FORUMS: list search recent posts

Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe

COW Forums : Adobe Creative Cloud Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Dave LaRonde
Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 25, 2015 at 4:41:06 pm
Last Edited By Dave LaRonde on Jun 25, 2015 at 4:50:42 pm

Author’s Note: The following was posted on the Adobe web site at 7:17 PM CDT on June 25, 2015. Minor changes have been made so it makes sense here on the COW.

Sometimes you just have to giggle at the corporate mindset, y’know?

The following was very recently posted on Adobe’s After Effects user forum by the good Mr. Kevin Monahan, doubtlessly a fine gent:

“By default, when you install a CC 2015 version of an application using the Creative Cloud desktop utility, previous versions of that application will be uninstalled, leaving only the most recent version. If you want to retain these previous versions, then you need to deselect the Remove Old Versions option in the Advanced Options section of the updater interface. See this page for details and a screenshot of the relevant interface item. See this blog post for details” (blah, blah, blah)

The above-mentioned blog post by Mr. Todd Kopriva, another fine gent, goes into detail on how to keep the old applications (you un-check a check box), and the reasons why you might want to keep them.

From this message, I infer that Adobe might have gotten a couple-three complaints that the new install automatically aces out the previous versions. Perhaps more than a couple-three. Perhaps a boatload. Who knows.

You see Adobe’s response to the complaints in bold italics above. But you have to wonder: if it’s such a big deal to prompt an “Urgent Notification” at the top of a forum page and an explanatory post by Mr. After Effects Himself – who presumably has far more valuable things to do with his time -- why did they have to jump through hoops to do it?

Adobe has the installer software. Why didn’t they just un-check that check box? Then the user has to make a conscious choice to delete instead of keep old software. How long would it have taken to make the change, five minutes? Nope, let’s do it the hard way instead! You have to laugh.

Now, the Adobe folks are plenty smart. They’re well aware of the path of least resistance – the un-checked check box – to end this particular crop of complaints. So why not take that path?

My guess is that they were told NOT to take it. I’m guessing it was someone really high up on the Adobe food chain. So I’m having myself a good laugh at that person, the one who thinks like a corporate robot, a federal bureaucrat or an army supply sergeant.

And if THAT person doesn’t think like the just-mentioned entities, then I’m worried………

Additional Note: As of 11:30 AM CDT on June 25, the above post is nowhere to be found on the Adobe AE forum. It’s not like that forum doesn’t get scathing user posts; it certainly does! I think I may have struck a raw nerve.

PS: Right after I posted on Adobe, I took a screen shot of the post. I had a funny feeling something like this might happen.


Dave LaRonde
Promotion Producer
KGAN (CBS) & KFXA (Fox) Cedar Rapids, IA


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 25, 2015 at 5:02:06 pm

[Dave LaRonde] "Adobe has the installer software. Why didn’t they just un-check that check box? Then the user has to make a conscious choice to delete instead of keep old software."

That's the question I've been asking from the get go. The default option should always to NOT change things. It does seem like some at Adobe knew it was a bad idea and tried to head it off at the pass. As soon as CC2015 dropped, my Twitter feed was populated with "CC2015 is here! Do this if you do NOT want it to uninstall previous versions". There were definitely pre-emptive tweets from various Adobe staff members warning people that the default install behavior for CC2015 was different than the default behavior for the previous versions.


Return to posts index

Dave LaRonde
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 25, 2015 at 5:10:33 pm

I shouldn't type as fast as I do.

There's a mistake in the "Additional Note" in my previous post. It reads, "As of 11:30 AM CDT on June 25, the above post is nowhere to be found on the Adobe AE forum."

That should be June 26, not June 25.

Dave LaRonde
Promotion Producer
KGAN (CBS) & KFXA (Fox) Cedar Rapids, IA


Return to posts index


Todd Kopriva
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 25, 2015 at 6:29:24 pm

Dave, your post wasn't removed, and you weren't banned.

Your post is right here, and it has been responded to multiple times:
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1882442
If you have email notifications turned on, you should be getting notifications of the responses.

It looks like the thread was moved to the main Creative Cloud forum. So, rather than your thread being discounted, it was elevated to a broader audience.

I'm wondering why, after all these years of you being part of our community, you still seem to presume the worst in instances such as this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Kopriva, Adobe Systems Incorporated
After Effects product manager and curmudgeon
After Effects team blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 25, 2015 at 7:00:52 pm

Granted, the default on the install should be reversed, from "delete older software" to "retain older software", but anyone who doesn't notice the large disclaimer on the install screen is either "visually challenged", or isn't paying attention.

I would assume that anyone installing anything these days reads the fine print - I know I would have had all sorts of greyware installed automatically if I didn't pay attention (think Apple Quicktime installer, or Chrome). It just pays to pay attention, no matter who makes the software.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 25, 2015 at 7:16:48 pm

[Joseph W. Bourke] "I would assume that anyone installing anything these days reads the fine print "

To be honest I would assume the opposite. Speaking in general, software updates come fast, furious and are more automated than ever to the point that I feel like the majority of people hit the 'okay' button w/barely a glance at what they are saying 'okay' to.

In the past the natural barrier to upgrades were that you had to buy them and then physically install them. Now with more apps being free*, freemium or on a subscription model there is little-to-no additional out of pocket cost and the acquisition & installation process is automated after just the press of a button.


Return to posts index


Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 25, 2015 at 7:29:32 pm

You may well be right, Andrew. I'm going on the way I think...I've had way too much stuff sneak onto my systems in the past to trust any software company not to do something shaky. And I'm not by any means saying Adobe is shaky...I'm just saying that what their default is might just not be in agreement with what mine is.

I may be somewhat outmoded in my way of thinking, since it appears that the different versions of the CC are supposed to play well together on the same machine. I just don't know that for sure (since I'm still on CS6 - although I have worked at a facility at which they had CC 2014).

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't have even pulled the trigger on the CC 2015 updates for a month or so, especially if I was in the middle of a project. As much as I love some of the new features, something always breaks when something else gets fixed. It's just built into the complexity of software.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 25, 2015 at 7:38:39 pm

[Joseph W. Bourke] "As a matter of fact, I wouldn't have even pulled the trigger on the CC 2015 updates for a month or so, especially if I was in the middle of a project. As much as I love some of the new features, something always breaks when something else gets fixed. It's just built into the complexity of software."

I'm the same way. I always try and wait for the first 'bug fix' update that always comes 4-6wks down the line. Remember when new versions of NLEs came out every other year and new versions of operating systems came out every 2-4 years? Now everything is on an annual cycle.


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 25, 2015 at 7:49:00 pm

That annual cycle always amazes me. I use 3DS Max, and I'm still happily plugging away on Max 2011! Are there new features I'd love to have from the newest version? Yes. Are they features I can't do my existing projects without? No...

It's the same with CS6 and the CC2015 upgrade. The new features across the entire spectrum of packages are amazing. The one feature I'd kill to have is the uninterrupted RAM playback (I had that in Discreet Logic Combustion years ago, and regularly asked for it on the Adobe Features Request page. It's the one feature that would probably contribute to my productivity, although there may be a few others...

I have absolutely no reason to not go with the subscription plan, other than there aren't (at the moment) compelling reasons to make the jump. I'm sure there will be at some point. It's guys like me who are likely the reason Adobe went with the subscription plan (blame me).

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


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 25, 2015 at 8:35:09 pm

[Joseph W. Bourke] " It's guys like me who are likely the reason Adobe went with the subscription plan (blame me)."

Finally someone accepts responsibility for this kerfuffle! ;)


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 26, 2015 at 12:12:22 am

[Joseph W. Bourke] "
As a matter of fact, I wouldn't have even pulled the trigger on the CC 2015 updates for a month or so, especially if I was in the middle of a project. As much as I love some of the new features, something always breaks when something else gets fixed. It's just built into the complexity of software."


Another example of how nothing has actually really changed. Software version complexity was a fairly unavoidable problem before subscriptions. And now, with "cloud" the same problems exist, and the same wisdom applies.

From my perspective, thats what makes Adobes latest marketing hype about sending creative ideas flying all over the place so disingenuous. In the end, software is still software. Is still software.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 26, 2015 at 12:42:10 am

[Chris Pettit] "Another example of how nothing has actually really changed. Software version complexity was a fairly unavoidable problem before subscriptions. And now, with "cloud" the same problems exist, and the same wisdom applies.
"


I don't follow Chris. Regardless of the business model (free*, freemium, shareware, ad supported, subscription, perpetual license, cloud service like Google Docs, etc.,) making changes to software will always result in some unintended consequences in the form of bugs. Unless Adobe stops making new software I don't know what was supposed to change w/regards to software upgrades.

I know Joseph said even if this was a CS version he probably wouldn't feel compelled to upgrade, but I feel the opposite. I've been using PPro a lot the past 18-24 months and going back to CS6 would be like running wind sprints with a parachute on my back. And even though Adobe just added a lot of grading features to PPro they have been doing a lot to SpeedGrade in the relatively short amount of time they've owned it.


Return to posts index


Chris Pettit
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 26, 2015 at 1:01:26 am

[Andrew Kimery] " don't follow Chris. Regardless of the business model (free*, freemium, shareware, ad supported, subscription, perpetual license, cloud service like Google Docs, etc.,) making changes to software will always result in some unintended consequences in the form of bugs. Unless Adobe stops making new software I don't know what was supposed to change w/regards to software upgrades."

The implications of CC somehow releasing us all from the bondage of cyclical upgrades and all of the complexity involved is a concept that has been repeatedly advanced in this forum and by Adobe specifically. CC is being pushed as a whole new way to work, not just an upgrade to existing software.

Certainly Adobe wants its "new creatives" audience and its low-information investors to believe that this is a pure SAAS solution when its anything but.

Adobes creative software has not fundamentally changed. Not in how it works, how its distributed, and not how it has to be DE-bugged, to a large extent by its own users, just like all the other times I've gone through this with CS. Same thing. Just now you have to subscribe to enjoy the process.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 26, 2015 at 2:07:00 am

[Chris Pettit] "Certainly Adobe wants its "new creatives" audience and its low-information investors to believe that this is a pure SAAS solution when its anything but. "

By pure SAAS do you mean like Google Docs? Because that was never in the cards. Adobe has always said there would still be versioning, just that feature upgrades are no longer solely tied to when new versions come out.


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 26, 2015 at 2:25:03 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Adobe has always said there would still be versioning, just that feature upgrades are no longer solely tied to when new versions come out."

It's a misconception that has been perpetuated by Adobes new marketing strategy (and also its silence when analysts get it wrong). Many industry reviews and investor analysis websites have repeated the "cloud based software" myth, even using the term SAAS specifically. There are many people in the investor class that literally believe that Adobe has transitioned to some kind of new online software consumption model. They simply don't know any better.

SAAS is a serious new development in how people and businesses use software and conduct commerce. But it cheapens the potential of true advances in Cloud solutions when companies like Adobe try to ride the hype with half-way solutions and re-packaging of what amounts to the same old way of distributing software and then getting their paying customers to beta-test it for them for free.


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 26, 2015 at 4:46:16 am

[Chris Pettit] "It's a misconception that has been perpetuated by Adobes new marketing strategy (and also its silence when analysts get it wrong). Many industry reviews and investor analysis websites have repeated the "cloud based software" myth, even using the term SAAS specifically. "

I agree that using the term "cloud" was a buzz word grab that has caused confusion, but CC came out in 2011 (though it didn't really make a splash until 2013). It's 2015 now and if industry reviewers and investor analysts still don't know what CC is and what it isn't then they kinda suck at a pretty important aspect of their job. Things like Story, Behance, cloud storage, and the market are SAAS. Photoshop, AE, PPro... not SAAS.

[Chris Pettit] "But it cheapens the potential of true advances in Cloud solutions when companies like Adobe try to ride the hype with half-way solutions and re-packaging of what amounts to the same old way of distributing software..."

Cheapens the potential? I doubt Google, Media Silo, Celtx, Spotify, AFrame, etc., feel that their noble SAAS ideals have been sullied by Adobe's SAASy facade.


[Chris Pettit] "then getting their paying customers to beta-test it for them for free."

I'm pretty sure that insult has been levied at every piece of commercial software.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 26, 2015 at 3:37:27 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I'm pretty sure that insult has been levied at every piece of commercial software."

Yes, it's a pretty universal idea now from every software (and even hardware) manufacturer. Alas, just add it to the ever growing list of baseless posturing.


Return to posts index

Ryan Holmes
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 27, 2015 at 1:57:40 pm

[Todd Kopriva] "I'm wondering why, after all these years of you being part of our community, you still seem to presume the worst in instances such as this."

Something I would also like to know. But it's been the MO of many users in this forum since its inception....

[Chris Pettit] "It's a misconception that has been perpetuated by Adobes new marketing strategy (and also its silence when analysts get it wrong). Many industry reviews and investor analysis websites have repeated the "cloud based software" myth, even using the term SAAS specifically."

Not sure if you saw Aindreas Gallagher's post in the FCPX forum about the pace at which Adobe has released updates for CC, but it's worth a read if you have the time, see here

In fact, just looking at one 12 month period (see chart here from Alex4D) one can see how many major and minor features Adobe released for just PPro. Chris, I'm well aware of your stance on Adobe and Creative Cloud, but take a look at that list. Some of those major features were released during a major version (June 2013 or June 2014), but look at the development in July, October, and December. Those are just dot X releases but any one of them could've easily been a major point release. Those updates pack features that would've been left out until the next major version or would've been pushed out entirely in favor of other priorities. That pace alone is an engineering feat! And remember, we're only talking about PPro here. They also updated AE, Photoshop, InDesign, Muse, Audition, Lightroom, etc. Their development and release pace is not simply a "new marketing strategy." One can argue that Adobe is actually delivering on what they originally said when moving to CC.

Hate the subscription business model - fine. I think there are absolutely valid reasons for not wanting to move into the SaaS model. It's not for everyone. But Adobe's programmers, coders, and software engineers are absolutely crushing it right now since moving exclusively to the SaaS model.

Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 27, 2015 at 3:47:43 pm

[Ryan Holmes] "I think there are absolutely valid reasons for not wanting to move into the SaaS model. It's not for everyone. But Adobe's programmers, coders, and software engineers are absolutely crushing it right now since moving exclusively to the SaaS model."

You just proved my point. Again. From Wiki:

Software as a service (SaaS; pronounced /sæs/ or /sɑːs/[1]) is a software licensing and delivery model in which software is licensed on a subscription basis and is centrally hosted.[2][3]

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


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 27, 2015 at 8:57:52 pm

[Chris Pettit] "
You just proved my point. Again. From Wiki:

Software as a service (SaaS; pronounced /sæs/ or /sɑːs/[1]) is a software licensing and delivery model in which software is licensed on a subscription basis and is centrally hosted.[2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_service"


Sorry, can't help myself - I'm doing a University degree and all of our tutors have made it clear, that we get ZERO marks for using Wikipedia to put forward a serious argument.

Sadly Chris - once again, you get ZERO marks as you are once again: wrong.

Adobe is a Software as a Service (subscription is the key-word). However, if you had bothered giving Adobe, and everybody else the courtesy of down-loading it, before becoming an expert on its deficiencies - you would have known that all of the major apps that you are subscribing to on CC, are situated on your work station.

Which although it should be central to you. Your work-station won't be central to Adobe (as you only have to connect once in a while in order to validate your subscription). But as we already know; you are not really that bothered with how the CC works, as opposed how you would like it not to work.

Happy weekend to you too.

All the Best
Mads

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


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 27, 2015 at 9:16:53 pm

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "
Sadly Chris - once again, you get ZERO marks as you are once again: wrong.

Adobe is a Software as a Service (subscription is the key-word). However, if you had bothered giving Adobe, and everybody else the courtesy of down-loading it, before becoming an expert on its deficiencies - you would have known that all of the major apps that you are subscribing to on CC, are situated on your work station.

Which although it should be central to you. Your work-station won't be central to Adobe (as you only have to connect once in a while in order to validate your subscription). But as we already know; you are not really that bothered with how the CC works, as opposed how you would like it not to work."


You are quite literally %100 wrong. Another of many examples:

http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/definition/Software-as-a-Service

And you have now taken the lead from a couple of others as the single most rude and insulting person on this forum. I have not in any way attacked you personally Mads, yet you repeatedly post smarmy snide and demeaning responses to posts that you disagree with. Even if you're convinced that I have my facts wrong (Which I don't) you have no call to turn into a personal attack.


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 28, 2015 at 8:51:40 am
Last Edited By Mads Nybo Jørgensen on Jun 28, 2015 at 10:05:24 am

[Chris Pettit] "you have now taken the lead from a couple of others as the single most rude and insulting person on this forum."

I won't take that as a compliment, but can't help wondering if I have taken that lead from a Dave, Billy, Jim or indeed, yourself?

However, as you are a proven master of using negative personality adjectives in the recent form of: dishonest, creepy and now rude. I have to ask: Do you actually look in the mirror when rehearsing the use of those words?

[Chris Pettit] " I have not in any way attacked you personally Mads, yet you repeatedly post smarmy snide and demeaning responses to posts that you disagree with. Even if you're convinced that I have my facts wrong (Which I don't) you have no call to turn into a personal attack."

I get it, you don't like it when the facts are spelled out to you. I would have thought that you would have argued for why WikiPedia was a sound source of information, rather than start scouring the net for more websites. But choosing specifically not to use examples from Adobe, that also have an opinion on SaaS.

As you started out on WikiPedia why did you not use this entry?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Creative_Cloud

Please allow me to humour you and quote the first paragraph:
"Adobe Creative Cloud is a software as a service offering from Adobe Systems that gives users access to a collection of software developed by Adobe for graphic design, video editing, web development, photography, and cloud services. In Creative Cloud, a monthly or annual subscription service is delivered over the Internet.[1][2] Software from Creative Cloud is downloaded from the Internet, installed directly on a local PC and used as long as the subscription remains valid. Online updates and multiple languages are included in the CC subscription. Creative Cloud is hosted on Amazon Web Services."

Yeah, I know that you in the other reply stated:
[Chris Pettit] "Lets let this particular statement wash over us for a second shall we? It can't be SAAS if you download it. By definition.Here's a portion of Cisco's definition fo what SAAS actually means (Does Cisco qualify as a website with enough integrity for you?):"

SaaS is what any one company wants it to be - Adobe have their definition with their mix of Apps installed on your workstation. And with member access their cloud storage, collaborative tools and stock sitting in the cloud for you to use as you see fit. But the Apps are installed locally. But then again, anyone with "integrity" would have taken the time to download and learn this, before making comments on it...

Talking of Adobe and SaaS. I think that you will love this article by Tomasz Tunguz of the NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc on the 23 March of this year (Note that Cisco is traded on Nasdaq):

"Adobe: The SaaS Company That Grew From Zero To 4 Million Subscribers In 2.5 Years"

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/adobe-the-saas-company-that-grew-from-zero-to...

Look at this graph that is illustrating numbers, which are already out of date with the latest Q2 report from Adobe - it just shows you how fast Adobe have made an amazing transition:



As a person, who I might not agree with but do respect the opinions of, said on June the 15th:
"I'm finished with what has become a fairly juvenile conversation, It's entirely my own fault for spending this much time trying to debate you. I know better..."
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/378/10640

Now, I will go away and be back for Q3 - unless mentioned by name ;-)

All the Best
Mads

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


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 28, 2015 at 7:22:21 pm

Please, a reminder: posts about other posters are not banned in Boston, but banned on Creative COW.

Tim Wilson
Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 1, 2015 at 12:03:58 am

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] " I have taken that lead from a Dave, Billy, Jim or indeed, yourself? "

May I politely inquire as to who you are referring to as "Billy?"

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

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 1, 2015 at 7:17:27 am

Hey Bill,

[Bill Davis] "May I politely inquire as to who you are referring to as "Billy?""

Of course you may. It is one of a number of fictitious names used in a randomly invented way to repel a falsely presented fact - not unlike other information that you may find in the posts on the Adobe Creative Cloud: The Debate forum. Can I also assure you by saying that I have never thought of any your posts (or my own at the time of posting), as being rude and/or insulting.

As they say in Bollywood, I should have stated: "No resemblance is intended to any persons living, dead, or yet to be born or conceived. Neither is any resemblance intended to any type of artificial human created by science, such as a life-like android, Robocop, or a man made out of dead body parts like Frankenstein."
(http://diedangerdiediekill.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/ultimate-bollywood-movie-...)

Since you have got me back; I hope you don't mind me commenting on another post of yours in this thread:
(https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/378/10743)
[Bill Davis] "It is truly excellent news for Creative Cloud users that it has had such a robust development cycle. But suggesting that ONLY a subscription model can support rapid software development and innovation in the modern era is false on it's face, IMO."

Yes, that may be very true. But if you add the word "sustainable" and write your line this way: "ONLY a subscription model can support a sustainable rapid software development and innovation in the modern era".

Then you have a more accurate description of the business model that Adobe is pursuing, and which they have so far been proven right in - Adobe stock growth have outperformed Apple massively in its life-time. And I am guessing that Blackmagic too have a lot of catching up to do too before reaching those levels.

Giving away free software with 3rd party hardware won't cut it in the long run in an ecosystem increasingly based on computer processing power and memory alone for video production.

All the Best
Mads

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


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 28, 2015 at 12:31:14 am
Last Edited By Chris Pettit on Jun 28, 2015 at 12:33:57 am

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "Adobe is a Software as a Service (subscription is the key-word). However, if you had bothered giving Adobe, and everybody else the courtesy of down-loading it,....."

"...downloading it."

Lets let this particular statement wash over us for a second shall we? It can't be SAAS if you download it. By definition.Here's a portion of Cisco's definition fo what SAAS actually means (Does Cisco qualify as a website with enough integrity for you?):

The benefits of using Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) solutions - software solutions delivered via the cloud-computing model - are clear for many organizations, and can include significant cost savings and greater workforce productivity. However, adoption of these services also presents a major challenge for IT administrators: managing access control.

Without effective management of user identity, access and credentials (and the ability to track who is using what application and when), organizations risk compromising their network and data security. They may also fail to meet the demands of compliance regulations, and possibly, hinder the success of a forensic investigation following a data loss event. These potential downsides can undermine any benefit derived from the use of SaaS solutions.


http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/security/anyconnect-secure...


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 28, 2015 at 3:46:20 pm

[Chris Pettit] " It can't be SAAS if you download it. By definition.Here's a portion of Cisco's definition fo what SAAS actually means (Does Cisco qualify as a website with enough integrity for you?):"

Actually no. You are engaging in a logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority". Who has granted authority to Cisco that their definition of SAAS is the absolute correct one? And who is the policing body to enforce the usage of the term?


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 28, 2015 at 4:00:56 pm

[Gary Huff] "ou are engaging in a logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority". Who has granted authority to Cisco that their definition of SAAS is the absolute correct one?"

You're right. We should ignore how Cisco defines SAAS and defer to Mads Nybo Jørgensen.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 29, 2015 at 2:39:49 am

[Chris Pettit] "You're right. We should ignore how Cisco defines SAAS and defer to Mads Nybo Jørgensen."

I guess you get irrationally angry at people who call it "filming" when using digital cameras because no film is involved? Because that would be keeping with the attitude you are currently displaying.


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 28, 2015 at 12:03:15 am
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Jun 28, 2015 at 12:19:05 am

Therefore not "possessed" on your local storage. Acts like you "bought" it yet you "rent" it. Can't pay? You're out of here...

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 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 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 27, 2015 at 11:56:32 pm
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Jun 28, 2015 at 12:22:16 am

Adobe is selling a product. If it is worth it we will buy it. If it is not we won't. The eternal law of the free marketplace. If they can't put out a product without forcing us into perpetual rental, they are jiggering those rules in their favor, and another company will eventually take their place. Does no one understand what they are doing? Here, please, lock me up! I put my creations on your altar. End (justifiable) rant. I can tell stories without them. These improvements could be put into dot releases with permanent licenses annually. CC 2014, CC2015, do you have to be hit upside the head with the irony here? Glad I don't have to justify falling into this trap to myself. Enough pugilism, Tim?

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 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 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 28, 2015 at 1:48:14 am

[Jim Wiseman] "Does no one understand what they are doing? "

They're putting out a product that individuals can either choose to pay for or not choose to pay for?

[Jim Wiseman] "...they are jiggering those rules in their favor, and another company will eventually take their place."

Like Chris' 'beta software' comment, this swipe can be leveled at just about every company, corporation, merchant, trader, etc., since the beginning of time. You don't think Blackmagic is trying to jigger the rules in their favor by giving away high end software which requires BM hardware to fully function? You don't think Apple is jiggering the rules in their favor by (so far) charging a one time price for FCP X and giving away OS X? You don't think the Adobe of old tried to jigger the rules in their favor by buying out the competition? They, and many more, are all gaming the man made construct we call the free market as much as they can until either get caught breaking the law or consumers have enough a start a backlash.


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 28, 2015 at 4:05:03 am

[Andrew Kimery] "They, and many more, are all gaming the man made construct we call the free market as much as they can until either get caught breaking the law or consumers have enough a start a backlash."

Which explains why this weird forum still limps along I suppose.

Personal Confession: I really don't give a rat's behind what advocates for Adobe mandatory CC think, they have what they want from Adobe. (Although I'm always interested in middle of the road discussions like we enjoy with you Andrew or with Walter), but the rest of this often absurd discussion (What IS SAAS????- jeez) is all about establishing a social media footprint that projects a searchable database of opinion on the internet regarding Adobes policy, because it's still an issue for those who DON'T debate it: Subscribe or not??.

What shows up on Google....That's what I care about, thats what serious Adobe advocates are busy worrying about. Not engaging with other loud-mouth butt-heads like me.

Mads seems to be trying to project a certain 'conventional wisdom' regarding CC for the benefit of posterity. My guess is he's trying to skew the conventional wisdom just like I am, otherwise why would he bother?

Other people are watching and reading and still making up their minds about subscriptions, cloud and everything else, as demonstrated by the numbers mentioned in David Millers post. Otherwise no one would bother, myself included.

This debate can be dismissed as nothing but bickering and pugilism, by those with certain perspectives and allegiances. But in the end, what turns up when you Google "adobe subscription model" is what matters here.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jun 28, 2015 at 5:02:34 am

[Chris Pettit] "Which explains why this weird forum still limps along I suppose. "

Hey, w/o you guys there's no chance of a perfect ending. Perfect ending, IMO, being a legit competitor to all of Adobe's offerings appearing because competition is awesome. And, ironically, if Adobe offered a perpetual license there wouldn't be a backlash and there wouldn't be the possible opening for another company to come in and offer a competing product that might find an audience. Apple could probably do it w/Motion if they wanted to but who knows what Apple is going to do.

Personally confession of my own. I only use PPro because I get paid to. Well, honestly, I only use professional software in general because I get paid to (these programs are pricey if they aren't earning a buck!). But seriously, for things like my personal photos I use my old license of Lightroom 4 and for my home videos I'm tinkering around with FCP X. But don't mention that in the FCP X or Not forum (some people over there don't like it when you use the words "home video" and "FCP X" in the same sentence). Things like that I will keep around forever, the requirements are low and it's not making me any money so I certainly don't want to keep paying indefinitely for the software. For my professional needs... that's a whole other kettle of fish and I'm a lot more flexible. My line in the sand for this stuff is just in a different place. And it's shaped kinda like a dollar sign. ;)


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 1, 2015 at 12:18:02 am
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Jul 1, 2015 at 12:30:27 am

[Andrew Kimery] "(some people over there don't like it when you use the words "home video" and "FCP X" in the same sentence)"

Since when, Andrew? Just last week the highest of our high priests Randy Ubillos, himself showed us his home movies at the Supermeetup - making points about how much video is integrated into peoples lives these days.

And had us spellbound by his stories of his personally writing the code that became the first versions of Premiere as an unsponsored personal side project. Back before Macromedia and KeyGrip and departing for Apple.

Wow that was an amazing talk. I hope somebody in the audience bootlegged it. There were no "official" cameras in the room.

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: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 1, 2015 at 4:03:44 am

[Bill Davis] "Since when, Andrew?"

Since people started referring to X as iMovie Pro, but it was a joke, Bill.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 1, 2015 at 12:00:13 am

[Ryan Holmes] "But Adobe's programmers, coders, and software engineers are absolutely crushing it right now since moving exclusively to the SaaS model.
"


Well in fairness, Apple's X development team has had a quite similar development pace (200+ features - not bug fixes, but Features - adding and counting) while stilling offering their solution at a fixed one-time (seemingly perpetual) price. Yes, like BlackMagic they have the financial support of hardware sales that Adobe does not. But that's not the software consumers fault.

It is truly excellent news for Creative Cloud users that it has had such a robust development cycle. But suggesting that ONLY a subscription model can support rapid software development and innovation in the modern era is false on it's face, IMO.

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

Tim Wilson
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 1, 2015 at 8:41:14 am

[Bill Davis] "suggesting that ONLY a subscription model can support rapid software development and innovation in the modern era is false on it's face"

It's also not at all what he's saying. The point is that innovation can accelerate when decoupled from having to also drive upgrade revenue.

There are currently only two legal ways to do this in the US. Subscriptions is the method that Adobe has chosen. Not charging for upgrades is the method Apple has chosen.

Some reasons for their different approaches are more obvious than others. "Apple has other ways to make money" is the biggest, but there are others, with the same result: "We're going to be moving much more quickly now."

And they have.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 1, 2015 at 8:03:53 pm

So very true. By the way, I did subscribe to PS and LR on the annual plan based at a mere $10 per month. So far everything is fine and dandy. Even giving Premiere Pro a try though I plan to shift over to Resolve 12 later this month. I am keeping an open mind, things could change in a heartbeat.

Still feel that Adobe should offer a pernament license option but I do not feel "cheated" by any means. I think Adobe has innovated even beyond my expectations and believe they will continue to do so. Should they stop, that will plank a risk of the subscriber base going somewhere else.

I like the debate here but the occasional churlish troglodyte attitude is a bit annoying. My two cents.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 2, 2015 at 11:45:52 pm

[Tim Wilson] "It's also not at all what he's saying. The point is that innovation can accelerate when decoupled from having to also drive upgrade revenue."

Well, Tim, I'd argue that the much larger driver of upgrade innovation was the ascendence of digital software delivery model - since nobody has to wait for a "golden master" to be blessed and replicated anymore.

It can also be discussed as to whether or not the ITMS was the business case that convinced virtually all software publishing that building (or Amazon style leasing) big customer facing server farms was where rapid upgrades became functionally possible.

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: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 3, 2015 at 1:54:30 am

[Bill Davis] "Well, Tim, I'd argue that the much larger driver of upgrade innovation was the ascendence of digital software delivery model - since nobody has to wait for a "golden master" to be blessed and replicated anymore."

That helps with the delivery itself but you still have to worry about monetization and SOX. For example, I think Adobe and Avid started offering downloads of their products in 2009 or 2010 but the deliveries were still linked to the 2 year-ish product cycle that was normal at the time. SOX problems aside, if you need people to buy a new product every 1-2 years that's not an incentive to dole out a bunch of free feature upgrades between major releases. You could try to sell individual upgrades between the full version releases, but i think that just opens up a whole other can of worms.

Once you have a way to monetize the quicker upgrades and avoid SOX, such as subscriptions (Adobe), 'service plans' (Avid) and/or revenue deferment plus hardware sales (Apple) then it's viable to get feature upgrades out the door quicker.

[Bill Davis] "It can also be discussed as to whether or not the ITMS was the business case that convinced virtually all software publishing that building (or Amazon style leasing) big customer facing server farms was where rapid upgrades became functionally possible.
"


The Internet being such a great delivery platform **cough**piracy**cough** is what lead to the iTMS. ;)

Companies sending out software updates/patches via the web were pretty common by the late 90's but large downloads (like full games or full apps) were slow and unreliable on dial-up speeds. About the same time iTMS started selling MP3s Valve launched Steam and started selling computer games. I think lots of companies saw the distribution potential of the Internet, but many of those same companies had large business relationships with existing brick and mortar retailers (whose toes they didn't want to step on). Companies like Apple and Valve though didn't have those existing relationships/golden handcuffs which is one reason why they were near the front of the download distribution pack. I remember buying apps like Fetch and Transmit online as well as some third party software for a Toshiba PDA I had back in the day, but smaller companies like that can't make the media splash that Apple can.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 3, 2015 at 12:22:08 pm

[Bill Davis] "Well in fairness, Apple's X development team has had a quite similar development pace (200+ features - not bug fixes, but Features - adding and counting) while stilling offering their solution at a fixed one-time (seemingly perpetual) price. Yes, like BlackMagic they have the financial support of hardware sales that Adobe does not. But that's not the software consumers fault."

If you graph the pace of development, what do you see? It seems to me that FCPX development has slowed dramatically (graph starting high and dropping down over time, very much the norm for software development) as the product has matured, whereas Adobe's development looks more consistent (not as high as Apple's peak, not as low as Apple's trough, continuing out in straight line).

Is that an unfair characterization?

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 3, 2015 at 4:35:29 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Is that an unfair characterization?"

Definitely feels like it to me.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 3, 2015 at 4:42:51 pm

[Gary Huff] "Definitely feels like it to me."

That may well be. It was a sincere question. My time on FCPX, especially 10.2, doesn't compare with my time on CC.

Which part did I get wrong?

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 5, 2015 at 6:48:55 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Which part did I get wrong?"

I was saying I agreed with you!


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 5, 2015 at 8:43:47 pm

Walter, we're on opposite sides of the viewing rail (I know a lot about X but a limited amount about the practical day to day user stuff about Premiere Pro and I suspect the opposite is true for you. You can speak for Premiere, and I'll confine myself to X. The big changes in X over the last year or so have involved deep and foundational issues. The Library model change in 10.1 was huge in how the program deals with collaboration. 10.2 brought the integration of a 3d model deep into X (it's amazing what users are starting to do with utilities such as Glyphter to turn logos $ stuff into 3D objects that can then be manipulated in X or Motion bypassing the need for major software when the need is basic.) plus there was a deep change in effects order stacking that has ramifications way beyond just an isolated feature. They are clearly still tuning up the architecture. I suspect because the CPUs and GPUs can handle it at a below customized "sizzle core" level. Maybe you can comment on how the Premiere team are changing it to do new things beyond what it already does, or are most of the changes directed at efficiency? I suspect there are new things. But I'm not seeing them as much - which is likely a result of what I select to read. Let me know. What are the innovations in PPro that you are most excited by?

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

Gary Huff
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 2, 2015 at 5:03:49 am

[Dave LaRonde] "There's a mistake in the "Additional Note" in my previous post."

Not to mention the mistake that is the entirety of your original post.


Return to posts index

Dave LaRonde
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 2, 2015 at 5:17:49 pm
Last Edited By Dave LaRonde on Jul 2, 2015 at 10:57:48 pm

[Gary Huff]: Not to mention the mistake that is the entirety of your original post.

Yeah, the whole world ought to know by now that the Advanced Settings in a software installer should default to destroying your existing software, right? What was I thinking?

Silly me, pal.

Dave LaRonde
Promotion Producer
KGAN (CBS) & KFXA (Fox) Cedar Rapids, IA


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 3, 2015 at 4:20:48 am

[Dave LaRonde] "Yeah, the whole world ought to know by now that the Advanced Settings in a software installer should default to destroying your existing software, right? "

Not what I was referring to at all.


Return to posts index

Billy Payn
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 3, 2015 at 6:39:18 pm

Holding the fort?



Return to posts index

Dave LaRonde
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 5, 2015 at 5:28:56 pm

In which case you missed the whole point of the initial post in this thread.

Dave LaRonde
Promotion Producer
KGAN (CBS) & KFXA (Fox) Cedar Rapids, IA


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 5, 2015 at 6:49:36 pm
Last Edited By Gary Huff on Jul 5, 2015 at 6:51:32 pm

[Dave LaRonde] "In which case you missed the whole point of the initial post in this thread."

To talk about Adobe banning you from the forum when that was completely untrue? Seems like you should be a little contrite for doing your part to spread FUD, does it not?

Besides, if Adobe had done the opposite, then you would have seen complaints about how Adobe is cluttering people's systems with old software versions and how they want to take over your system drive and blah blah blah.

No win scenario.


Return to posts index

Dave LaRonde
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 6, 2015 at 1:57:25 pm

Not so. The new installer offers the option to delete the old applications. Adobe chose to activate that destructive option by default.

I can't think of another instance where the user has to make a conscious decision to preserve already-installed software. Malware can do it, but one doesn't think of Adobe that way, nor should one have to think of it like that.

At the moment, one might. It easily can be remedied by Adobe: un-check a check box. Adobe chose not to. I wonder why.

Dave LaRonde
Promotion Producer
KGAN (CBS) & KFXA (Fox) Cedar Rapids, IA


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 6, 2015 at 4:59:05 pm

Being an older guy, I am used to software updates always writing over the old copy of the software. I can't think of an instance in which that was not the case (unless of course I was installing the update on a different drive - which often didn't work, due to the install looking for a license file).

As a result of that training under fire, I am always wary of any install, and read the fine print first. I also wait until all projects in progress are finished before pulling the trigger on an update. Even major version updates seem to have a way of messing with drivers and other stuff "under the hood", so I don't even like to have more than one version of a package running on the same computer.

But as I said, this is old thinking - it may be with 64-bit systems and massive amounts of RAM, there may be less likelyhood of problems arising due to more than one version on a computer. I would love to hear of any quirks, outright problems, or even successes with multiple versions on the same computer. By the way, I'm still on CS6, but am quite familiar with CC 2014, having worked under contract at a facility which had it.

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


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 6, 2015 at 5:02:15 pm

[Joseph W. Bourke] "But as I said, this is old thinking - it may be with 64-bit systems and massive amounts of RAM, there may be less likelyhood of problems arising due to more than one version on a computer."

Actually, that would have nothing to do with anything. The only way that 64-bit and RAM would help is if you're trying to run multiple copies of different versions at the same time, and then there may be wholly other conflicts outside of that.

No, you mostly lose hard drive space primarily. And that's usually the way it's been. Biggest difference would be updated libraries (primarily on Windows machines, with .DLLs and the like). OSX apps keep things pretty will internally, but on Windows boxes files had, in the past, gotten distributed everywhere, mostly in a centralized location for ease of access and speed. This would be the primary source of conflicts between multiple versions in the past.


Return to posts index

Dave LaRonde
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 6, 2015 at 10:16:24 pm

Thing is, you always had the older installation disks squirreled away. Very reassuring, yes?

...and they were all bought and paid for, but that's a different issue.

Dave LaRonde
Promotion Producer
KGAN (CBS) & KFXA (Fox) Cedar Rapids, IA


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 7, 2015 at 3:22:32 am

[Dave LaRonde] "Thing is, you always had the older installation disks squirreled away. Very reassuring, yes? ...and they were all bought and paid for, but that's a different issue."

Well, installation and serialization still required authorization from an Adobe server, so just having the disks wasn't enough.

I disagree with the new "default un-install" behavior, too, but the text is very clear about what the installer is doing, and installations back to CS6 are still available to CC subscribers.

It's also entirely possible that Adobe was responding to customer confusion about why they had four copies of Photoshop on their computer, or to customer complaints about how much space all these apps were taking up on their little SSDs.


[Joseph W. Bourke] "I would love to hear of any quirks, outright problems, or even successes with multiple versions on the same computer."

Gary described "DLL hell" nicely -- not really a problem anymore. I've got every release of Ae since CS4 installed on one of my workstations and I've never had a problem with it.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 7, 2015 at 5:12:51 am
Last Edited By Gary Huff on Jul 7, 2015 at 5:14:06 am

[Walter Soyka] "I've got every release of Ae since CS4 installed on one of my workstations and I've never had a problem with it."

Which is why Dave's not-so-subtle attempt to craft this laughably absurd conspiracy theory that Adobe is hellbent on wiping every vestige of software not CC 2015 from your system makes no sense from the word "go".

People have already noted that AE project files don't need upgrading, and Premiere ones do, but that app has changed tremendously. How could you simply with the new Lumetri panel now?

What is the ultimate goal of the vast Adobe Illuminati, I wonder?


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Not Banned in Boston, but Banned on Adobe
on Jul 6, 2015 at 4:59:27 pm

[Dave LaRonde] "I wonder why."

There's no conspiracy if that's what you're implying, just like they didn't actually ban you despite what you claimed.


Return to posts index

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