FORUMS: list search recent posts

2 days

COW Forums : Adobe Creative Cloud Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Aindreas Gallagher
2 days
on Aug 6, 2015 at 9:01:26 pm
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Aug 6, 2015 at 9:04:23 pm

less a rant more a basic observation: mid year, doing mid year UK tax, bit of a holiday etc. My CC renewal is coming due in august too.

Off the back of it I had two days done via an agency for a client that I was weeks and weeks late billing on - I'm a terrible business manager - so for a 2% charge the agency will process payment in 72 hours and wait their end for the money to arrive. So I do that.

The thing that occured to me doing it was that those two days work paid for the creative cloud yearly subscription with enough left over for a nice meal. Say a three course thai dinner delivered. *edit* - thinking about it, I could throw in a really nice bottle of pinot grigio. Best to set the scene.

The point is I can't see how I'm supposed to have a problem with that. And the thing is I even use the new CC iOS stuff quite a lot now. I cut together slomo stuff off the iphone 6 and throw it up on facebook regularly for fun. Premiere clip reads the 240fps footage properly - you can slice, trim, and re-arrange the clips - basically do pretty nice basic edits, then you can apply seriously nice grades, pull the video audio off, run a soundtrack - all that stuff. I also use lightroom now for all my photos. On iOS and desktop. lightroom kind of got me back into photography the last year in a way. The connected suite for photography across iOS and OSX is very very enabling.

And that's leaving aside Premiere Pro - AKA - "the editing system that came down from the sky to save FCP7 editors" and after effects and photoshop and audio sweetening from the gods in the form of audition.

I retain my animal level fears of renting my tools, and I still wish there would be a realisation that I'm not using 70% of the software in the package - but then again I'm mixing it up with lightroom like crazy and there's no way I'm walking that back so maybe production premium wouldn't quite do it? dunno. They maybe should, and maybe are, gaming out sub-packages. There is such a thing as channel subscriptions. who knows.

two days work is the thing though. I'm not sure how I can have a realistic problem with two days work paying for the annual suite with change left over. They're working their asses off on iOS implementations and whatever you think about it (the AE ram preview is... a little idiosyncratic at the minute and you'd miss formal multi-processing) but there is a true certain thrill to see an engineering team operating from an overtly - don't bother me we're trying to fix this thing - engineering basis.

Walter Soyka coined the latte a day price - but, for me, the realisation that two days billing with agency reduction paid for it with change kind of struck me. Also it's not like adobe aren't holding up their end of the bargain. They're unquestionably busting their balls to make this a valid compact.

two cents, said the apostate.

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


Return to posts index

Dave LaRonde
Re: 2 days
on Aug 6, 2015 at 10:32:36 pm
Last Edited By Dave LaRonde on Aug 7, 2015 at 12:10:49 am

Glad to hear some of Adobe's software is actually working.

When CC 2015 came out, After Effects users weren't so lucky. Users discovered a long list of bugs, and many just went back to AE CC 2014 out of frustration.

When the bug fix for AE 2015 came out, many bugs were fixed, but surprise! Among other bugs, meet a nasty new bug in the bug fix: animations with audio won't have an audio track!

Really? Something so basic? Something that's worked reliably for twenty-plus years? Is the code for AE some sort of Hydra where you cut off one head and two more appear?

Well, I guess there's always the bug fix for the bug fix...

I think a great majority of AE users would gladly trade any sparkly new features the Marketing Weasles want to add for an application that just works as currently billed... or at least better.

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


Return to posts index

Tim Kurkoski
Re: 2 days
on Aug 7, 2015 at 5:05:19 pm

> When the bug fix for AE 2015 came out, many bugs were fixed, but surprise! Among other bugs, meet a nasty new bug in the bug fix: animations with audio won't have an audio track!

Dave, that's not an accurate characterization of the bug.

Audio inside of After Effects CC 2015 (13.5.1) is functional. The bug caused by the 13.5.1 update occurs on export via the Render Queue: the audio track is silent for all formats except QuickTime.

We've identified the cause of the problem and are working on a fix. Until the next update for After Effects, you can work around the problem by rendering the composition with Adobe Media Encoder.

This issue and other known bugs are being tracked on this blog post:
http://blogs.adobe.com/aftereffects/2015/06/known-issues-in-after-effects-c...


Return to posts index


Dave LaRonde
Re: 2 days
on Aug 7, 2015 at 5:23:33 pm
Last Edited By Dave LaRonde on Aug 7, 2015 at 5:28:59 pm

[Tim Kurkowski]: “Audio inside of After Effects CC 2015 (13.5.1) is functional. The bug caused by the 13.5.1 update occurs on export via the Render Queue: the audio track is silent for all formats except QuickTime….”

Hmmmm.... how long have people been able to render audio with video in AE? My memory only goes back to AE v. 3.1, so it's not encyclopedic, but certainly since then, with nary a problem -- except for erratic AE weirdness when dealing with compressed audio, of course... and then along comes this bug fix.

And I DID say it happened as a result of the bug fix. And I DID say "there's always the bug fix for the bug fix."

Judging by Adobe's recent track record, we should probably anticipate the bug fix for the bug fix for the bug fix.

There once was a time when you installed AE, and it simply worked as billed. Now users get to be unpaid Beta Testers.

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


Return to posts index

Tim Kurkoski
Re: 2 days
on Aug 7, 2015 at 5:56:06 pm

Dave, I am not contending that audio export has been available in After Effects for a very long time or how it should function. This is a new problem in After Effects CC 2015 (13.5.1). It is a bug.

After Effects is a complex, interconnected logic machine. Changing any code risks affecting how other parts of the machine works. It's our job, the After Effects team who manages that code, to minimize the risk and exposure to our users. When we fail, you can point the finger squarely at us.

BTW, there is no "w" in my last name. As my father was fond of saying, "There is no cow in Kurkoski, it's all bull."

This is a digression from Aindreas's original post. Apologies for hijacking the thread.


Return to posts index

Dave LaRonde
Re: 2 days
on Aug 7, 2015 at 6:14:27 pm

Sorry for the misspelling. And since I'm the one That started the hijack, there's this:

SORRY, AINDREAS! GLAD YOU'RE HAVING SUCCESS!

So, Tim.... what are the chances you can keep the Adobe Marketing Weasels' fingers out of the next big AE version? Slim? None?

I swear to God, if you could just tell those guys, "begone!" they'd then have an even-better line for their ads -- "IT WORKS!"

And AE users worldwide would utter a prayer of thanks.

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


Return to posts index


Andy Field
Re: 2 days
on Aug 13, 2015 at 4:51:33 am

While we're on the subject of bugs...here's a big one -- searched boards and everyone had a different solution but most couldn't fix it.

Export an animation codec movie from After Effects with alpha channel -- import (or try to) into Premiere Pro CC 2015 (latest version as of Aug 2015) and you get a warning "clip contains no audio or video stream) and it doesn't allow you to play it.

Tried opening in Quicktime Player (the latest in Yosemite - and it says "converting video" If you save that file - the new "converted" video - and import it into Premiere pro - it suddenly works (and this is intermittent -- it worked originally - closed project reopened and didn't until i used the converted file.

Whats up with that?

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: 2 days
on Aug 7, 2015 at 11:24:46 am

Aindreas Aindreas
WtH did happen?
When I remember your former posts…!?

The two days isn´t more than it was for any of the former suites (if you compare over the years).
CC isn´t one cent cheaper than CS was (More the opposite). Even the MasterCollection inc. Upgrades if you are in business for more than 10 yrs.
And most of posters here have no problems with pricing…
No question, that the software is worth it´s price…
No question, that there are fantastic features…
And new: (To) fast delivered Updates = Beta Testing fun for All.
The big deal killer is simply: No access to your projects after you stop paying. You own nothing after the deal. Not even your archive (..of CC-Files/Projects)
(No, your files won´t disappear, No, you have access to your original footage and so on, but when subscription ends - your Software stops working and therefore your projects are nearby useless until you pay again)

But to be fair: like to hear, that you enjoy your CC.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: 2 days
on Aug 7, 2015 at 7:18:30 pm

[Rainer Schubert] "You own nothing after the deal. Not even your archive (..of CC-Files/Projects)"

Software is now a utility. When you stop playing your power bill, you don't get electricity either. I'm not saying I like it either, but that's the logic and many software companies are and will continue to adopt it.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: 2 days
on Aug 7, 2015 at 7:30:57 pm

[Oliver Peters] "
Software is now a utility."


Why? Because Adobe says so? Sorry, but I don't accept that as the only new reality, and neither do a great many other people. Look at the marketing language for Affinity, where they specifically address "no subscriptions". If everyone was simply accepting the new utility reality, then there wouldn't be new alternatives emerging, albeit slowly.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: 2 days
on Aug 7, 2015 at 7:35:19 pm

[Chris Pettit] "Why? Because Adobe says so? Sorry, but I don't accept that as the only new reality"

You misunderstood. I'm talking about software under a rental model. Not software in general. By accepting a subscription model, your interaction with the supplier from a financial and access POV is the same as a utility.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: 2 days
on Aug 7, 2015 at 8:14:58 pm

[Oliver Peters] "
You misunderstood. I'm talking about software under a rental model. Not software in general."


OK. when you said "software is now a utility" I took that statement literally.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: 2 days
on Aug 7, 2015 at 8:16:43 pm

[Chris Pettit] " I took that statement literally."

My fault. I guess I should have been a bit clearer.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: 2 days
on Aug 7, 2015 at 8:27:20 pm

sorry I misunderstood your point


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: 2 days
on Aug 7, 2015 at 8:41:48 pm

[Chris Pettit] "Why? Because Adobe says so? "

Taking the scope of this discussion beyond just Adobe, it's because the business model for software development and publishing is changing. 15yrs ago it used to be pretty straight forward. Almost all mainstream software was a perpetual license (w/an upgrade discount for existing users). These days subscriptions, ad supported, freemium, 'free' with hardware, etc. are all very popular. The 'traditional' business model (and product cycle) just doesn't seem as adequate/effective as it used to be.

Just looking at the microcosm of picture editing, Apple, Adobe, Avid, Blackmaigc (with Resolve), EditShare (with Lightworks), etc., all have different models (some more different than others) where as just 5 years ago everyone was doing the same dance (pay for a perpetual license then wait 2yrs for a new version which will have an upgrade discount for existing users). Now none of these companies work on that traditional business plan and waiting 2yrs for a host of new features to roll out seems like an eternity.

For something more on topic (and of course to put up a slightly different POV), one reason I don't think the Adobe subscription bugs me is in the section of the industry that I came up in it was Avid as far as the eye could see and most everyone rented/leased the systems. Paying to keep access to your NLE was just how it was. Don't need it? Stop paying and it goes away. Need it again? Start paying and it comes back. Obviously this doesn't suit everyone, but 'pay to play' is nothing new.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: 2 days
on Aug 7, 2015 at 10:34:36 pm

[Andrew Kimery] ". Paying to keep access to your NLE was just how it was. Don't need it? Stop paying and it goes away. Need it again? Start paying and it comes back."

That was actually the prevailing model for years. Panavision cameras and lenses were rental-only items. One of the early NLEs - Editflex - was also rental-only. Many early computer-based systems were purchased by individual editors and post houses and then leased or rented out to various TV and film productions. Of course, all of that was in the days when you couldn't afford to own these items as an individual, unless you did a lot of high-end (high-billing) work. So the rental model was a better way to get these tools into use in production.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: 2 days
on Aug 8, 2015 at 3:01:15 am
Last Edited By Chris Pettit on Aug 8, 2015 at 3:04:27 am

[Andrew Kimery] "The 'traditional' business model (and product cycle) just doesn't seem as adequate/effective as it used to be."

There's nothing wrong with the original business model.

Whats changed is that certain core software (and the companies that sell that software) have reached a level of maturity, and have chosen to simply plaster more and more superfluous features on top of 20 year old bloated software without being willing to re-invent themselves or their core applications, listen to thier existing customers and their potential new ones, and take the kind of entrepreneurial risks that they did at the beginning of the whole journey. In many cases they've become too big, bureaucratic, top down instead of bottom up, and entirely too focused on propping up stock price instead of actually innovating. And as Dave said, too focused on what the marketing weasels want. So they're looking for new ways to sell us stuff instead of new ways to empower us and enable a stable, efficient and innovative workflow for the future.

And by us, I mean the customers. There is a post in this thread that refers to how complicated AE code is, which I'm sure is true. As a long time user of Adobe products, I can attest to the following reality: I could never tell my clients that I'm sorry I missed their deadline, or sorry that the product I sold to you doesn't work the way I said it would. But hey, "it's complicated". Ever. I'd be out of business. And why? because I'm a small company and I'd never get away with it. Adobe seems to believe those rules don't apply to it. And when you accept the basic premise that its simply an evolution of the business model instead of failure on their part you're feeding that belief.

The audio doesn't export from CC2015 properly. It did just fine for the 15 years I've been working with After Effects and works flawlessly with CS6. Explain to me again how the old business model doesn't work anymore?

Take Jim's observations about Affinity maximizing new efficiencies with Mac OS. Why are you guys in such a hurry to give Adobe a pass on these kind of innovations? Photoshop needs an freakin' overhaul. Illustrator apparently needs an overhaul (I don't use it as much). And forgive me, IMO After Effects needs a COMPLETE overhaul. Why would you be willing to accept a whole new way of paying for Adobe software without demanding a whole new approach to speed, efficiency and interface performance in return? Where's the payoff for your acceptance of Adobe's new business reality?

Its not a breakdown of previous business models that leads to this new reality. It's big companies that are scrambling for new ways to cash in on software that has fewer and fewer new features people are willing to pay for as they have in the past. And they are simply seeing how far they can get with selling you the same stuff for regular and guaranteed payments, while jeopardizing your deadlines with more and more bugs.

BTW, here's an example from someone (unlike me) who actually subscribed:

https://medium.com/let-s-talk-design/bye-bye-adobe-3c3ba22c4ac0


Return to posts index

Morten Ranmar
Re: 2 days
on Aug 8, 2015 at 7:41:38 am

I still keep an old MacPro as it is, with FCP7, DVDSP and the like installed, so I can go back and service an old project, when it seldom happens. If that software had been rental only, I would not have been able to do this, and could not give my clients premium service.

So to turn it around, you can also say that Adobe is NOT giving us premium service, when they only offer a rental model for their software.

- No Parking Production -

Adobe CC2014, 3 x MacPro, 3 x MbP, Ethernet File Server w. Areca ThunderRaid 8


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: 2 days
on Aug 8, 2015 at 8:35:41 am

[Chris Pettit] "There's nothing wrong with the original business model.

Whats changed is that certain core software (and the companies that sell that software) have reached a level of maturity..."


If there was nothing wrong with the old business model then the entire software industry from, big guys to little guys, wouldn't be branching out to other revenue streams. I already mentioned how many of the major players in post don't have the same product cycle and business model they had as recently as 5yrs ago. Go to the Mac App Store and you'll find tons productivity software that comes in both ad-supported 'free' versions and paid versions (no ads, but many times a subscription). You'll also find many apps that use micro-transactions. Say a drawing program that comes with a handful of features but if you want more brushes, filters, paper textures, etc., you'll have to pay separately for each of them. You'll find many of the same revenue generating mechanics used across all kinds of software (micro-transactions and paid DLC are currently the bane of the gaming community) and it obviously doesn't end with software. Streaming music services like Spotiy are the new disruptors (and potential growth sectors) in music distribution since CD sales continue to tank and download sales have already plateaued.


[Chris Pettit] " I could never tell my clients that I'm sorry I missed their deadline, or sorry that the product I sold to you doesn't work the way I said it would. But hey, "it's complicated". "

There's no such thing as a 100% perfectly working, bug free piece of software. All companies, (not just software companies) big and small, chase problems, apologize for problems and fix problems.

[Chris Pettit] "Take Jim's observations about Affinity maximizing new efficiencies with Mac OS."

It will be interesting to see what state Affinity is in in 20yrs (assuming it's still around).

[Chris Pettit] "And forgive me, IMO After Effects needs a COMPLETE overhaul."

AE is in the process of getting a major overhaul which is why it didn't get a new version number in 2015 and why some old things that always worked are currently broken because there's a lot of old code the AE team is dealing with. The hotel is open during renovations, please pardon the dust. No matter what the team does though they will be damned by someone.

What about nuking it from orbit and starting from scratch? Yeah, that will go over well as people wait years for feature parity, have to re-buy all of their plugins, learn a new piece of software, and still have to deal with the growing pains and bugs of immature code. How about option two? They drastically slow down the development of 'old AE' while the team focuses on building 'new AE' in secret so when it launches it won't be totally thread bare when it comes to features? Yup, no one would ever complain about Adobe just resting on its laurels while sucking customers dry as it fails to innovate. The only option left is the one they took. Rebuilding AE on the fly and, surprise surprise, some people aren't happy about that either. Go figure.


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: 2 days
on Aug 8, 2015 at 10:58:00 am

Well said and one of the best posts here, Chris.
And a very good summary.
Hit the nail.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: 2 days
on Aug 8, 2015 at 12:57:16 pm

[Chris Pettit] " Photoshop needs an freakin' overhaul. Illustrator apparently needs an overhaul (I don't use it as much). And forgive me, IMO After Effects needs a COMPLETE overhaul."

While I agree, I would also caution that you have to be careful what you wish for. That's exactly what Apple did with FCP X. To some extent it was also Avid's intention when the picked up and pushed DS. Both examples point to some big negatives.

I would argue that is what Adobe is doing, but they are doing it incrementally and by modules under the hood. The same as Avid with Media Composer. The inevitable results are that it's never quite as good as a complete fresh start and that you break a lot of things in the process. Unfortunately the items that break are simply those that, for whatever reason, didn't get caught in the "gold master" QA cycle. Given my own beta testing experiences, I can easily see how something like the AE audio export issue was missed. It shouldn't have been, but it happens all the time with all software companies, regardless of rental or not.

Adobe's problem is made worse, because they are trying to maintain cross-platform feature and performance parity. That's a difficult engineering issue. In part it contributes to bloat as much as new features do. Far easier in the Mac world, because Apple keeps very tight control on hardware and software. Therefore developers have a very target to design towards - until Apple make a quick change to something else and then they have to adapt or die.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: 2 days
on Aug 8, 2015 at 11:40:06 pm

[Oliver Peters] "While I agree, I would also caution that you have to be careful what you wish for. That's exactly what Apple did with FCP X. To some extent it was also Avid's intention when the picked up and pushed DS. Both examples point to some big negatives."

Very valid points Oliver. The first version of FCPX was a disaster according to most (I used the original FCP only). And I know a lot of editor felt betrayed by Apple during that time.

But it got much better over time didn't it? I'm not an editor, but the people I know using it now are very happy with it and believe it's much better than FCP 7

[Oliver Peters] "I would argue that is what Adobe is doing, but they are doing it incrementally and by modules under the hood."

Interesting, this is similar to what Andrew is saying. How do you guys know this? For example I had a conversation last week with some associates back East that use CC. I asked them to give me an assessment of speed and performance improvements over CS6. They said their are basically none to speak of, and they have no problem with subscriptions (no axe to grind). Are they wrong?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: 2 days
on Aug 9, 2015 at 12:09:39 am

[Chris Pettit] "But it got much better over time didn't it?"

I've used it since the beginning. Yes it improved, but most of the features people wanted from FCP7 haven't come back and probably want. So ultimately you either like the new paradigm or you don't. A lot of folks like it, but clearly Apple's move has helped fuel the rise of Premiere Pro, the shift by some back to Avid, and the current excitement about Resolve 12 as an NLE.

[Chris Pettit] "How do you guys know this?"

I guess I don't, other than direct conversations with Adobe personnel. I have to take their word for it. I know that it's true with Avid, because I'm involved on one of the advisory committees, so I see part of the process first hand. I can see similar things happening with Adobe apps, so presumably Adobe is following a similar path. I think the changes in Premiere Pro's color pipeline over the past few versions (since the pick up of IRIDAS) are a direct example of that.

[Chris Pettit] "CS6. They said their are basically none to speak of, and they have no problem with subscriptions (no axe to grind). Are they wrong?"

I can only speak directly to Premiere Pro, since I'm a more casual user of Photoshop and AE. My impression is that those, too, have improved. Especially in AE's UI responsiveness. As far as Premiere Pro CC2015 versus CS6, I have to say there's absolutely no comparison. The current version has been very solid for my projects and the playback performance and edit responsiveness is very good. It is significantly better on older Mac Pro towers than FCP X, as well.

I'll certainly acknowledge that CC2015 does seem slightly buggier than the last version of CC2014. And performance with Direct Link to SpeedGrade CC2015 is not useable, IMHO. Speaking strictly from an editor's POV talking about Premiere Pro, I would never want to edit with CS6, while editing with later versions has been a pleasant experience.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: 2 days
on Aug 11, 2015 at 12:41:23 am

[Chris Pettit] "Whats changed is that certain core software (and the companies that sell that software) have reached a level of maturity, and have chosen to simply plaster more and more superfluous features on top of 20 year old bloated software without being willing to re-invent themselves or their core applications, listen to thier existing customers and their potential new ones, and take the kind of entrepreneurial risks that they did at the beginning of the whole journey. In many cases they've become too big, bureaucratic, top down instead of bottom up, and entirely too focused on propping up stock price instead of actually innovating. And as Dave said, too focused on what the marketing weasels want. So they're looking for new ways to sell us stuff instead of new ways to empower us and enable a stable, efficient and innovative workflow for the future."

It seems to be a common complaint among people with philosophical objection to subscription that Adobe is complacent, or that Adobe is focused on investors instead of customers, or that Adobe isn't innovative. I don't intend disrespect, but I do wonder: since you're using three-year-old Adobe releases with limited first-hand knowledge of the current releases, what is the basis for your reasoning above?

I don't feel that Adobe is doing what you describe at all; rather, I see them working hard on making real improvements to the apps I use, I appreciate the stewardship they show over decades-old applications and the balance they must strike between continuity and improvement, and I see CC as their foundation for the "stable, efficient and innovative workflow[s] for the future." Do I wish there were they did differently? Of course, but overall, I do feel that Adobe is still working to provide me real value for my subscription fees.

Admittedly, perhaps we each see what we look for, but I can't help but wonder if we see this so differently because we're not using the same software?

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

Chris Pettit
Re: 2 days
on Aug 11, 2015 at 1:11:49 am

[Walter Soyka] "since you're using three-year-old Adobe releases with limited first-hand knowledge of the current releases, what is the basis for your reasoning above?"

Perfectly reasonable observation Walter. I'm marginally limited by the fact that I don't have my hands on the actual software, and wont, because of frequently stated issues.

Which is why I spend so much time talking to those who do, including associates that I mentioned elsewhere in this very thread that have no problem with the subscription model at all, but conceded in a conversation a few weeks ago that from a speed and performance standpoint they see no significant improvements in After Effects. None.

[Walter Soyka] "Admittedly, perhaps we each see what we look for, but I can't help but wonder if we see this so differently because we're not using the same software?"

Again, worthwhile observation. But I've been in this business for a very long time, I've read countless product reviews, I stay current with all of the forum posts regarding these very issues, and they are NUMEROUS. I'm not making this up, I'm not inventing problems that don't exist Walter. They exist. Adobe is having trouble adapting to this new existence. It may be small in the long run, or it may be insurmountable. I don't need to subscribe to know thats true. I read reviews and responses to all kinds of software, including a myriad of plug-ins, and have a pretty good track record of knowing when software is having trouble reaching the reliability that I see in CS6.

The only question is whether my fairly pessimistic perspective on their intentions and their current state of affairs, or your rather sunny and optimistic version is more likely to be correct. You and I have exchanged posts before, and I believe we've agreed that a lot of what you think will be available to you in the future is, well, not available yet. That would imply that it's based on faith in Adobe.

My faith in Aodbe has been seriously damaged. That's not my doing. It's theirs.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: 2 days
on Aug 11, 2015 at 10:46:53 pm

[Chris Pettit] "My faith in Aodbe has been seriously damaged. That's not my doing. It's theirs."

I'd go even farther.

I'm pretty convinced that their headlong dive into the "subscription only" model is a symptom of a much larger societal problem that goes WAY beyond Adobe.

Once you allow any company build a system where they are able to enhance the "stickiness" of their attachments to the consumer via virtual systems that build in penalties and extra effort to customers who consider leaving - that's a very, VERY dangerous thing, in my opinion.

In a proper world in my view, any company making SUBSCRIPTION easy - should be REQUIRED to make terminating the SUBSCRIPTION equally easy. But that has NOT been my experience lately. I've had to do battle this year with multiple entities including insurance companies and yes, software firms to simply STOP service and payments for a thing I no longer want or need.

If you're going to establish a monthly auto-charge - why shouldn't there be a monthly APPROVAL of that charge that the consumer must OK? You want to guarantee a string of months? Pay quarterly or yearly.
Notice that's NOT how things are setup? Ever wonder why? MONEY. Period.

Because an Opt IN charge is "seller weak" - and an Opt Out charge is "seller STRONG." One boosts profits- the other puts them at risk - so in a system where the SELLER has the power, it's unacceptable in the brave new world of subscription selling.

These things are subtle. as we all understand the "product" is no longer the thing you buy as it's traditionally been. WE the people who use the software are the product now. We now have to participate in a relatively new form of contract that finds it OK to ask customers to accept a form of foreseeable financial allegiance in order to participate. It's a HUGE shift. A power shift. And consumers and small business people are aligned on one side and large sophisticated multi-national businesses are on the other side. So I just think it's smart to be wary.

With Premiere, it's not the software that bothers me. Never has. The software (from all reports) is fine. It's ALL the major and powerful companies LUST to shift the power dynamic inside the entire transactional ecosystem. After all, there's NOTHING financially jucier to a large business entity than millions of signed contracts for ongoing sales over time. That's like heroin to a junky. And I'm concerned that enabling a system like this is going to SUCK for consumers in the long run. If it works. (It may not. Folks like Affinity and others may have a different model in mind that turns out to be where the market really want to go. Let's see.)

I think the subscription era (the way it's being practiced now, not inherently) has a lot of explaining to do for ALL consumers, video editors or not.

It's my 2 cents. It's personal. And I fully understand those who don't agree with me. Time will tell.

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: 2 days
on Aug 11, 2015 at 10:51:48 pm

[Bill Davis] "I think the subscription era (the way it's being practiced now, not inherently) has a lot of explaining to do for ALL consumers, video editors or not."

This ^ x 1000. Well said, Bill.

_______________________
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

Chris Pettit
Re: 2 days
on Aug 11, 2015 at 10:59:00 pm
Last Edited By Chris Pettit on Aug 11, 2015 at 11:00:38 pm

As David said, X1000 Bill.

[Bill Davis] "In a proper world in my view, any company making SUBSCRIPTION easy - should be REQUIRED to make terminating the SUBSCRIPTION equally easy. But that has NOT been my experience lately."

You and thousands of others. I've heard this same story so many times it can only be policy. Adobe is helping perpetuate this new process by making it easy to go through the door and intentionally nasty to leave the way you came in.

[Bill Davis] "WE the people who use the software are the product now. We now have to participate in a relatively new form of contract that finds it OK to ask customers to accept a form of foreseeable financial allegiance in order to participate. It's a HUGE shift. A power shift. And consumers and small business people are aligned on one side and large sophisticated multi-national businesses are on the other side. So I just think it's smart to be wary."

Perfectly articulated. VERY well said Bill. Exactly what scares me so much about this whole mess, and why, IMO, its worth fighting in it's current form.

This goes way beyond Adobe.


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: 2 days
on Aug 12, 2015 at 5:46:39 am

I'll throw my x1000^ to Bill as well.

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, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: 2 days
on Aug 12, 2015 at 9:49:38 am

Exactly Bill. This is not only Adobe trying to shift the 'balance of power'. This has
been gaining momentum ever since someone figured out how to us credit card billing
over the Internet. Adobe is just following along with a huge trend by businesses everywhere.

Ever stop to think why so many companies want to get you on 'auto pay' now? Just
so you know, once you sign up for that, you technically lose some of the protections
you normally enjoy through your credit card company....in particular disputing a charge
from the company you agreed to let 'auto charge' you.

Remember AOL? Anyone remember how easy it was to sign up for 30 days free?.....
(after which time they would begin billing your credit card, which you had to supply to
get the free trial). Was it easy to cancel? Nope, you had to call a number and wait
on hold forever and the 'customer service' rep tried very hard to keep you from canceling.
Not nearly as easy as it was to sign up for.

Funny thing is, if you've ever done any video work for any of these big companies...
(not going to name names here, but let's just say they are big companies with lots
of customers who they have 'auto paying' them).....but guess what?
They like to make you wait 30-45 days until they pay you. Hmmmmm....interesting that.
Why not just do a quick credit card payment or bank transfer? I did a 2 day job
for a company that everyone in here knows, on June 26th and 27th. Still waiting on
payment, even though I sent them my W9, and TIN before the job and my invoice
the day after. Like you said, it's about control and power. They like to make it
really easy to take your money. But they like to make it hard for you to cancel
that payment and they also don't make it too quick or easy for you to actually
collect payments.

This is not an Adobe thing. They are just the latest to try and change the
'Balance of Power' between buyer and seller. Most people these days
just go along with it so it's going to continue. I'm one of the few people
I know who doesn't have any 'auto pay' bills. This stuff is everywhere.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: 2 days
on Aug 12, 2015 at 3:02:30 pm

[Bill Davis] "In a proper world in my view, any company making SUBSCRIPTION easy - should be REQUIRED to make terminating the SUBSCRIPTION equally easy."

Autodesk does this right. Adobe should learn from them.

I subscribed to Maya last month, just for the month, for a project. Although the default is ongoing subscription, it was dead simple to turn it off online.

As for balance of power, I don't see it quite the same way as you do. I think subscription ties a vendor to their customers just as much as it ties the customers to their vendor.

Before subscription, I would have had to pay $3700 for a Maya license, even though I only needed it for a single job. Autodesk would have had a lot of my money without really having to deliver a lot of value, and without owing me a single thing after the sale.

With subscription, I could pay $185 for just the month. It is incumbent on Autodesk to try to win me back if they want more of my money, and I can choose on a month-by-month basis if they're worth 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

Gabe Strong
Re: 2 days
on Aug 12, 2015 at 6:01:00 pm

I don't mean to speak for Bill here. But shifting the 'balance of power' is about more
than subscription...although that is a part of it. As Bill said, when the default action
is for them to remove money from your account, and it is not equally easy to
'turn off' that default action as it is to 'turn on' that action....then companies
have some 'splaining to do.' I personally don't like the subscription idea and
do not plan on ever using it. But I'd be less critical of companies who use it,
if they would simply let you cancel online.....click here to 'unsubscribe'.
Seems like it would be fair to the customer.

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


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: 2 days
on Aug 12, 2015 at 6:55:37 pm

I suppose if I had only one project that required sophisticated expensive software to produce a one month rental would mak a great deal of sense. Like renting a $75,000 camera for week instead of buying it.

But we are talking a different reality for most of us. NLE's are rather well developed at this point and quite cheap historically for a perpetual license. If I chose to freeze my system right now it would probably do me for at least the next five years. I only do my own work and have one contract that renews annually where the client and myself have common expectations about future projects.

Why on earth would I tie myself to a rental system where I lose access if I stop paying. Apple and BMD soon are making that completely unnecessary for me and others at little to even no cost. Even Media 100 is still viable for my projects and runs with all current OSX and my nMP 2013 and 2012 Mac tower.

It is much more important to me to be able to open my projects and make changes or repurpose them than it is to get a few new bells and whistles on bloated software I can do without. For goodness sake, I can open Media 100 projects I did 20 years ago. No payment required.

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, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 2 days
on Aug 14, 2015 at 10:34:08 pm

that's the first compelling subscription argument I've heard - for me it doesn't quite work with adobe because the subscription is overwhelming and it locks into nearly everything I do to make money - I'm very very very unlikely to waltz off....

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: 2 days
on Aug 15, 2015 at 6:46:13 pm

Bill,

I agree that services should be as easy to leave as they are to join. For those that haven't heard it yet, I present to you the Comcast Call From Hell.






Going down this same thought process, I assume this why Apple boasts about the number of credit cards they have on file. If someone is already an Apple customer w/a card on file then buying a movie, a book or signing up for a new service like Apple Music or Apple Pay is just a simple click away as opposed to, say, singing up for Spotify which requires creating another account, entering my information again, etc.,. Staying w/o Apple's first-party offerings has fewer barriers to entry compared to going with a third party.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: 2 days
on Aug 12, 2015 at 1:17:16 am

[Chris Pettit] "conceded in a conversation a few weeks ago that from a speed and performance standpoint they see no significant improvements in After Effects. None."

It's true that Ae CC 2015 13.5.x is not generally faster than previous versions (except expression evaluation). But I still think that CC 2015 is the most important release Ae has had since it went 64-bit with CS5. Why?

From Adobe's After Effects Region of Interest blog [link]:

"The great majority of the After Effects team has been hard at work for the past year on a fundamental re-architecture of the application that lays the groundwork for performance improvements of many kinds, and this major update that we will be releasing soon bears the first fruits of this effort."

As a user, this is exactly the thing I want them to be doing right now.


[Chris Pettit] "I'm not making this up, I'm not inventing problems that don't exist Walter. They exist. Adobe is having trouble adapting to this new existence. It may be small in the long run, or it may be insurmountable. I don't need to subscribe to know thats true. I read reviews and responses to all kinds of software, including a myriad of plug-ins, and have a pretty good track record of knowing when software is having trouble reaching the reliability that I see in CS6"

My whole team uses Ae CC 2015 in production every day. It's not perfect, but no software is. It's certainly not as bad as you'd think listening to the folks who do not actually use it in production at all.

Again, that's not to say it's perfect or that these issues are not real, even if I do think it represents significant progress. It's worth noting again that Ae CC 2015 project files are completely compatible with Ae CC 2014 by design (as they are both v13.x and the file format is unchanged), so the issues that do exist can be easily worked around. For example, I render with Ae CC 2014 so I can use multiprocessing (not yet addressed in the re-architecture) and I recommend everyone with serious hardware does the same. It's seamless.

It's also worth noting that Ae CS6 introduced the Global Performance Cache and several significant cache-related bugs along with it. Several very popular plug-ins from major developers required updates, and it took three or four point release bug-fixes before CS6 reached the stability you're describing.

I get where you're coming from on subscription -- although, again, I really think you should all be agitating for open data formats so you can access your own data without relying on any kind of proprietary license (perpetual or otherwise).

But I don't understand how you can cite After Effects as an example of what's wrong with Adobe under subscription. It seems to me that the Ae team is better focused than ever on what Ae artists need.

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

Bill Davis
Re: 2 days
on Aug 9, 2015 at 6:36:15 pm

[Oliver Peters] "By accepting a subscription model, your interaction with the supplier from a financial and access POV is the same as a utility.
"


Well, not really. Utilities are almost universally regulated and there is a component in the system where prices have to be justified to an outside entity before being passed along to the consumer. Retail subscriptions have no price moderation mechanism other than competition.

BTW this is NOT an argument that the current Adobe prices will ever become unreasonable. Nobody knows or can predict that. It's a purely open question that can easily go either way, IMO.

It's exclusively pointing out that unregulated retail subscriptions are setting the stage for continued contractual shifts in the relationship between the seller and the consumer. It's something MANY modern businesses are shifting towards since, in my opinion only, they want to strengthen their position in the new automated transactions that the pervasive web enables.

We're still in the dawn of this new era of the "electronicization of micro transactions" and large companies of all stripes are trying to setup the most favorable playing fields possible. That's their job. As consumers, our jot is to accept what we agree with or simply can tolerate - and push back against new processes we don't or can't.

Simple as that.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: 2 days
on Aug 9, 2015 at 8:13:48 pm

[Bill Davis] "Well, not really. Utilities are almost universally regulated and there is a component in the system where prices have to be justified to an outside entity before being passed along to the consumer. Retail subscriptions have no price moderation mechanism other than competition. "

Price wasn't really my point. What I was trying to say is that how you purchase the service and deal with it in your own accounting system is essentially the same as dealing with a utility as an accounting item.

It's a monthly expenditure that is part of the operating cost of the business. Same as cable, electric, web hosting, etc. It is no longer an asset that is purchased and handled that way. That distinction isn't as big of a deal for an individual, but it is for large corporations and educational institutions. The annual capital expenditure battles for new software are now gone. Of course managers will have to justify the extra monthly expense.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: 2 days
on Aug 10, 2015 at 6:49:21 am

Ah, now I understand Oliver. I will say that based on years of dealing with corporate budgets and sitting on and even Chairing the boards of not-for-profits, it's been my experience that it's often easier to pry loose a one time capital expense than to get agreement to book a perpetual operating expense that can't easily be stopped. But perhaps that's changed in the new era.

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: 2 days
on Aug 10, 2015 at 7:33:40 am

[Bill Davis] " it's been my experience that it's often easier to pry loose a one time capital expense than to get agreement to book a perpetual operating expense that can't easily be stopped. But perhaps that's changed in the new era."

When Adobe first went CC I heard other people voice similar concerns, but given some of the companies that have gotten on board with CC (CNN, Hearst, Viacom, NFL Network, etc.,) it does seem like things have changed (at least for media companies looking for NLEs).


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: 2 days
on Aug 11, 2015 at 12:10:34 am

[Bill Davis] "I will say that based on years of dealing with corporate budgets and sitting on and even Chairing the boards of not-for-profits, it's been my experience that it's often easier to pry loose a one time capital expense than to get agreement to book a perpetual operating expense that can't easily be stopped. But perhaps that's changed in the new era."

Having consulting for a fair number of companies, schools and non-profits, I'd say that last year's one-time capital expense is next year's obsolete technology. Ongoing payment is easy to budget and gets your department continuous upgrades; big one-time purchases are hard to budget and rarely come as often as you'd like. That means you're only current for one year out of every few, and the rest you're stuck working with older versions of whatever it is you use.

In my experience, this is especially true for entities wherein creative is not regarded as a core function.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: 2 days
on Aug 7, 2015 at 7:38:37 pm

[Chris Pettit] "Look at the marketing language for Affinity, where they specifically address "no subscriptions"."

I think that ultimately it's a numbers game. Certainly many folks don't like subscriptions and so other companies are offering counter-marketing. In addition to Serif (Affinity), there's also Resolve 12's marketing. However, Affinity is sold through the app store, so there is absolutely no guarantee of indefinite free updates either.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: 2 days
on Aug 7, 2015 at 8:15:58 pm

[Oliver Peters] " Affinity is sold through the app store, so there is absolutely no guarantee of indefinite free updates either."

I would never expect that personally.


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: 2 days
on Aug 7, 2015 at 10:40:06 pm

And at $49 for an Affinity Photo perpetual license, I would gladly gladly pay for an update, even if they don't offer them for free. However, I see them as potentially being very aggressive on updates and pricing. The three Adobe applications they are after are fat prizes.

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, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: 2 days
on Aug 8, 2015 at 1:30:23 pm

[Jim Wiseman] "And at $49 for an Affinity Photo perpetual license, I would gladly gladly pay for an update"

Their price is a great one, but the Mac App Store model does not allow for paid updates. These can only take the form of a completely new product with a full price to buy. If you released ProductXYZ 1.0 and then later released ProductXYZ 2.0, it still has to be free. I'm not sure whether or not you can release ProductNewXYZ 1.0 and actually get away with calling it a brand new product that you can charge for. From that standpoint Adobe already offers some MAS products, like Photoshop Elements.

This means that MAS developers build a product with a fixed roadmap of features and plan on a limited number of enhancements and obviously bug fixes over the course of a couple of years. They can clearly add as many new features as they want, but they have to be willing to absorb the development cost with no extra income, other than the continued attraction to new customers. They are also limited in the types of features they can deploy because of sandboxing rules. For example, Resolve Lite through the Mac App Store doesn't have exact feature parity with Resolve Lite downloaded from BMD directly.

Ultimately this whole argument gets down to business models in part dictated by SOX, which in many ways is an incredibly misguided law. But opinions on SOX aside, there are several options aside from SaaS (rental/subscription) as well as full commitment to SaaS (cloud/server-based).

1. Lower the initial cost and then charge full price for new versions. Interim bug fixes would be free. If you compare the last standalone price for Photoshop versus Affinity Photo - for what is largely a similar design and image manipulation feature set - it's pretty outrageous. Even Lightroom at retail wasn't in the stratosphere like Photoshop (especially the extended version).

2. Offer a feature-reduced version at a lower cost. Bug fixes are free. Offer in-app, paid, feature add-ons. Do you want video or 3D capabilities in Photoshop? Buy the option to add that in.

3. Offer a feature-reduced version at a lower cost. Bug fixes are free. Leave advanced featured to third parties. That's the FCP X model.

4. Tie the software (free) to hardware. That used to be the Avid model and to some extent is the Blackmagic and Apple model today. Adobe only did that when it was a third-party supplier of Premiere that was bundled with others' hardware.

5. Go to a complete Cloud service (SaaS), where software only exists via the internet or on an enterprise server that you've set up. Think Google Docs for video.

My opinion is that this is the end-game for Adobe. Hence the emphasis on Cloud services apart from just the marketing angle. Clearly it is limited now by current bandwidth, but take a look at Adobe Anywhere's architecture or companies like Forscene. The models are already in place and I truly believe this is where they'd like to go. So in all of these debates, I think we are having a 1990s argument that isn't even where Adobe is headed, for better or worse.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: 2 days
on Aug 9, 2015 at 12:12:55 am

[Oliver Peters] "1. Lower the initial cost and then charge full price for new versions. Interim bug fixes would be free. If you compare the last standalone price for Photoshop versus Affinity Photo - for what is largely a similar design and image manipulation feature set - it's pretty outrageous. Even Lightroom at retail wasn't in the stratosphere like Photoshop (especially the extended version)."

I still have a lot of trouble buying all the "SOX made us do it" arguments particularly given the overall political power large corporations have in this country, if not individually, then as collective lobbying groups. If SOX is such an business model killer, what has Adobe done to try and lobby congress to change it? And what about all thier overseas sales where SOX doesnt even apply?

But I agree with your first option suggestion strongly. Lower the price of entry, allowing more people in, but then expect those loyal users to continue to support the product at a revenue level that allows innovation, choices and profitability. Adobe could have done this. They still could.


[Oliver Peters] "5. Go to a complete Cloud service (SaaS), where software only exists via the internet or on an enterprise server that you've set up. Think Google Docs for video."

If true SAAS was what Adobe was actually offering, then this would be an entirely different discussion. I might like it, I might hate it, but I'd have a hard time arguing that they were treating their customers badly if they had truly migrated to a service with all of the benefits of off-site solutions (and there are many). The problem is the bandwidth limitations existing now make it virtually impossible, and I dont see a change to that anytime soon. Thats what makes the whole "Creative Cloud" so disingenuous. It's not Cloud based and not likely to be anytime soon.

But if/when they get there, different story.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: 2 days
on Aug 9, 2015 at 12:37:55 am

[Chris Pettit] "But I agree with your first option suggestion strongly. Lower the price of entry, allowing more people in, but then expect those loyal users to continue to support the product at a revenue level that allows innovation, choices and profitability. Adobe could have done this. They still could."

Agreed. That's the model many companies are now following. One could argue that's sort of the model Apple is following, but of course, everything they do is skewed by their hardware.

[Chris Pettit] "If true SAAS was what Adobe was actually offering, then this would be an entirely different discussion."

The only reason I believe that might be the ultimate direction is based on two point. First, a lot of the features added in CC2015 relate to Cloud services in order to highlight the value of the CC. Second, Adobe software is written based on web services. When you run Premiere Pro on a workstation in an Adobe Anywhere configuration, that local copy of Premiere Pro is only functioning as a remote control for the processes that are actually happening on the server. So it's a small step to turning the application into a web/VPN/network-only piece of software.

[Chris Pettit] "The problem is the bandwidth limitations existing now make it virtually impossible"

Sure, if we are talking about the internet. But what about 4 or 5 (or more) workstations connected to a single server located on-site? The same could be 50 design stations in an ad agency or publisher. While Apple seems focused on the individual, Adobe seems more focused on the enterprise, with the exception of photographers. I'm not saying it will happen - merely that it seems like the obvious direction down the road.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: 2 days
on Aug 9, 2015 at 2:42:26 am
Last Edited By Andrew Kimery on Aug 9, 2015 at 2:43:13 am

[Chris Pettit] "I still have a lot of trouble buying all the "SOX made us do it" arguments particularly given the overall political power large corporations have in this country, if not individually, then as collective lobbying groups. If SOX is such an business model killer, what has Adobe done to try and lobby congress to change it?"

The accounting scandals that led to major companies like Enron, Arthur Anderson, World Com, etc., going 'poof' in the early 2000's is what led to SOX so good luck to any company that wants to get painted as the one that wants to let Enron happen again.

Apple ran into this a lot in the mid-2000's (FaceTime, iOS updates, etc.,) and here's a quote that I think nicely wraps up the problem,

"Because of the Act, the company believes that if it sells a product, then later adds a feature to that product, it can be held liable for improper accounting if it recognizes revenue from the product at the time of sale, given that it hasn’t finished delivering the product at that point," he wrote."

http://appleinsider.com/articles/07/01/15/apple_to_impose_80211n_unlocking_...

Given Apple's incredibly deep pockets, their willingness to give software away for free to encourage hardware sales, and that X is probably a fraction of a precent of their total revenue I doubt they are losing any sleep over not recognizing revenue from X in order to keep the 'pay once, get free upgrades forever' approach going on.

The running assumption is that Avid stepped into a SOX cow pie too which is why they withheld their books for a year or two from the SEC (leading to de-listing then re-listing on the stock exchange) and ditched their old/traditional software business model for a subscription and 'annual support fee' model. There is now no way to just buy a perpetual license to Avid MC or Pro Tools anymore and upgrading is a thing of the past too. You either subscribe or you buy a perpetual license (which has a 1yr support fee built into the price).

If you go the perpetual license route and you let your support fee lapse then you have to pay full price if you want upgrades to the current version or a copy new version (which of course has the 1yr support fee built in). For example, if I buy Avid MC 9.0, then I let my support fee lapse, then MC 9.1 comes out (with a bunch of new features) I don't get access to 9.1. 9.0 is as high as I go unless I pay the full retail price again.

For the end user the support fee isn't much different than getting an upgrade discount (that only goes back one version) but for the accountants it probably makes a world of difference. I can't imagine Avid making the change just for the heck of it.

[Chris Pettit] "And what about all thier overseas sales where SOX doesnt even apply?"

SOX applies to Adobe as a publicly traded company. It doesn't matter if their sales are in Uganda or Utah.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: 2 days
on Aug 9, 2015 at 4:11:31 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "The running assumption is that Avid stepped into a SOX cow pie too which is why they withheld their books for a year or two from the SEC"

For those who haven't had close dealings with Avid, you need to understand that prior to the change in how products were sold, Avid had a complex system of different accounts. Most companies are like this. There were individual direct customers, those who came in through reseller channels, and various types of enterprise-level clients. In addition to these differences, there were also differences in whether you simply bought updates outright or had a maintenance/support contract that included updates.

Add to this the different types of systems they sell - edit, audio, news, a/v hardware, consoles, storage, graphics, etc. And Pinnacle as well as Softimage were in the mix during that period. Then there were also promotions, like feature-protection. For example, buy Symphony before NAB and you'll get the new version announced at NAB as a free update, when it's available. I believe that today that's a definite SOX violation, if you claim that income at the time of sale.

Where they ran into trouble was how they factored free updates versus paid feature-based upgrades and then how that revenue was calculated across all the different types of accounts and contracts. Basically the issue is when, during those updates and releases, revenue was claimed to be earned. That wasn't constant, since it was different for support contract and enterprise accounts than it was for individual user buying an updated version.

So the error was not wrong-doing, but rather the inability to accurately follow the letter of the law (SOX). Ultimately this led to the need to go back through a decade or more of sales and accounts in order to recalculate all earnings during that time and ultimately end up with accurate reports. This cost the company many millions in internal and external auditing.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: 2 days
on Aug 9, 2015 at 7:05:09 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "SOX applies to Adobe as a publicly traded company. It doesn't matter if their sales are in Uganda or Utah."


Funny how SOX doesn't seem to prevent Adobe from making this offer:





Just saying'

_______________________
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

Oliver Peters
Re: 2 days
on Aug 9, 2015 at 8:22:42 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Aug 9, 2015 at 8:25:41 pm

[David Lawrence] "Funny how SOX doesn't seem to prevent Adobe"

I think that's been pretty thoroughly beaten up already. The impact of SOX in this discussion is largely about upgrade pricing and when you claim the review. This Acrobat product is a one-time-only, standalone purchase. People had that with CS6. Would you rather have each new version of CC be available as a standalone, but then cost you a full $2k (or whatever) to buy it all over again each time there's a feature-laden upgrade? That would be the equivalent. Or continue along the same path as before in the CS world?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: 2 days
on Aug 10, 2015 at 2:34:08 am

[Oliver Peters] "I think that's been pretty thoroughly beaten up already. "

It has, but like the "you'll lose access to your files" rallying cry, it will be used because it makes it a good soundbite by those who know better.


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: 2 days
on Aug 10, 2015 at 4:27:18 am
Last Edited By Chris Pettit on Aug 10, 2015 at 4:28:45 am

[Oliver Peters] "People had that with CS6. Would you rather have each new version of CC be available as a standalone, but then cost you a full $2k (or whatever) to buy it all over again each time there's a feature-laden upgrade? That would be the equivalent."

What am I missing? How is this different from CC, CC2014, CC2015? These ARE stand alone versions are they not?

And BTW, a great many people who were invested in the prospect of ONE single piece of perpetual software that gets rapidly updated and paid for with subscriptions, without version hassles, felt completely broadsided by the fact they now have to manage multiple versions anyway, re-acquire plugins every time, and then live with bugs and incompatibility that have always been incumbent with "upgrade" versions.

Just like the old days of CS4, CS5, CS5.5, CS6......

Nothing has changed. Just now you don't have the control over the software and the work that comes from perpetual license.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: 2 days
on Aug 10, 2015 at 6:20:14 am

[Oliver Peters] "Would you rather have each new version of CC be available as a standalone, but then cost you a full $2k (or whatever) to buy it all over again each time there's a feature-laden upgrade? That would be the equivalent. Or continue along the same path as before in the CS world?"

I'd be fine with that. As Chris pointed out below, that's pretty much what's happening right now with CC anyway. And AFAIK, there's nothing in SOX that would prevent Adobe from offering discounts to existing perpetual customers. I think the Acrobat DC offer could easily be made to CC customers as well. Let's see what happens in the next couple years.

_______________________
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

Andrew Kimery
Re: 2 days
on Aug 10, 2015 at 7:29:25 am

[Chris Pettit] "And BTW, a great many people who were invested in the prospect of ONE single piece of perpetual software that gets rapidly updated and paid for with subscriptions, without version hassles... "

Those people were invested in a myth of their own creation. Versioning was always going to happen. When the Internet assumed that Adobe was going all Google Docs (i.e. you must be connected to the Internet 100% of the time, pushed updates like it or not, etc.,) and throughly freaked out Adobe made it a point to say that users control the update process, the software will still be locally installed and that, starting with CS6, people who subscribe to CC will have access to at least the previous 5 (IIRC) versions of software.

[David Lawrence] "I'd be fine with that. As Chris pointed out below, that's pretty much what's happening right now with CC anyway. And AFAIK, there's nothing in SOX that would prevent Adobe from offering discounts to existing perpetual customers. I think the Acrobat DC offer could easily be made to CC customers as well. Let's see what happens in the next couple years."

As Oliver said, the DC thread beat a lot of these bushes, but you are overlooking getting feature upgrades in point releases and the resulting branch in versions and that possibly resulting incompatibility of project files of the same version. You can't give away feature upgrades and if you charge for them I think they cost has to be calculated based on the relative value of the upgrade compared to the rest of the product. I don't use Acrobat so I don't know what (if realistically any) versioning problems might pop up if the subscription users have a different version of the app than the perpetual license users but I'm sure it's something that has to be taken into consideration. Now extrapolate that potential conflict to every app Adobe makes and it's large software catalog beings to look more like a hinderance than an asset.

From a product development and delivery perspective going with just a subscription is the most simple, most flexible course of action Adobe could take. The only real hurdle is getting enough users to be okay with it. I think going the 'maintenance fee' and subscription route like Avid did would lead to headaches for Adobe (and Adobe users) because their product matrix is so much more expansive (and in some cases interconnected) than Avid's. Going the 'upgrade for free forever' route that Apple did isn't possible because Adobe isn't a hardware company like Apple is. Even what might work for certain Adobe apps (like Acrobat) might not work for all of Adobe's apps given the variety of apps they have. Just because one solution worked for one situation doesn't necessarily mean it will work for other situations.

Like you said (like many people including myself have said) time will tell.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: 2 days
on Aug 10, 2015 at 12:12:59 pm

"I think going the 'maintenance fee' and subscription route like Avid did would lead to headaches for Adobe (and Adobe users) because their product matrix is so much more expansive (and in some cases interconnected) than Avid's."

And in Avid's case it's hit some major issues with their licensing. There are numerous users who have been going months without their account being correctly updated after they've renewed. The days of the dongle were sooooo much easier!

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: 2 days
on Aug 11, 2015 at 2:10:16 am
Last Edited By Chris Pettit on Aug 11, 2015 at 2:11:59 am

[Andrew Kimery] "
Those people were invested in a myth of their own creation. Versioning was always going to happen."


OK. So Adobe transitioning to SAAS was totally not true from the beginning (Creative Cow referred to the CC offering in reviews as SAAS BTW), the entire industry was wrong referring to CC as Cloud based or "SAAS", investors don't know what they are talking about (or investing in), and the name "CREATIVE CLOUD" is deliberately misleading.

You're right Andrew, what were those poor saps thinking? It's all on them.

"There's a sucker born every minute."


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: 2 days
on Aug 15, 2015 at 7:50:10 pm

I just put up my best effort on both of these subjects in the Some Numbers thread. Rather than repeat it here, feel free to jump over there. If you have any comments, probably best to leave them there. Thanks.

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, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: 2 days
on Aug 9, 2015 at 7:40:12 pm

Enron made the mistake of thinking officials would have not have a shred of evidence. Pun very well intended. ;-)


Return to posts index

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