensen on Mar 17, 2015 at 10:38:52 pm

Hey David,

Thank you.

[David Lawrence] ""I think of my project files as the true project master. Any output is simply an instance of the work rendered for a specific purpose. But the project file allows all possible instances and even content revision if necessary."

more here:
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/378/4100"


Your post have an interesting point of view, which I would suggest depends on whether you are the artist (or crafts person) or the end client.

In the old days of recent, the master was the final tape, film or print plate of which the copies was made. The master was typically made up from a variety of sources (raw footage, dailies etc, stills, text etc). Often, if one was to make changes to master tapes (my background) you would either insert edit on top of existing edits, or if duration had to change, you would return to the edl.

What you describe as your "project master" is in most instances a set of instructions to manipulate existing material. Once your final video is rendered out, it will have no direct bearing on how your client is watching it - unless you hand them the project file.

One could rightfully suggest that a modern piece of software, such as Adobe CS/CC or similar from other suppliers, will allow the operator to create materials that did not previously exist. However, you will be able to isolate those and export them out separately, or re-create the effect on the raw footage in another similar package. Granted: this is not an optimal way of working, but the issue is whether you would loose access to the "files" once you decide to discontinue your subscription. And the answer to that is: no.
Apart from exporting your master out in a universal recognized format. You have several options from staying on Adobe CS, iso export everything or do a one off rental to re-manipulate your source footage.

When that is said, don't think that I do not understand your pain: I used to have a facility that was based around discreet edit* (still have 350 projects in that format + tape masters), which got dumped by Autodesk a lot faster and in a lot nastier way than Adobe CS - You will not see me promote the use of Autodesk products unless someone opens an ice-rink in Hell. Don't even get me started on my experiences with the Sony XPRI...

In comparison to those, the debate about Adobe CC is difficult to understand as in that the other aforementioned systems purchase price started at $35,000 for a basic setup.

Talking of legacy, whatever happened to Amiga files created using:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluxe_Paint
Or remember Babylon 5, the TV series?
Wasn't that originally animated on Amiga - still available to purchase on DVD.

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 17, 2015 at 11:25:58 pm

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "Your post have an interesting point of view, which I would suggest depends on whether you are the artist (or crafts person) or the end client."

Yes. In my case, I'm the artist so for me, the master is the project file. The client gets a deliverable which is rendered to their specification from my master project. All they care about is their deliverable. But that deliverable is not a master. If they need changes, they come back to me and I make the change from the project.

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "What you describe as your "project master" is in most instances a set of instructions to manipulate existing material. Once your final video is rendered out, it will have no direct bearing on how your client is watching it - unless you hand them the project file."

That's right. But here's the part you seem to be missing - that "set of instructions to manipulate existing material." is a live digital snapshot of my work.

This is not a minor detail. Project file = work. Stored in a live, dynamic, form that can be changed and re-rendered at will. Don't confuse rendered output for a live digital master. They're not the same thing.

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "but the issue is whether you would loose access to the "files" once you decide to discontinue your subscription. And the answer to that is: no."

This is a false semantic argument. If you have to pay a corporation forever to open the files on your hard drive, then you do not truly own or have access to them. This is the problem I and millions of others have with Adobe's forced rental business model. All we continue to ask for is a fair exit strategy.

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


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 18, 2015 at 12:07:35 am

Hey David,

[David Lawrence] "But that deliverable is not a master. If they need changes, they come back to me and I make the change from the project."

That is obviously your point of view, which you are perfectly entitled to. But does your client see it the same way as you do, or would they feel short changed if they were not getting the "master"?

However, is there a point where your client closes the project and moves on to the next thing?
Does the project sty on your system for eternity, or is it archived out?
Out of all of your projects, how many does the client(s) request them to be opened after say 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, or more?

[David Lawrence] "That's right. But here's the part you seem to be missing - that "set of instructions to manipulate existing material." is a live digital snapshot of my work."

No, I get it, but I don't agree with it. Your work, that you are paid for, only exist because a client have decided to commission you to do it. In general, do correct me if I am wrong, the client reaches a point where they say "Thank you very much" and takes the final master with them. Whereas a "live digital snapshot" implies something done at a given time, but never finished. Which is fine if you are an artist with a unlimited budget and no restraints from the client.

[David Lawrence] "This is not a minor detail. Project file = work. Stored in a live, dynamic, form that can be changed and re-rendered at will. Don't confuse rendered output for a live digital master. They're not the same thing."

That sounds very good; but in a majority of cases the "project file" contains instructions for manipulation of existing material in one form or another, that once completed will be exported out as a master file for your client to use.

BTW: I'm not sure that "stored" and "live" should be used in the same sentence as they are opposites in form? :-)

[David Lawrence] "This is a false semantic argument. If you have to pay a corporation forever to open the files on your hard drive, then you do not truly own or have access to them."

Once more, depending on how you save your file, you will always be able to open the last master as delivered to your client(s). You may through choice, not be able manipulate them with the original software used, but there are nothing that will stop you from adding, subtracting or modifying the client master file in other software/hardware packages.

You also have the choice of staying on the Adobe CS and continue as is. Or use Adobe CC on a one off (monthly) basis for when and if needed, but currently no-one is forcing you to pay Adobe for life. Neither are there any demands that client masters should be accessible through Adobe software only.

In fact, how cool is this: "Avid and Adobe Collaborate on Integration with Shared Storage to Enhance Openness, Flexibility, and Efficiency" http://www.avid.com/US/press-room/Avid-ISIS-Adobe-Collaborate

[David Lawrence] "This is the problem I and millions of others have with Adobe's forced rental business model. All we continue to ask for is a fair exit strategy."

So far I've counted 10 people (I don't get out much :-) ) who feels "violated" by Adobe's change to a subscription. However, there are no evidence of "millions" of others who are unhappy with it. Even Amazon can't scrape together a 1,000 negative reviews (See the top of this thread). So you need to provide the proof of "millions" of people with the problem, or stop throwing those kind of unsubstantiated numbers around.

In any case, the issue is not about exit, but more about entry. What advantages will Adobe promise you with the new model, over that of the old one? And will they commit to keep those going? That would be my concern.

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 18, 2015 at 12:27:53 am

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "That is obviously your point of view, which you are perfectly entitled to. But does your client see it the same way as you do, or would they feel short changed if they were not getting the "master"?"

They're not asking for the "master" They're asking for the deliverable.

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "Does the project sty on your system for eternity, or is it archived out?
Out of all of your projects, how many does the client(s) request them to be opened after say 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, or more?"


It's archived with all media in a format that can be opened by existing or new versions of the software that generated it. I can open projects created over 10 years ago in Final Cut Pro 4.5 HD in Final Cut Pro Studio 7 and pick up right where I left off. I do this more often then you think.

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "No, I get it, but I don't agree with it. Your work, that you are paid for, only exist because a client have decided to commission you to do it. In general, do correct me if I am wrong, the client reaches a point where they say "Thank you very much" and takes the final master with them. Whereas a "live digital snapshot" implies something done at a given time, but never finished. Which is fine if you are an artist with a unlimited budget and no restraints from the client."

No, you are wrong. ;)

It doesn't matter who commissions the work, pays for it or why it's made. The "master" is the digital file that contains the digital instructions that generate the final rendered output. In analogue terms, you're confusing the print with the negative.

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "That sounds very good; but in a majority of cases the "project file" contains instructions for manipulation of existing material in one form or another, that once completed will be exported out as a master file for your client to use."

How is it a master if they need to add a shot or change a typo on a title? This is not rocket science. ;)

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "So far I've counted 10 people (I don't get out much :-) ) who feels "violated" by Adobe's change to a subscription. However, there are no evidence of "millions" of others who are unhappy with it. Even Amazon can't scrape together a 1,000 negative reviews (See the top of this thread). So you need to provide the proof of "millions" of people with the problem, or stop throwing those kind of unsubstantiated numbers around."

You need to look around a bit more. ;) Compare the number of subscribers with the number of licensed users. There are millions of former customers like myself that are not signing up but would gladly pay for perpetual upgrades year after year.

_______________________
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

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 18, 2015 at 1:15:20 am

Hey David,

We can keep arguing this till the Cows comes back home :-)

[David Lawrence] "The "master" is the digital file that contains the digital instructions that generate the final rendered output. In analogue terms, you're confusing the print with the negative."

Have you ever met one of these:



It is a very common label used on video tapes. Those are the kind that either contain source footage to be manipulated through using a device called an "editor", or captured onto a device called an "NLE" (Non Linear Editor). And finally edited/recorded out to a Master tape. As per the above selection of colored labels.

[David Lawrence] "You need to look around a bit more. ;) Compare the number of subscribers with the number of licensed users. There are millions of former customers like myself that are not signing up but would gladly pay for perpetual upgrades year after year."

No, this is not what you said in the previous post, which was: "This is the problem I and millions of others have with Adobe's forced rental business model".

That people are not signing up have not been proved to do with them having a problem with Adobe's business model. It could be anything from investment cycle to gone on holiday, but you have no foundation or factual evidence for making such a sweeping statement; that Adobe have lost "millions" of customers due to the new model.

If anything, the total subscriber number as of today is 3.97 million, generating revenue of $713.4m, up 52 per cent on last year. It is still some way away from the desired target of 6 million, but only 60,000ish short of expectations. The share price is only $0.11 short of its all time high.

Will Adobe get to 6 million subscribers? With the knowledge that 8 in 9 Adobe products in certain markets in Europe used to be pirated, there are every chance that Adobe CC have effectively plugged that hole. Which means that the people using bootlegged copies are either staying with the last known "working" version (CS?), or signing up to pay for using the new improved CC product.

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 18, 2015 at 2:01:04 am
Last Edited By Rainer Schubert on Mar 18, 2015 at 3:03:51 am

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "That people are not signing up have not been proved to do with them having a problem with Adobe's business model."
Still over 30% of Adobes Creative revenue is from a nearby 3 Years (!!!) outdated Software (Same business sheets ;)
Bought by some stick-in-the-mud, never renting fellows...
So, I don´t think, because some are on a holiday trip…

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "The share price is only $0.11 short of its all time high."
And fell 4% after hours ;)

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "the total subscriber number as of today is 3.97 million"
And the first time, they didn´t tell us & Wall Street how many of them are on a full product - I think, they know, why ;)
(PS.: In Q4/14 there where only 2.1 Million Full Cloud users (61%) - rest are on point products & they had a Plus of 644 tsd subscribers during this quarter compared to the 517 tsd in Q1/15 ;)
When they originally posted their 6M Target, there wasn´t even an idea of an 10 Bugs Photoshop package… (which is now within the 3.97M ;)
Will fotolia-users have to subscribe in the near future, to reach a 6M target?

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] that Adobe have lost "millions" of customers
Lost? Wasn´t said by David, or?
Are not willing to subscribe...

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "With the knowledge that 8 in 9 Adobe products in certain markets in Europe used to be pirated"
Do you think it´s different with rental software?

Also from the earnings call today "and create the potential for higher ARR in the future via ARPU-enhancing services such as Fotolia, and upsell to higher-tiered Creative Cloud offerings."
Ding Dong.


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 18, 2015 at 2:57:30 am

adobes quarterly subscribers fell below expectations. could this be a trend?

http://www.ft.com/fastft/292853/adobe-shares-slip-guidance-disappoints

ricardo marty


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 18, 2015 at 9:08:57 am

[Rainer Schubert] "So, I don´t think, because some are on a holiday trip…"

Go on, it did put a smile on your face? ;-)

[Rainer Schubert] "Are not willing to subscribe..."

Again, you, David and others have not been able to produce any factual evidence that there are "millions" of existing users who are "not willing to subscribe" due to dissatisfaction with the Adobe CC subscriptions - stop throwing those numbers around in that context!

Instead, think of those 3.9 million competitors who are today enjoying a better and up to date version of their Adobe software...

[Rainer Schubert] "Do you think it´s different with rental software?"
It will certainly be more manageable - who knows what digital fingerprints are to be found in newer versions of Adobe software?

With time that can certainly be used to trace the people cracking it, and those using it - just imagine if a Photoshop, illustrator or video file came back from the client due to an "issue with rights"?

Getty Images are amongst the best in this game. YouTube/Google is getting quite savvy at spotting copyright infringements and fakes too. DRM and protection of rights is BIG business, and if Adobe can convert all pirated copies to paid subscriptions, then they will.

[Rainer Schubert] "Also from the earnings call today "and create the potential for higher ARR in the future via ARPU-enhancing services such as Fotolia, and upsell to higher-tiered Creative Cloud offerings."
Ding Dong."


It says it all, doesn't it?

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 18, 2015 at 9:49:13 am

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "Go on, it did put a smile on your face? ;-)"
:)

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "Again, you, David and others have not been able to produce any factual evidence that there are "millions" of existing users who are "not willing to subscribe" due to dissatisfaction with the Adobe CC subscriptions"
With almost absolute certainty, there are Millions of existing users, who are not willing to subscribe… is OK?

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "Instead, think of those 3.9 million competitors"
There are no Millions of competitors ;)
Would be glad, if.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 18, 2015 at 5:28:46 am

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "Have you ever met one of these:

It is a very common label used on video tapes. Those are the kind that either contain source footage to be manipulated through using a device called an "editor", or captured onto a device called an "NLE" (Non Linear Editor). And finally edited/recorded out to a Master tape. As per the above selection of colored labels."


Yawn.

If you don't understand the difference between analogue tape and the way digital media works, I can't help you. Best of luck.

_______________________
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

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 18, 2015 at 9:21:29 am

[David Lawrence] "If you don't understand the difference between analogue tape and the way digital media works, I can't help you. Best of luck."

Yep, dismissal through claiming "don't understand" is one way of c-loosing the argument.

I think that you will find the word "Master" 10 times in this recent BBC page called "Technical requirements":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/production/articles/technical-require...
You will also find that it refers to Digital Betacam and HD-CAM SR tapes, which is "digital media".

Now, I am not going to diminish your interpretation of what a "Master" is. Each professional group, tribe, village, what ever, have a habit of generating their own language. And if it works for you and your clients, why not.

As I said in my previous post: There are not millions of you - go figure whether that is a good thing...

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 17, 2015 at 8:33:47 pm

for my money that's all basically wrong. exhaustively argued but wrong.

I do stems and stuff too - also clean masters, textless masters etc.

that has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to return to modify originated work. that exists in the project file.

tortuous methodologies to stripe output into reconfigurable elements is neither here nor there. that's a red herring that avoids the basic issue of renting the ability to access your master file.

Hope this helps clarify the issue for you?

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


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 17, 2015 at 10:35:59 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "for my money that's all basically wrong. exhaustively argued but wrong."

That is your opinion, but you must have fallen asleep before reading the whole post?

[Aindreas Gallagher] "tortuous methodologies to stripe output into reconfigurable elements is neither here nor there. that's a red herring that avoids the basic issue of renting the ability to access your master file."

You got that right: it is a "red herring". But one with merit. No one sane would ever consider the "tortuous methodologies to stripe output into reconfigurable elements" as in most cases the return on investment quite clearly dictates that there are much, much more cost effective ways to resolve the issue of wanting to do more than just admiring archived "master files".

One is to stay on and maintain legacy hardware to run legacy software. All being equal, someone not needing to move off Adobe CS6 will never know what they are missing and can blissfully continue to use it without problems.

Alternative is to migrate to a new software, or upgrade to the Adobe CC. The latter won't require you to export all your elements individually.

Aindreas: As we say; The proof is in the pudding: How did you resolve the issue of accessing old masters and files?
And do you have better workable solution now, than any of the other ones on offer to you?

Just for clarification ;-)

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 18, 2015 at 1:42:29 am

I was talking about "Access to my files".
Clearly my .InDes .AI .PS … Files.
What you are talking about is: One can save out a copy of that file. An interchangeable, fixed momentum shot of that work (to have a later look on or to print out a momentum result.)
That would lead to a situation, where I have my files and a copy of them on my hard disc.
I didn´t declare, that it is impossible, to save out a momentum copy of my work.
But that´s not the same as "Access to my files" (my changeable work, the basic work I created, the stuff, my clients want me do change tomorrow,…)
I have access to the fixed copy, but not to the (original) file.
That is - indeed and till today - possible for many of the documents.
But at least, it´s strictly misleading, when we are talking about "File access", or?
Once again: If I want "Access to my files", that means: Access to what I´ve done. Access to the original File Format.
There´s nothing wrong with it, when I declare: "You lose file access, if you stop paying fees". (It´s logical true, if I even lose access to one file)
The possibiliy, to save a momentum shot doesn´t change this.
If I want the Access, I have to pay - because Adobe holds the key (via the Apps) and can´t get enough of my money.
If I need the Access continuously, I have to pay till the end of all times.

PS.: (a few posts later) there are definitely more than 10 users feeling violated (change org petition & I don´t know any related thread, where there´s a pro-CC climate without some of Adobes. And also - like David said: There are 3.9 m subscribers (today), but there are also nearby 13 m payed licenses)


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 18, 2015 at 8:53:34 am

[Rainer Schubert] "If I need the Access continuously, I have to pay till the end of all times."

No you don't: You have a choice of continuing as is and keep maintaining a legacy setup - nothing wrong with that.
Or you can set-up your files so they are interchangeable, which arguably for most is a lot more expensive than a life-time subscription to Adobe CC.

However, no-one is forcing you to pay to the end of time. And only you have the key to decide how you wish to go forward. But you will not loose access to your files, source, generated, masters or otherwise.

[Rainer Schubert] "PS.: (a few posts later) there are definitely more than 10 users feeling violated (change org petition & I don´t know any related thread, where there´s a pro-CC climate without some of Adobes. And also - like David said: There are 3.9 m subscribers (today), but there are also nearby 13 m payed licenses)"

I didn't know of that petition, thank you for pointing me to it. However, it is still 1,975,135 users away from the "millions of others" that some people here are claiming. And even then, the petition doesn't actually give a number of how many of the people who signed, have already migrated to Adobe CC. Nevertheless, it is a much, much more impressive picture than the 10 I can think of.

It was Adobe that stated the number of 3.9 million subscribers at their financial briefing. Don't forget that your number of 13 million paid licensees would be a mix of users who have yet not had the need for Adobe CC, or who may have held a license for 2 or 3 products, which have been amalgamated into one CC subscription. So the 13 million can only be quantified if Adobe will disclose how many of their registered users have migrated to CC - I am guessing that we will never be told that number...
(But a target of 6 million users is a good yardstick for future expectations)

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 18, 2015 at 10:19:23 am

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "Don't forget that your number of 13 million paid licensees would be a mix of users who have yet not had the need for Adobe CC, or who may have held a license for 2 or 3 products"
Regarding to their May 2013 investor handout, there were 12.8 licensed users of CS who are not (!) on Cloud Subscription.
8.4 Millions as owner of a Suite and nearby the half of them on CS 6 (which will not held a couple of point products beside)
(Rest on CS3 to 5; Products below CS were excluded)
And still 4.4 on Point Products.
(And, yes, I think you are right, they will never give us that numbers again ;)
As CS was bringing more than 50% of revenue at that time (and still 30% today), you can imagine, that there will be more owners of a fair, paid license today.
(You don´t lose that license if you are aggressively moved into that cloud)
At that time they had roundabout 0.4 M full cloud subscriptions.
Today they may have roundabout 2.5 M (they didn´t tell us how many are on full product, so I took the 61% of Q4/14).
Means: Maximal 2 M Suite Owners converted to the full cloud. Under the condition, that there are no new clients (what they don´t stop to tell us).
Maximal roundabout 25%. of the 8.4 Millions.
3 Years after Adobe cut the choice. 3 Years after they are on a hopeless outdated software package.
And there are still some fellows investing in a fair license.
What kind of facts do you need else?


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 18, 2015 at 10:48:12 am

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "However, it is still 1,975,135 users away from the "millions of others" "
2 Millions - 50 K = 1,950,000 in my eyes...

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "which arguably for most is a lot more expensive than a life-time subscription to Adobe CC...However, no-one is forcing you to pay to the end of time"
If I have to undertake that efforts, someone´s forcing me, or ;)

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "But you will not loose access to your files, source..."
That´simply: Not the truth!
I lose the access to my source, if I stop paying.
And I stick to: "You lose the access to your original files, if you stop throwing your monthly rental fees in the pockets of Adobe"
I can complete that with: "You are able, to save out some interchangeable, fixed file-formats, but you are not longer able to change them in any way until you are willing to pay the key-holder of access".
Or: "If you are in a situation, where you need continuous access to the changeable, original file-formats (your clients want you to change them again and again and again), you are under pressure. As you have to pay again and again, to get this access."
"It´s different with a perpetual license, where you have permanent and unlimited access to your (source-) files without any further future costs"

I think, we should stop here. You can´t teach me something else. There´s nothing wrong with these statements.

All the best


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 18, 2015 at 6:03:26 pm

[Rainer Schubert] "2 Millions - 50 K = 1,950,000 in my eyes..."

Sorry, yes you are right, I was looking at the more pleasing number below the line of approximately 25,000. So we are only missing 1,950,000 to make it up to the millions of "others".

[Rainer Schubert] "
I think, we should stop here. You can´t teach me something else. There´s nothing wrong with these statements."


I agree, as I have made my opinion about files and the health of Adobe very clear, and there isn't really anything to add apart from noise.

Although I don't agree with it, I do respect your point of view. However, here is one product that Adobe launched this week which is also to be found in the complete version of CC:
http://www.adobe.com/uk/products/acrobat/pricing.html?trackingid=KRVOS
My little eye spots something with two words that starts with a "p" and ends with a "license".

Don't say that I don't care for you ;-)

Enjoy.

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 18, 2015 at 9:03:21 pm

Thanks for taking care of me - really.
But, as I try to avoid the Adobe Products completely I do most of PDF-Work with the phantastic PDF-XChange.
(Especially in Print-Preperation & direct editing it has much more usefull features than Adobes product).
I can offer my files through my own web-server.
I often have to transfer very sensitive or confidential files - so a more or less public cloud service (which will ever be a target of hackers or NSA) isn´t something I like to trust.
Especially not, as the owner has to tell me twice in the last years, that my Account was corrupted/stolen (incl. all relevant data) & I had to renew my credit cards.

BtW: I also respect your view & I know that the things can be seen from different points of view.
Subscription may fit to the needs of some. But there will be also others.
I really need access to my archive. There´s nearby not one day, I don´t have to open (and change) a file that´s sometimes years old.
(I have all files of the last 12 yrs in direct access & own (a license) to open these files with their original application, beside the fact, that I have still the hardware if necessary)
If I like to change the software of a specific filetype/duty/business field, that would mean, I have to pay again and again even if I use a different software for new projects. I pay twice. For years.
I know, that not everyones situation is the same. But I know, that many of my colleagues have a similar situation.
Renting is nothing that would kill me, if there wouldn´t be an alternative.
But I can´t see any nameable necessity, why Adobe had to cut the choice. Without the fact, that they have to maximize the profit of some mature Apps.
(Have a look at your given example, Acrobat: Suddenly they are able to offer perpetual, No bushwah, that they can´t do it because of fast delivered updates and all that)
I´m really afraid (believe it or not) of a situation where the pc of a poor man wouldn´t start up, because he has not enough money to pay the subsription of his operating system - if you think it to the end.
I simply don´t want, that Adobe is honored for this.
After all, I still don´t like renting at all. People who buy expensive cars, with money they don´t own. And so on.
(Nothing else you do with your files. If you will not have the money for the fees - don´t wish it to you - what´s up with file access?)
Yes, I want the secure feeling, that I paid for the use of my software. I paid and own (the license to use the software unlimited).
I´m in contact with many people in the graphical business, and I really don´t know many, who like the rental/subscription business model.
There are some, but that´s a very, very clear minority.
The rest of those who sit on the clouds: "I see no way around" "I would prefer to buy, but I have no choice".
A lot stay on CS, an smaller - but growing - part is looking for alternatives.
It´s far, far away from "We like it!"
And I also see, that the image of Adobe had turned. Not positive.

It´s not about the quality of the apps (but may be about service & help).
It´s also not about the prices.

And I really wish, you can enjoy your usage of CC.

All the best


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 18, 2015 at 11:02:30 pm

[Rainer Schubert] "Have a look at your given example, Acrobat: Suddenly they are able to offer perpetual, No bushwah, that they can´t do it because of fast delivered updates and all that"

Yes, I thought that you might find that interesting. Who knows, it may be a trial, or a continuation of a service to a market such as legal, accountancy and financial firms that could be more likely to buy a license, rather than renting. Also, Acrobat is a great product - I love it, but it does not have a natural fit with any of the other CC tools.

[Rainer Schubert] "I´m really afraid (believe it or not) of a situation where the pc of a poor man wouldn´t start up, because he has not enough money to pay the subsription of his operating system - if you think it to the end."

That is a fair point that I am sure many would suffer from, as the business of media is notorious for its low wages and late payments. Haven't asked, but on compassionate grounds I would imagine that Adobe would be considering giving anyone a grace period. However, with more and more users, there may even be a local colleague or college who would offer time on their workstation - this is all speculation, but worth considering should a situation of destitute arise.

[Rainer Schubert] "Yes, I want the secure feeling, that I paid for the use of my software. I paid and own (the license to use the software unlimited)."

I wonder what the one-off cost would be for a life-time subscription? This is quite normal with a number of membership organisations to provide, so why not Adobe? Has anyone asked that question? And if offered, would you consider it?

Just thinking out loud...

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 19, 2015 at 10:53:59 am

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "but it does not have a natural fit with any of the other CC tools"
That´s because it seems you are doing more video & web, I think.
In print & graphics the PDF format is essential.
Most documents, given to printing companies, are PDFs - not the original files.
Adobe is holding nearby a monopoly here.
And many - often very expensive - workflows are build around PDF.
But competition grew last years.

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "And if offered, would you consider it?"
If I were 20 yrs old, yes. 40 may be. 60 not.
Even if I would - I would prefer the traditional perpetual.
That´s also because I can sell it & give it away if not longer needed.
But it would be more appealing than the monthly fee.

All the best


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Access to files (For Rainer & Chris)
on Mar 18, 2015 at 11:01:54 am
Last Edited By Rainer Schubert on Mar 18, 2015 at 11:06:31 am

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "(But a target of 6 million users is a good yardstick for future expectations)"
Don´t know, if you checked, that the last Quarter was the first after the Choice Cut, where the number of subscribers was clearly below the Quarter before.
Means: It may be the point of change & it will need a more aggressive behavior, to bring the users into the cloud.
They can´t give discounts to the end of all times (only for a short time… 3 yrs now…).
If you think of, that there are only roundabout 2,5 M full product users, 6 M is a hard target.
Not impossible to reach, but…
With point products (10 bugs PS subscriptions), maybe…
(And only if competition will not grow. Affinitys Photo - f. e. - would be a hard competition for the PS Community, if the bring it to Windows)
Adobe did enormous efforts at the enterprise customers to bring them into the clouds (and I think a lot of these customers are within the 2.5 M).
To my expectations it will be much harder to bring individual users into this business model.


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 16, 2015 at 11:52:34 pm

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "However, for those who have just entered this forum: You will never loose access to your files."

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "And, you can always create master files that can be opened in other programs or printed out, regardless of whether you are continuing your subscription to the relevant Adobe CC package."

Simply untrue for specific programs in the Adobe collection. Even Adobe no longer claims this to be the case.


Return to posts index

Joe Chow
Re: What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 14, 2015 at 1:33:42 pm

I'm usually mildly amused by the posts on this forum because much as though I dislike the idea of renting software, I am a CC subscriber and I occasionally check in to see why others might be disgruntled as well. This post, however, takes the cake. Why would anyone go to Amazon to seek out bad reviews about Adobe CC? Usually, I'd go to Amazon to see reviews of products I want to purchase FROM AMAZON!!! And to draw negative conclusions from just over 200 reviews total from 4 highly industrialized nations of a product that's being used by reportedly consumers reaching 7 digits?
You need to get a job, sir, or at least make better use of your time.
I use CC for corporate video jobs at which I don't quite work full-time. In about 18 months of subscription, it's brought in over US$70,000. What was my profit margin? You do the math, like you should have before you posted your "findings". So no, I'm not crazy about renting software, but when I have to, it does the job.



Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 14, 2015 at 7:05:06 pm

fine for you. but if you read money is not the reason behind most of the post here.

ricardo marty


Return to posts index

Joe Chow
Re: What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 14, 2015 at 10:14:46 pm

I understand the posts on this forum seem in general to be about creative integrity vs the corrupting reach of corporate greed as represented by Adobe CC's subscription model. However, the feeble data cited by this particular thread for or against just stretches the "debate" to ludicrous proportions.



Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 15, 2015 at 5:49:57 pm

Some of the posts here sound like the whole world loves (or must love) this rental-software business model.
In my experience it´s absolutely not.
Most of the threads I know, and also my friends and business partners tell me the opposite.
As it is hard to find any real data about "what people are thinking of software rental" (statistics, surveys, etc.) this was only one small example.
Surely not very representative, but…
I still find it interesting (and would like to know more representative), what the average of population is thinking about.
As you follow this thread for amusement, I hope you are amused again.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 15, 2015 at 2:21:52 am
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Mar 15, 2015 at 2:27:26 am

it's rental as much as it ever was.

adobe have effectively stopped making things and begun tending to tenants. actually well no insofar as parts of the suite have never accelerated faster.
still - apple making 17,000 dollar gold watches with negligible differentiations to the 350 dollar incarnation and adobe flat out callling people software tenants feel of a piece. both feel like good old fashioned social democracy distorting maybe a little bit into neo-american oligarchy.

apple seem to be having problems with value attribution at the high end to the extent that the 38 mm top end gold edition is more expensive than the 42 mm top end gold, and adobe are, on some level, ascribing crap shoot values to photographers and videographers in their own terms.

on a recent verge podcast it was pointed out that, with apple's more whacky pricing on bands at the top end, they were dangerously close to the lethal problem of the object having no intrinsic value.

Adobe are probably/hopefully very live to this basic sense of gravity - given gravity is, in the long term, a bitch.

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


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 15, 2015 at 6:11:41 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "adobe have effectively stopped making things"

Did Adobe ever make "things"?
In all fairness, wasn't those "things" (CD-Roms, boxes, manuals) just a vehicle to put core Adobe products on to?
Where as now, it is all business driven through the internet by the internet?
Which gives those, who cares, a faster delivery and much better pace of upgrades and improvements to the software?

The implication is that we, the customer, wants improvements at the speed of light (or development). And they, Adobe the supplier, is happy to oblige as long as we are happy to pay for the privilege - on a monthly, yearly or per usage basis...

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 15, 2015 at 6:17:17 pm

[Ricardo Marty] "fine for you. but if you read money is not the reason behind most of the post here."

No, that is correct: A large number of negative posts here is about using false and misleading information in order to disrupt a tiny proportion of the market. Although not directly linked to "money", they quite frequently are about speculations on Adobe's share price, profit, CC selling price, share price, profit, not earning as much money as Apple, CC selling price, share price, profit - As you say, money certainly is not the reason for most of the posts on this forum ;-)

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: What Amazon Users think about Clouds...
on Mar 15, 2015 at 6:27:10 pm

I have nothing against Adobe, nor do I think they are full of greed. To me it is a business model, one that I do not and, for the moment, cannot agree with, with all due respect.

To me, the business model, as is for the moment, has nothing to do with money in the entirety, but rather as choice coupled with control. Granted the project files still exist on the hard drive but once rent is no longer paid, access to those files (in terms of opening them) is not an option.

Yes, some projects, once completed are over and done with. Other projects might be visited at a later date, requiring a fee to be paid to open them again. For those have a large business and the resources to do so, this is a rather moot point. For smaller businesses, independents or someone doing this for a hobby, this can be an issue.

Some benefit by rental only but not all. Rental only should never be considered a one size fits all approach. That is my opinion others may beg to differ.

I much prefer to see a permanent license offered with an attached one or two year maintenance program. Yes, there will still be rent but at least there is an exit strategy. A win situation for all.

No offense intended and hope none taken. Now back to other things. Steps off soap box and exits stage right.


Return to posts index

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