FORUMS: list search recent posts

Subscribe to this

COW Forums : Adobe Creative Cloud Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Subscribe to this
on Jun 17, 2013 at 11:25:22 pm

I believe subscription will eventually become a critical necessity for most companies creating software tools. Without subscription, businesses that have invested untold time, effort and money to build successful software... will die. And must die.

I've touched on this before but consider programs like Microsoft Word. I've often wondered what M$ was going to do when the software that creates their documents becomes essentially "complete." That point when there simply is no other critical feature to be added that makes the software work any better than we users require. Mindful, of course, of the infamous patent official who once recommended that the US patent office be shut down because "everything has been invented."

But come on. Extrapolating the current rate of adding "innovative" and "indispensable" features, eventually you must end up with a user manual the size of a few NY telephone books. While the writing of a few simple docs may be all you really need.

I confess brothers and sisters... I have this friend... Until recently, he ran Office 2004. It was good enough for his purposes. Until CC, he was quite fine with Photoshop 6. He's too embarrassed to mention his NLE. But you know, it all just worked. Similarly Pr CS6 is going to be good enough for a lot of folks, and their clients, for a very long time. The stuff of Adobe nightmares.

Indeed, I read today that Corel is moving more and more towards subscriptions.

So I see compulsory subscription less for its stated purpose of keeping customers up-to-the-minute up-to-date & beyond fully-featured, and more as a necessary model for raw, unabashed corporate survival. There simply is no choice. It's brilliant.

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 17, 2013 at 11:32:56 pm

Rob -

Feature creep can be an insidious thing, but then, every once in a while, a feature is added, where you say, "I could have saved myself hundreds of hours if I'd had this two years ago!". Granted, it's not often that I say that, and as far as Word goes, I am still on Office 2007, and very happy, thank you, and could have gotten by with Office 95 as far as Word features go, but I had to stay up on Outlook, since my business depends on it. Companies don't stay in business for too long unless there are users upgrading, and new customers coming on board.

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


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 17, 2013 at 11:43:30 pm

[Rob Brandreth-Gibbs] "So I see compulsory subscription less for its stated purpose of keeping customers up-to-the-minute up-to-date & beyond fully-featured, and more as a necessary model for raw, unabashed corporate survival. There simply is no choice. It's brilliant."

Except I can't see it being viable. People just won't subscribe if it starts to become a monthly burden.


Return to posts index


Ricardo Marty
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 17, 2013 at 11:56:02 pm

Words is $100 per year and if you don't keep up you still have all your work an work with them or go with some free app. But adobe wants to take our work for ransom plus make me pay for apps that I never use nor care too, and this is not agreeable to and many others. Besides the price is far to much for having nothing at the end.

Ricardo Marty


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 12:01:01 am

I do this for a living so every expense I have is simply a "cost of doing business". Like rent, insurance, hardware updates and printer refills. I have zero problem with paying a small amount each month to have the latest, greatest software if it's something I actually use.

I can see hobbyists getting upset but then they really don't need anything more than iMovie or Premiere Elements anyways...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 12:11:15 am

I make a living with my equipment and my business model is to own most of what I use. So if you think that you model is the only professional business model maybe again your opinion has been affected by the excess use of Merlot.

Ricardo


Return to posts index


Lance Bachelder
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 12:17:36 am

Where in my post did I mention that my business model is the ONLY model? Regardless if you own or rent, in the case of Adobe CC the cost difference is negligible and it's still a tax write-off so who cares.

If the entire software industry adopts a subscription model are you going to quit the biz?

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 12:22:57 am

Not all who get upset are hobbyist.

Ricardo


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 2:00:14 am

[Ricardo Marty] " excess use of Merlot"

Enough with the Merlot, already. Lance has worn the Scarlet M for far too long.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:29:56 am

Thank you Chris! I've moved on to Sangiovese now anyway... ;)

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:33:42 am

[Lance Bachelder] "Thank you Chris! I've moved on to Sangiovese now anyway... ;)"

Oh, you know. Everyone deserves their own personalized "Leave Brittany Alone!" now and then.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 7:17:21 am

Thanks... though sometimes here on the Cow I feel more like Lindsay than Britney :(

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 7:39:45 am

[Lance Bachelder] "Thanks... though sometimes here on the Cow I feel more like Lindsay than Britney :(
"


Hey man, not once have I see you coming out of your underwear. But, hey, better Lindsey than Andy Dick.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 8:25:51 am

Lol! Good thing we're not web caming here on the Cow...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 12:52:30 am

Lance, some day you will want retire, and $50/mo will perhaps become food money (and no longer deductible). What do you want to do then? Play golf? Needlepoint? I want to be able to give back to someone or something besides Adobe with my skills and my archives. I have a lot of projects awaiting, shot and unedited. Is there no one else who cares about this? Reminds me of the three little pigs story.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1,Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.3, Premiere Pro 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Avid MC, Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 8Gb SSD, G5 Quadcore PCIe


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:42:18 am

You are not alone with this.
My biggest concern about the whole thing.


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 12:04:25 am

Agreement on the face of it and with respect to the beauty of competition. But, I'm saying stay tuned as all the software players must embrace this model. A possible exception: I'd guess there will come a time (as we already see with other software) when competitors compete by giving away fully-featured, mature software simply for the opportunity such provides to advertise. The value of the software is to connect to a target market. The software is free, the plug-ins are not. Speculating.

Aside from that, I think the "niche" Adobe is carving out is the set of professionals (big and small) for which such a premium-priced monthly burden becomes a simple cost of doing business.

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 12:18:29 am

Exactly.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 12:19:33 am

That's what "editshare" is doing with lightworks. Some companies use the monthly cost of doing business and others don/t this also applies to big and small companies. But the what is in play by a company such as adobe is much more than what you imply. Why cant a company such as adobe have both like autodesk? Unless there are ulterior motives.

Ricardo


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 12:56:21 am

As I say, I think Adobe can see the writing on the wall where the most creatively arcane features will eventually not be enough to pull customers parked on a beautifully mature application version.

So you have such things as industry pushing 4K at a time when stations and homes have barely bought into 1080 HD. I don't think those people are going anywhere soon.

But that's just my cynicism showing.

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 1:14:25 am

[Rob Brandreth-Gibbs] "s I say, I think Adobe can see the writing on the wall where the most creatively arcane features will eventually not be enough to pull customers parked on a beautifully mature application version."

I agree this is the root of Adobe's problem, as it is Microsoft's. Their core applications are for the most part, mature and robust.

We in post-production actually have the most at stake with this new upgrade. It looks like it takes the Production Suite to a seriously new level in terms of viability as a FCP Legacy replacement. But we're a tiny slice of the Adobe user base. Most photo/print users will be happy with CS6 for a very long time.

This push to SaS is basically coming from companies that don't believe they can innovate enough to attract the growth their Wall Street investors demand. I find that kind of thinking sad, really. I think there's tons of room for innovation and many small developers are proving this true every day.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 3:04:26 am

Imagine a shovel that can dig a hole. Now imagine having to sell that shovel with a board of company directors and shareholders demanding that this shovel be upgraded with features each and every single year such that users will want a new one. We're not there yet with edit software but sometimes I think we're getting close.

Okay not including warp stabilizer. Maybe not rolling shutter either. And multi-camera. Okay, forget everything I just wrote.

Seriously though, of course there are editors who can work, and have worked, and even want to work without any of these things.

But what I really crave and would readily pay extra for is good old operating simplicity. To do things in a way that are amazingly intuitive- easy and fast. There are just too many software packages and other consumers of my time in this world. I want Adobe Premiere Pro CC to become an "expert system." So I never have to look up anything. No ridiculous convoluted procedures. It already knows what I'm going to need. There's your future.

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 3:24:33 am

[Rob Brandreth-Gibbs] "But what I really crave and would readily pay extra for is good old operating simplicity. To do things in a way that are amazingly intuitive- easy and fast. There are just too many software packages and other consumers of my time in this world. I want Adobe Premiere Pro CC to become an "expert system." So I never have to look up anything. No ridiculous convoluted procedures. It already knows what I'm going to need. There's your future."

I'd pay for that too. There's always room for better tools with more intuitive, easier-to-use design. I don't think it needs to be an expert system, there's plenty of room for creativity and improvement in UI and interface design. I'd be happy to pay for those improvements and so would millions of other users.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 12:17:26 am

[Rob Brandreth-Gibbs] "I believe subscription will eventually become a critical necessity for most companies creating software tools. Without subscription, businesses that have invested untold time, effort and money to build successful software... will die. And must die."

Nonsense.

How many applications do you use on your personal computer? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? One hundred?

Multiply that number by $20/month.

Do you honestly think most people will start paying up to $1000/month to run their personal computers?

SaS has been the wet dream of the computer industry for years. It's never taken off because users hate the idea. There will always be competition from companies that offer perpetual licenses and given a choice, most users will want software that doesn't disappear when you stop paying rent.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 12:22:23 am

I agree not every app will go monthly subscription but every app will go download only for sure. In the case of Adobe CC, you're getting thousands of dollars worth of software for a low monthly fee. I may only use something like Dreamweaver once a year but I still have to have it for that one-time use. So I think CC is a bargain. There aren't really any other suite's in existence that could justify a significant monthly fee. Maybe Autodesk or Quantel?

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 12:30:23 am

[Lance Bachelder] "I agree not every app will go monthly subscription but every app will go download only for sure. "

No question everything will go download only. I don't think anyone has a problem with that. The problem is DRM lock-in. Being forced to pay for the rest of your life in order to access your files is not OK with most people.

There's no technical reason why Adobe or any other software publisher couldn't modify their DRM rules so the customer has a choice of stopping and keeping what they have after investing a fair amount of time and/or money. It would be a win-win.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 1:28:14 am

Not buying your argument at all. At some point work is finished and you render out a show. It's over, there's no going back. You move on. Once rendered it can be opened, transferred, transcoded, delivered, sold whatever forever.

If you're saying you need lifetime access to all your original projects at no cost that's just not fair to developers. If that's the case then just buy hacked software and you won't have to worry about fees or subscriptions and you can keep editing a project forever...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 1:44:22 am

[Lance Bachelder] "Not buying your argument at all. At some point work is finished and you render out a show. It's over, there's no going back. You move on. Once rendered it can be opened, transferred, transcoded, delivered, sold whatever forever."

Maybe that's true for you and the kind of projects you do but it's never been true for me. For example, I have a project that started in 2001 and has been re-rendered in many different forms over a period of ten-years. It started as 6-channel SD, then it became 3-channel HD, it's also single-channel 4K. It's also a 6'x3' print edition. The assets are 8K.

For every permutation, I've gone back to the original 2001 project files at some point. There is no final render.

[Lance Bachelder] "If you're saying you need lifetime access to all your original projects at no cost that's just not fair to developers. If that's the case then just buy hacked software and you won't have to worry about fees or subscriptions and you can keep editing a project forever..."

I'm saying I need to control when I freeze my computer system. I'm happy to pay a fair price to developers for that right.

If you want to hand control of your work over to some other company and be forced to pay for access, be my guest. I'll pass.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 3:33:23 am

I'm starting a project we just received a grant for that uses 20+ year old assets. On a 700 year old Hawaiian temple I happen to have the only footage of the most respected archaeologist on the subject. Not everything happened in the last few months. Broaden your viewpoint people. Not all of us are doing quick turnaround. Does anyone read (human) history in this community? WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO OPEN OLDER PROJECTS THIS IS NOT A VIABLE SOLUTION. ( Most all caps I have ever used. sorry if I hurt your eyes or your sensibilities.) Adobe is on the cusp of owning post production, but they could still blow it. In fact, they seem determined to do so.

Remember the library of Alexandria. Gone. You are the descendants. Does anyone take the long view?

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1,Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.3, Premiere Pro 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Avid MC, Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 8Gb SSD, G5 Quadcore PCIe


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:27:05 am

You're right - we need ONE version of an NLE that will NEVER change and last millenia! Shoot gotta run, my papyrus is setting up...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 6:26:07 am

Isn´t there a little bit too much arrogance?
(or did I even understand wrong, as I´m no native speaker?)


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 3:38:40 am

While on knee-jerk principle it's always a good to have access to all the elements of a project, I personally need to think further through all the permutations of not being able to do so on a ready basis if things ever came to such a situation.

It seems, however, if there is work to be done, the monthly fee can be eaten by the project. (Leaving aside hobbyists and other users.) What did you once charge a client, without blinking, just for a 120 MB backup drive?

As you note, everyone's situation is different. But I think how many times I've had to open an old client edit project over the last 30 years. Not many. Still I nervously note that old project files from an EOL NLE remain on hard drives. The final master product thankfully in an accessible media format. And even now, I'm thinking of adding super-less master backups for CC. Just in case.

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:28:28 am

Well David... maybe I'll bump into you over in the Avid forum?

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:31:30 am

[Lance Bachelder] "Well David... maybe I'll bump into you over in the Avid forum?"

Maybe. I hear MC7 is looking good.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 6:22:47 am

That´s too short thought.
I nearly have not one day in my business, where I don´t have to open old files (between 1-3 years, sometimes very much older - I have the complete archive of 5 years in access, rest on hard-discs if needed).
May be it´s a little bit different with video editing (which is only a small part of my business) - but in print design you always have to open older creations.
(Think of catalogues, which have only to be modified in the next years edition, a announcement with only new text-layer, a collection of icons...)
But also in video: If my client wishes the last fair-trailer to be the same, but with a new text-layer? Needing a old file for a Demo-Reel?
And: Where is the harm to developers/programmers? I payed for the software once I created the original. So they got their money for that.
I still can´t believe, that there are many creatives like you that don´t need/want access to closed projects.
Also: It´s not true, that only Adobe and a few other companies are justified to take your monthly fee (and I think, the fees will rise soon, when Adobes income is not longer based on CS6 sellers and Catching Cloudies period ends - have a look at their business plans, espec. to 2016). In my case I have to pay for Autodesc, Cinema 4D, e-onsoftware, apple, ms and many others. May be not that big amounts, but... . The argument of paying only the month you use is eliminated by downloading/installing/book-holding these processes (which also have to be added for opening files after subscription). Thought to the end - This model will become reality for OS too. And your PC will only start up after successful connection to your bank-account.
Software is on a level, where nothing can be added? Great. Stop development. Why is this justifying higher prices? (And yes: In case of MS Office it is. It becomes more and more horrible with every development - We tested 2003 in comparison to 2013: You can work nearby 30% faster with the old version & the "new features" are mostly useless gimmicks)
Nothing against the argument, that a company needs income. Nothing against fighting piracy. Nearly nothing against download-SW.
But what Adobe did is too much: Cutting access to your own creations is simply: Not Fair!
A "Take all or nothing" strategy = Nonsense for the most (I didn´t liked the Suites, when introduced, even I used nearly all of their Apps intensively)
The cloud functionalities as a Must? Why? Core Apps have to run local as before. No need for that (except for spying). Why not a option? A own App for those who think, they can´t live without?
Conclusion: May be it fits perfectly for you and your business. For mine absolutely and unacceptable not.
I see no need to kill the cloud as an option licensing.
If they need more income - why not modifying prices for the "No Cloudies"? Why not adding new Features as PlugIns?
It´s too simple to force users in lifelong dependency on the base argument "Software Developers need money".


Return to posts index

Paul King
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 19, 2013 at 5:01:02 pm

Hey Lance, do you own your own home?
How would you feel if your only option was to rent one?



Return to posts index

Jeremy Doyle
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 19, 2013 at 9:02:49 pm

[Paul King] "do you own your own home?
How would you feel if your only option was to rent one?"


I wouldn't own my home very long if I didn't pay my property taxes. And that cost goes up every year.

Jeremy Doyle
http://www.jeremydoyle.com


Return to posts index

Paul King
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 20, 2013 at 12:33:14 am

You still own the asset, there's just maintenance on top of the purchase price.



Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 12:40:25 am

I really doubt you'd agree that we've now seen subscription go as far as it's going to go in the software industry. I'd even bet you would believe the contrary. Certainly this is the current evidence. Now extrapolate that "movement" over time. In other words, wait for it. Especially the "businesses that have invested untold time, effort and money to build successful software." So far, no nonsense.

Now as for the rest... Yes, I have a hundred little bits of software on my computer. No they are not going to get a subscription from me. Unless they could become indispensable. Or the price is extremely low and administratively easy. Or there is a marketing scenario like subscription music.

But consider what the landscape is going to look like when "everyone" can provide software with the same mature features. You either have some kind of monopoly or will be giving it away free in some fashion. My guess.

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 12:54:01 am

[Rob Brandreth-Gibbs] "I really doubt you'd agree that we've now seen subscription go as far as it's going to go in the software industry. I'd even bet you would believe the contrary. Certainly this is the current evidence."

The industry is more than happy to let Adobe stick its neck out and be the crash test dummy.

I predict their model (no matter the short-term gain) will be a long-term failure. There's simply too much resistance from users and pressure from competitors. Just look at the sidebar on the right for the evidence.

Avid's ad - "Own it." Those two little words and a viable alternative are all it takes to make a rental model fail.

Trust me, you'll be seeing those words a lot more often from the underdogs. Big software companies fall when they lose touch with their users.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 1:26:55 am

If Adobe is the crash test dummy, we're the dummies in the passenger's seat. BTW, there isn't enough money in user's wallets to sustain SaaS throughout the software industry as currently organized. I see a period of large companies like Adobe breaking up and the real talents there starting new endeavors. Adobe is fossilized if they have to resort to subscription. Need I mention Microsoft? Same space. "May you live in interesting times." Hah!

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1,Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.3, Premiere Pro 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Avid MC, Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 8Gb SSD, G5 Quadcore PCIe


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 1:57:29 am

But isn't the crux of the argument of the OP that Adobe HAS TO go to a subscription because it is no longer able to create innovative features or products that entice customers to buy? If that's true, why would someone want to subscribe at all? No one wants to get CC because it maintains the status quo. Users are subscribing partially on the PROMISE that the software will be updated and updated on a more rapid pace.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:35:19 am

If you want to believe in the promise of a corporation I have a bridge to sell you. They will be active until enough are locked in or the current CEO is deposed.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1,Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.3, Premiere Pro 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Avid MC, Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 8Gb SSD, G5 Quadcore PCIe


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 6:42:39 am

Adobe itself announced already, that the main development in future will not affect the Core-Apps in main. It´s more the cloud and sync functionality, that will be development.
I´ll take every bet (with every amount): This CC-day updates, will be the last big updates for a long, long, long period (no idea how long they saved for this...).
I think further development will more end in feature lists like: New GUI-color, Removing Error X, ...
Nothing against income for SW-developers. Always paid for my tools.
But: They have to deliver their work under acceptable conditions.
Forcing users to take what they don´t want (no buy-out/take all or nothing) isn´t constructive innovation.


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 1:51:13 am

I think that these companies that think they cannot innovate any longer are ripe for takeover by companies that can see what they cant or companies thaat want to offer added value to their products

Ricardo Marty


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:38:47 am

Apple could do it, but they know how out of date the code base is.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1,Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.3, Premiere Pro 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Avid MC, Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 8Gb SSD, G5 Quadcore PCIe


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 2:01:50 am

Avid is playing it very smart as they should be with "Own it." (They'll succumb to subscription as quoted in 2018: "Everyone else is doing it...")Or not.

Then I see Corel... Corel who should be leading and taking advantage of the Adobe backlash quoted: "There's no question the pendulum will continue to swing to subscriptions."

Microsoft with it's subscription-based MS 365 and Office: "Within a decade, we think everyone will choose to subscribe because the benefits are undeniable."

(Sound a bit familiar?)

Washington Post: "Subscriptions, and certainly digital downloads, appear to be where the software market is headed."

Don't get me wrong, I would prefer subscription plus perpetual options. But I say the writing is on the wall. And companies will be using every bit of gentle and not-so-gentle manipulation & leverage they can to inexorably change the model to the way they want it. Much like gas companies changed gas stations from the "service" model they used to be in the old days to today's friendly take it or leave it pricing and locations.

Bottom line: software companies are presenting an offer they believe enough folks will buy into.

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 2:13:59 am

[Rob Brandreth-Gibbs] "Bottom line: software companies are presenting an offer they believe enough folks will buy into. "

Sure, the software companies believe it, but if the users don't buy in, SaS goes nowhere. There will always be alternatives and users will always do what's in their own best interest.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Paul Neumann
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 3:42:09 am

The responses to Lance are incredibly short-sighted. The subscription model ENABLES more innovation. This is about growing the pie and advancing the craft of digital media. You may not think you want this. You may not think you need this. But that's the definition of innovation; giving you something you didn't even know you wanted or needed. The Creative Cloud payment model is the first step of the next wave of innovation. God forbid Adobe keep releasing the same product over and over. You'd raise the roof over that. "Adobe hasn't done anything new in years!" This isn't about protecting their piece of the pie. It's about growing the pie. For all of us.

The timed release cycle of major software packages is a huge constraint on developers and the products they work on. Remove it. That's what's happening here. And there's so much more to come.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 4:20:39 am

[Paul Neumann] "This isn't about protecting their piece of the pie. It's about growing the pie. For all of us."

Lol, more nonsense. This has nothing to do with growing the pie for us. This is entirely about growing the pie for Wall Street investors.

Don't take my word for it. Read Adobe's:

Adobe May 2013 Investor Relations Presentation

http://adobe.ly/16cvJjn

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 4:26:01 am

[David Lawrence] "This is entirely about growing the pie for Wall Street investors. Don't take my word for it. Read Adobe's: Adobe May 2013 Investor Relations Presentation"

You seem to presume that making investors happy precludes making customers happy.

I think that's a false dichotomy.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:10:58 am

[Walter Soyka] "You seem to presume that making investors happy precludes making customers happy.

I think that's a false dichotomy."


I'm not making that dichotomy.

I just think it's ridiculous to assume that innovation is the main thing driving the forced SaS model. Adobe's clearly telling us that it's not. Their goal is increased % of recurring revenue. The way they want to achieve this is through DRM lock-in. Otherwise, why not offer a buy-out plan?

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:23:57 am

[David Lawrence] "I just think it's ridiculous to assume that innovation is the main thing driving the forced SaS model. Adobe's clearly telling us that it's not. Their goal is increased % of recurring revenue."

Why must there be only one goal? Of course Adobe wants to make more money, and subscription pricing will surely increase customer lifetime value -- but that doesn't mean that customers must get less value in return.

The whole value proposition is different now than it was before.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:45:46 am

[Walter Soyka] "The whole value proposition is different now than it was before."

Maybe, but being left with nothing, including access to your own work after paying thousands of dollars, doesn't sound like better value. That's why millions of current customers don't want to rent.

Just today, Don Mattrick was defending the DOA XBOX One's $500 price because it's "Over-delivering on value" and "I think that they're going to love it when they use it."

http://aol.it/11uNyXE

That word value gets tossed around a lot. It's meaningless when marketing people say it. Only customers can decide if it's really there. Adobe has a tough sell ahead.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 6:11:25 am

[David Lawrence] "Maybe, but being left with nothing, including access to your own work after paying thousands of dollars, doesn't sound like better value. That's why millions of current customers don't want to rent."

But the anytime feature upgrades, services to be delivered alongside the products, and access to the whole suite without the upfront cost do sound like better value. That's why so many have already signed up for CC.


[David Lawrence] "That word value gets tossed around a lot. It's meaningless when marketing people say it. Only customers can decide if it's really there. Adobe has a tough sell ahead."

Agreed! But I'm not a marketing person. I'm a customer.

Like I said, the value proposition has changed. The advantages and disadvantages of this offering are different than they were before.

I still see enough value here for it to be worthwhile for me. I acknowledge the disadvantages, but I think in my case that the advantages outweigh them. Others such as yourself disagree with me -- and with very good reason. You find the disadvantages to outweigh the advantages.

I simply disagree with your assertion that this has everything to do with investors and nothing to do with customers, because I, a customer, do actually find that the new model has some advantages for me. I think it can be good for me as a customer and for investors at the same time.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 6:47:32 am

[Walter Soyka] "That's why so many have already signed up for CC."

~4% of the current user base in a year doesn't strike me as many -- just sayin...

[Walter Soyka] "I simply disagree with your assertion that this has everything to do with investors and nothing to do with customers, because I, a customer, do actually find that the new model has some advantages for me. I think it can be good for me as a customer and for investors at the same time."

Fair enough. And I completely understand that for you and many others, the advantages and value are beneficial and real.

I have no objection to the subscription model. My objection is to the subscription model with no other choice.

Forget about packed software or separate perpetual versions. I'm talking strictly about DRM lock-in as the business model. There's zero customer benefit to DRM lock-in. The only people who might benefit are investors.

Otherwise, why not offer a loyalty buy-out or some other way to give customers a way out if they choose? I'd sign-up tonight if something like that was in place.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 7:11:13 am

[David Lawrence] "Forget about packed software or separate perpetual versions. I'm talking strictly about DRM lock-in as the business model. There's zero customer benefit to DRM lock-in. The only people who might benefit are investors. Otherwise, why not offer a loyalty buy-out or some other way to give customers a way out if they choose? I'd sign-up tonight if something like that was in place."

There are community benefits.

On the services side, everyone being a customer could accelerate the network effect.

On the product side, with everyone stopped on different versions, support and project interchange is an absolute nightmare. We've got clients running CS6, CS5.5, CS5, and even (unbelievably) CS4. When they all get on CC, they'll be able to keep up with the latest updates and we won't have to support 5 year old software anymore.

Then again, I'm one of the heretics here who view healthy and predictable cash flow for Adobe to be a benefit to me -- it's the thing that enables them to keep developing the software I want to use.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 7:43:28 am

[Walter Soyka] "On the services side, everyone being a customer could accelerate the network effect."

You mean like the way it worked out with Apple's Ping?

[Walter Soyka] "On the product side, with everyone stopped on different versions, support and project interchange is an absolute nightmare. We've got clients running CS6, CS5.5, CS5, and even (unbelievably) CS4. When they all get on CC, they'll be able to keep up with the latest updates and we won't have to support 5 year old software anymore."

Maybe you and everyone you know will always stay up to date but I seriously doubt that will be the case across the board. If anything, things could get more confusing and difficult to support.

[Walter Soyka] "Then again, I'm one of the heretics here who view healthy and predictable cash flow for Adobe to be a benefit to me -- it's the thing that enables them to keep developing the software I want to use."

Assuming it's heathy and predictable. SaS doesn't insure this. Not by a long shot. See pages 2-3 of the Financial Disclaimer at the end of the May 2013 Investor Relations Presentation:

http://adobe.ly/16cvJjn

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 8:09:27 am

[David Lawrence] "You mean like the way it worked out with Apple's Ping?"

Ping was a solution looking for a problem.

I actually have the problems around collaboration and mobility that Creative Cloud could solve -- much like I had the problems of integration that Creative Suite could solve.


[David Lawrence] "Maybe you and everyone you know will always stay up to date but I seriously doubt that will be the case across the board. If anything, things could get more confusing and difficult to support."

Really? My anecdotal experience is that folks skip upgrades even when they want the new features because there never seems to be a convenient time to pay a lump-sum upgrade fee.

Meanwhile, all those free FCPX updates seem to get installed pretty quickly, especially when there's a great feature that's going to make your working life better as an incentive. I think we'll see the same thing with CC since customers will have already paid for the upgrades.

You really think that people will get on CC and, say, stay on CS6?


[David Lawrence] "Assuming it's heathy and predictable. SaS doesn't insure this. Not by a long shot. See pages 2-3 of the Financial Disclaimer at the end of the May 2013 Investor Relations Presentation:"

Neither does staying the course. Any decision carries risk.

And most of that is about the short-term risk of Adobe making an epic change to the only business model that their customers have known for decades. We'll know soon enough if it's going to work or not.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:08:05 pm

[Walter Soyka] " Any decision carries risk. And most of that is about the short-term risk of Adobe making an epic change to the only business model that their customers have known for decades. We'll know soon enough if it's going to work or not."

Adobe's own logic about the value of "universal" CC is very muddy. On the one hand they insist that users will not have to be tethered to the internet to use CC, on the other hand they claim that they want to focus on CC to create shared API's (I have no idea what that means by the way)and other things that can only exist on CC. Which is it? Is the internet going to be essential to the future functionality of CC or will it only be an optional piece for those that want it - can't have it both ways, despite the fact that Adobe makes both claims.

I like it when the vendors I do business with make money, I've had way too many experiences of the other kind. If Adobe thinks subscription is the best way for them to go financially, that's their decision to make. It would be nice for them to simply acknowledge this and stop wrapping the CC in this whole "future of creativity" hype. Unless the future of CC is in mandatory internet tethering, there will always be downloadable programs run locally on a computer. The only thing that stops each of those downloadable programs from running in perpetuity are a few lines of code that Adobe can easily erase. The only reason they don't sell that perpetual version is to benefit themselves financially, which they are entitled to do. However there is no "development effort" that they would have to invest, there are no extra costs, there is no reason that favors the user base in any way for the absence of this option.

The argument that all software will be subscription based in the future is inane; there is absolutely no precedent for it and the entire "free" nature of the web argues against it. Most services on the web that should be charging fees for usage don't out of fear that bucking "free" is a dangerous way to go in the world of youtube and twitter. If MS Office goes subscription only it will loose it's place in the market, and since the only thing really special about Office is it's ubiquity, it will fall fast. Adobe isn't in quite the same predicament, Photoshop is actually the best tool out there, as is AE and Illustrator, so even if they loose market share they will still retain real value. But PPro is not in that class, and if they start to loose market share just as they ought to be gaining it, the compelling reason to get onto the Cloud for video editors is lessened.

It is Adobe's unquestioned right to drop their smaller, less affluent customers and try to build their business around a higher paying market, it's what any company would choose to do, and if they are forced to offer more value to hold onto this new base it's a win for those users as well. But any potential benefit for the user is a side effect; don't piss on me and claim it's raining.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:46:36 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Adobe's own logic about the value of "universal" CC is very muddy. On the one hand they insist that users will not have to be tethered to the internet to use CC, on the other hand they claim that they want to focus on CC to create shared API's (I have no idea what that means by the way)and other things that can only exist on CC. Which is it? Is the internet going to be essential to the future functionality of CC or will it only be an optional piece for those that want it - can't have it both ways, despite the fact that Adobe makes both claims."

Adobe's marketing confusingly conflates the desktop apps with Creative Cloud as a whole. I think that considering the desktop apps as a part of CC, not the whole of it, helps ease the tension between those two claims.

Speculation: I expect to see the desktop apps stand alone with their core functionality offline, with integration into online services that you'd obviously need to be online to use. I expect to see new functionality in partner web apps built on Adobe APIs or on mobile devices available online.

I'd certainly agree with you that this doesn't resolve the tension between the claims entirely. The technical and business sides of this are one big ball of yarn that probably can't be disentangled.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 6:20:49 pm

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the Adobe CC future includes running all apps via the web. Of course it's already spelled out in the name, Creative Cloud. That is the goal, as certainly there ain't really no cloud now.

Where have we seen this same bit of marketing before? Netflix.

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 6:55:28 pm

[Rob Brandreth-Gibbs] "I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the Adobe CC future includes running all apps via the web."

And imagine how many editors would be willing to work on deadline critical material (and is there any other kind?) that requires a constant internet connection. I think none would be the correct answer.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 7:15:12 pm

Makes me a tad nervous as well. I think most editors are born with an innate asset-protection gene. I'm not sure I can even bring myself to store anything on the web, certainly not without back up.

Now about Google's driverless cars...

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 7:43:11 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Speculation: I expect to see the desktop apps stand alone with their core functionality offline"

Which is all that the "nabobs of negativity" are asking for.

Adobe claiming they don't want to divert their focus or split their development to create that which they've already created is absurd. They could charge a premium for those desktop Apps and not release them for a year after they appeared on the cloud, and the user base would still shout hallelujah. The fact that they won't (at least to this point) shows just how little confidence they actually have in any of the Clouds cloud-only enhancements.

Apparently they think dropping the first year's price to $20 month for CS6 users is gonna do the trick.

I guess it's possible that all of this commotion is really due to the fact that the guys running the business side of Adobe are morons.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 10:44:10 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Which is all that the "nabobs of negativity" are asking for.

Adobe claiming they don't want to divert their focus or split their development to create that which they've already created is absurd. They could charge a premium for those desktop Apps and not release them for a year after they appeared on the cloud, and the user base would still shout hallelujah. The fact that they won't (at least to this point) shows just how little confidence they actually have in any of the Clouds cloud-only enhancements.

Apparently they think dropping the first year's price to $20 month for CS6 users is gonna do the trick.

I guess it's possible that all of this commotion is really due to the fact that the guys running the business side of Adobe are morons."


Herb, you're batting 1000 today. Nailed it.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 7:13:29 pm

[Herb Sevush] "If Adobe thinks subscription is the best way for them to go financially, that's their decision to make. It would be nice for them to simply acknowledge this and stop wrapping the CC in this whole "future of creativity" hype. Unless the future of CC is in mandatory internet tethering, there will always be downloadable programs run locally on a computer. The only thing that stops each of those downloadable programs from running in perpetuity are a few lines of code that Adobe can easily erase. The only reason they don't sell that perpetual version is to benefit themselves financially, which they are entitled to do. However there is no "development effort" that they would have to invest, there are no extra costs, there is no reason that favors the user base in any way for the absence of this option."

This. ^

[Herb Sevush] "It is Adobe's unquestioned right to drop their smaller, less affluent customers and try to build their business around a higher paying market, it's what any company would choose to do, and if they are forced to offer more value to hold onto this new base it's a win for those users as well. But any potential benefit for the user is a side effect; don't piss on me and claim it's raining."

And this. ^

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 20, 2013 at 10:37:34 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The argument that all software will be subscription based in the future is inane"

Completely agree.

...But perhaps only slightly less so if referring to "businesses that have invested untold time, effort and money to build successful software" as per my first post.

... maybe a bit less so again if excluding "competitors (who) compete by giving away fully-featured, mature software simply for the opportunity such provides to advertise" found in my second post.

...again a tad less agreement if you consider "Unless they could become indispensable. Or the price is extremely low and administratively easy. Or there is a marketing scenario like subscription music." 6th post.

In my following post, we begin to leave "inane" territory.

Corel: "There's no question the pendulum will continue to swing to subscriptions."

Microsoft "Within a decade, we think everyone will choose to subscribe (MS software) because the benefits are undeniable."

Washington Post: "Subscriptions, and certainly digital downloads, appear to be where the software market is headed."

Finishing up one of my last posts with: required,
"Proprietary software and CODECS. Complexity and investment the user must embrace to discourage exiting. Free heroin would help... Else software tools will become a mere commodity where price rules."

And it is here we find ourselves in the land of Possible Plausibility."

Yes, I really do need to get a life.

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 6:35:54 am

[David Lawrence] "Adobe has a tough sell ahead."

I'm realizing it's that tough sell that's going to ultimately benefit those of us who will drink the Adobe Kool-Aid.

While the magnitude of the commitment will naturally make it more difficult for subscribers to exit, it will also make it a more formidable barrier to entry (compared to the relative ease of sliding in and out of another NLE). Meaning the package is going to have to remain mighty desirous if Adobe wishes to attract prospective subscribers who will be continuously evaluating the product line and the experience of its users, against the alternatives.

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 6:58:16 am

[Rob Brandreth-Gibbs] "Meaning the package is going to have to remain mighty desirous if Adobe wishes to attract prospective subscribers who will be continuously evaluating the product line and the experience of its users, against the alternatives."

Or not, once they have you locked-in. Can you think of an example of a captured market with greater innovation, more competition, lower prices and better customer value? I can't.

What comes to mind is cable service, ISPs, cellular service, health insurance... hmmm... doesn't exactly sound like a great direction for the software industry to me...

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 8:10:02 am

Moving to a different cable company is easy stuff. You look at what's being offered, compare and make the change in your sleep. Don't like cable, see what the telephone company is offering.

My point is that the energy and commitment to CC is several orders larger than signing up for cablevision. It's more like getting married.

I believe you are indeed effectively locked in. So imagine what the offer is going to have to look like to motivate and "lock in" new customers... next year and years after that. It can't just be a promise at that point, it will have to be something visibly overwhelming.

Because it's very doubtful Adobe shareholders are going to be satisfied with a mere initial influx of locked-in paying subscribers.

CC may not be successful, but I'm going to guess it won't be for lack of trying.

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

Mark Bein
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 8:35:05 am

[Rob Brandreth-Gibbs] "So imagine what the offer is going to have to look like to motivate and "lock in" new customers... "

Industry standard and affordable entry should be enough for years to come,
if you think of all those still using CS 4, 5...


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 8:55:41 am

Except now you are not just buying into CS4 or 5... You are buying into a massive package and commitment. That's now a lot of marketing inertia to overcome by a purchaser. I think it's a whole different set of circumstances requiring a lot more marketing grease.

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 7:24:57 am

I am amazed at the shortsightedness of this. Brainwashed comes to mind. Does anyone actually believe that Adobe is the end of software evolution? If not, why are they giving away the ownership of their work? Mind boggling. If you are finished with your work on a case by case basis, it must not be worth much. Sorry if that offends.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1,Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.3, Premiere Pro 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Avid MC, Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 8Gb SSD, G5 Quadcore PCIe


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 8:18:49 am

[Jim Wiseman] "why are they giving away the ownership of their work? Mind boggling. If you are finished with your work on a case by case basis, it must not be worth much."

We all keep spinning around on this idea.

I don't see this the way you do. In my world, I'd say an unfinished project must not be worth much.

I'm not giving away ownership of my work to Adobe. I'm selling it to my clients. And my work is not the project file, it's the final product -- the content itself -- that a client is paying to have for a certain purpose by a certain time. The project file is just a means to that end, and the real tool I use is my mind.

With the rapid pace of change all around us, I'm finding that clients are more interested in new content to address their new challenges than they are endlessly tweaking old stuff.

I think we value these things so differently because we have such different needs.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Paul King
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 19, 2013 at 5:44:04 pm

The high end post market produces TV commercials.
These often need to be revisited as do corporate docos (which dont get reshot with entirely new material everytime).

So you edit them with the tools you choose, the client pays, you store the media and the project, in case they come back.

Meantime you're paying Adobe. You change direction, there's a new software player and you go that way. But those old projects? That client may need a re edit. So now you're paying Adobe for software you no longer want or use and the new software.

Buying into Adobe is an investment in your business and as business changes, so should your investment. The Sas model potentially ties your business to Adobe, whether you want it to or not. This is not good business.



Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 6:57:33 am

If their targets become true: Rising profit and losing customers...
I think, it´s simply not getting cheaper for the individual - or is my math wrong?

Nothing against foreseeable income for Adobe, but the conditions have to be fair.
May be it fits for you, but you can´t ignore the concerns against that, which are also well justified.


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 6:51:24 am

...may be, but not 100%


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 4:36:14 am

Marketing principles tell us that it is competition that drives innovation. Not good intentions.

The question is can I commit my captured soul to Adobe's 30+ assorted CC apps, tools and services and then just think I can up and walk across the street if ever I feel the need to patronize the competition?

I doubt it. That's the genius and dread of CC.

...Hell, I'm in. This should be interesting.

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:13:46 am

[Rob Brandreth-Gibbs] "The question is can I commit my captured soul to Adobe's 30+ assorted CC apps, tools and services and then just think I can up and walk across the street if ever I feel the need to patronize the competition?

I doubt it. That's the genius and dread of CC.

...Hell, I'm in. This should be interesting."


Enjoy! Unless something changes, I'll wait for 2014. CS6 is working fine.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Ridley Walker
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 4:56:26 am

[Paul Neumann] "The timed release cycle of major software packages is a huge constraint on developers and the products they work on."

This limitation was self-imposed. Adobe created the suites and dictated co-ordinated release dates of individual products.

From the very start Illustrator, Photoshop, Premiere, Acrobat has independent cycles. Adobe elected to change the game.


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 7:04:02 am

quite true...


Return to posts index

Paul Neumann
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 11:50:48 am

Really? So the Creative Suites were a bad idea? Grouping together shared use applications, connecting them with Dynamic Link and offering them at a better price than purchasing them all separately was a bad idea? I can hear it now, "Apple's got their act together! Look at that Final Cut Studio! What's wrong with Adobe? Why don't they do something like that?"


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 12:51:09 pm

Not the main concern, but there are individuals who don´t need the whole suite.
They have to pay for those, who need all.
or?


Return to posts index

Ridley Walker
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 2:27:39 pm

[Paul Neumann] "Really? So the Creative Suites were a bad idea?"

You're the one making the value judgement. I'm merely reporting the facts. That Adobe now make this an the reason for moving to a subscription model seems a bit disingenuous, this was their own doing. They can undo it if they wish.


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 6:50:24 am

there´s a little bit more removed than software-upgrade cycles here... or?
where are the arguments within your statement, why this is so innovation friendly?
only can be done with a change of distribution?


Return to posts index

Paul King
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 19, 2013 at 5:12:24 pm

Paul

The only innovation so far is in the billing method. You cant call that software innovation.

CC was a flop for video production features. Not enough in it to justify a point release so subscription became the substitute for innovation.



Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 19, 2013 at 11:50:54 pm

With all due respect,......I feel that is a bunch of crap. Why pray tell, do they have to go to a
subscription model to 'continue to innovate'? I am with you on going to digital download.
That frees them from having to hit certain dates for certain programs and so on.
But subscription/software rental? There is one reason, and one reason only to go there. And it
has nothing to do with 'innovation'. They can 'innovate' all they want by releasing digital downloads
of their programs on any time schedule they want.....update AE in May, Illustrator in July, Premiere in
December, the choices are endless. That's what Apple does with FCP X after all. But there is NO REASON
that they have to tie a new way to pay, to all of this.

Look, I know people that just lease cars and never own them. Their reasoning, is that they will
always want the newest and best one, so they are willing to have a never ending car payment.
Their reasoning is, that if they bought a car, they'd just trade it in anyways in 2 years to get
a new one. Others, like to have more control over their expenses. They are not nearly as cool,
as they sometimes drive 10 year old cars, but they upgrade when it makes sense for them.
That's what's going on here. Too many of us (like me) don't upgrade often enough for Adobe.
More money in my pocket, is less money in Adobe's pocket. So they want to 'take control' and
get that money by basically forcing you to constantly pay. THAT, not some notion of
'innovation' is what this is about........'It's all about the Benjamins baby!'

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


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 6:46:43 am

Isn´t the debatte about exactyl that:
Do WE want, what industries wants us to want?
(No doubt about, that developers want this...)


Return to posts index

Mark Bein
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 8:10:29 am

[Rob Brandreth-Gibbs] "But consider what the landscape is going to look like when "everyone" can provide software with the same mature features. You either have some kind of monopoly or will be giving it away free in some fashion. My guess."

If it's cheap to make, why shouldn't it be cheap to buy?

If you think CC is mature and nobody would want to buy a new version anymore,
with a subscription model Adobe can just lay off their staff and rake in the money.


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 8:43:49 am

Cheap to buy? I wrote that the stuff will be practically given away some day. Supported by ads and plug-ins.

From post #1:

"So I see compulsory subscription less for its stated purpose of keeping customers up-to-the-minute up-to-date & beyond fully-featured, and more as a necessary model for raw, unabashed corporate survival."

Later adding the key qualification that subscription is going to have to continue to be some-spectacular if Adobe hopes to motivate and commit new subscribers (and their $) in the future. And CC is a commitment.

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

Mark Bein
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 7:35:43 am

[Rob Brandreth-Gibbs] " I have this friend... Until recently, he ran Office 2004. It was good enough for his purposes."

So you think he should pay indefinitely anyway...


[Rob Brandreth-Gibbs] " raw, unabashed corporate survival."

Well, some companies just have to go away for raw, unabashed human welfare.


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 9:25:04 am

Apologies, it's late so starting to fade,

But I think the purpose of mentioning Office 2004 and other old software was to make the point that many users just don't require new software to do the job- which is anathema to software producers for obvious reasons.

You might have to spoon-feed me that last one. Went over my head. Do you mean ...disappear for the good of all?

Right, I think that is what is meant. Agreed, it's natural selection: survival of the fittest. The fittest are fit because they evolve and successfully occupy a niche. They either provide something of value and desired or they don't. I'll let you decide where Adobe fits in all that.

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

Mark Bein
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 11:08:25 am

[Rob Brandreth-Gibbs] "Agreed, it's natural selection: survival of the fittest."

No, that's not what I meant.

It's just that some things become so easy to make, so cheap to produce that there's not a big margin in it anymore.
On the other side they become commonplace so everybody can buy it /use it.
Who was able to afford a computer 30 years ago?

When Thomas Knoll began developing PS, he didn't have to punch holes in cardboard.
He didn't have to share a mainframe with others.
He could use his own computer and an operating system with a GUI - groundwork laid by others.
Today you don't even need to program a gaussian blur algorithm - Core Image takes care of that.

That's the kind of benefit for humankind I'm talking about if tools get affordable and commonplace.


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 4:31:01 pm

Agreed.

But the next thought is: then what the heck does a big company, like Adobe, with lots of mouths to feed have to do to make a buck around here in this environment?

Answer: if this was Hogwarts, magically create an old-fashioned monopoly. Suddenly you are in the driver's seat. Doesn't matter what any competitor might do. There essentially are none. I'm not even sure Adobe has a classic monopoly- call it a virtual monopoly or neo-monopoly. But it's brilliant none-the-less.

Getting lost in all this is the requirement for Adobe to deliver something equally brilliant- something no one else can produce- to entice, and continue to entice, siren-like, new users to sign up (possibly forever) to this voluntary monopoly.

Corel and Microsoft are on their way. But can a software company with just one product instead of 30+ like Adobe do similar? I think this is the nub of your response.

Maybe not. Or maybe yes. It would involve classic market differentiation. Proprietary software and CODECS. Complexity and investment the user must embrace to discourage exiting. Low, easy subscription prices (to begin with). Free heroin would help. Or heroin-like properties. And addict-like behavior. I believe you call those fanboys.

Like the lyrics in the musical "Gypsy" sez: "Ya gotta get a gimmick."

Else software tools will become a mere commodity where price rules.

imho.

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

Justin Crowell
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 7:52:16 pm

I just want to add my little piece:
I understand why people are angry. If I switch away from CC in three years, I'll be annoyed to have paid so much and ended up with no software.

The posts about lock-in and monopolies are way off point, however; this is just Adobe's offering. If in 3 years, Avid has been bought out, and MC suddenly looks amazing, I'll make that switch. Any money I spent on Adobe software would be a sunk cost. I'll do a year overlap for not too much money, and make sure all the projects I'll need are openable with MC, or perhaps I'll just plan on budgeting for a month of Adobe down the line.

So, for me, it's ALL about competition. Right now Adobe is offering the best product for me at the best price. When that's no longer the case, (say, if Adobe stops innovating, and some new mograph stuff comes out that combines Motion's speed and AE's depth) I'm out!

The numbers simply aren't terrifying to me, and I think the moral outrage is misplaced. I don't think Adobe is doing this stuff because they are an angelic company, but I also don't see why it's deeply insulting for them to do something for their shareholders....

Video editor, animator, composer, producer
JustinCrowell.com


Return to posts index

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 18, 2013 at 11:40:45 pm

Money? Oh ya, CC costs doesn't it? No I'm hardly talking about the costs. (Though I exaggerate a bit for effect.) On that point I agree. Switch the moment there's a major PO.

No, what I'm really talking about is irresistible tractor-beam-Spock-mind-melding assimilation with 30+ Adobe applications, tools and services. Each with its own vile user manual we must absorb.

Of course most people are not going to become proficient in all 30+ but speaking for myself, and I bet a lot others, once I learn these/most of these/some of these applications; once I invest my precious time into numerous major and minor apps with their nebulous interconnectivity- to say nothing of their generated files- believe me, I'm not going anywhere soon.

There are editors who take to multiple NLEs like some folks to multiple languages, but most of us would rather eat dirt than take time from our busy, multi-tasked lives to master a new one.

Boarding the gravy train and bee-lining to the dining car, there is a major incentive and motivation to pork out at the buffet table. It's "free" and plentiful. Dreamweaver was never at the top of my list for web creation. Guess what, it is now.

And that is the devious beauty of CC.

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada


Return to posts index

Justin Crowell
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 19, 2013 at 2:01:09 pm

I totally understand all of that, and definitely agree that their offering is somewhat of a lock-in in and of itself...but that's the nature of competition, isn't it? Adobe is providing a potential end-to-end workflow that I personally haven't had a shot at before now.

But, that having been said...I've generally switched primary softwares (NLE or DAW, back when that was my thing) every three or so years. It's just unlikely that anything will remain the best for longer than that. Switching also has the added advantage of making me really good in one property, and solid enough in another. I'll bet I could open up Digital Performer (god forbid) and be adequate within a week.

Editor, Producer, DP
JustinCrowell.com


Return to posts index

Paul King
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 19, 2013 at 6:09:03 pm

Justin

It's deeply insulting because a lot of people paid a lot of money for CS1, CS1.5, CS2, CS3, CS4, CS5, CS5.5 and CS6. Up until CS6 the software was never good enough to move to a subscription base. So the loyalty of customers who paid for perpetual licenses for all those years is dismissed. New customers are much better off because they never made the initial capital outlay.

There's a trust issue here. Adobe have taken a long time to develop software that works as it should (Avid, Dicreet and Apple were there a long time ago). So now they want trust they haven't earned, that they will continue an equal pace of development while they are paid regularly and continuously.

Look at their track record so far. They have already dropped Encore from the offering, so they have eroded the value from CC from the outset. We can trust that they will do what suits their bottom line at the time.



Return to posts index

Justin Crowell
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 19, 2013 at 7:06:25 pm

Hi Paul,
I think you summed up my point: We can trust that they will do what suits their bottom line at the time.

I don't expect anything more (or less) from a public company. On the other hand, I think it'd be to the benefit of the shareholders for Adobe to continue to improve the suite (or whatever we'll call it now), so hopefully that will keep things moving in a competitive direction. I see no reason to have trust or not in a public company--we all take calculated risks by basing our businesses on other businesses. You have to weigh the pros and cons, and simply go for it. I don't ask
Adobe for any assurance--I just figure out what they offer and what I can afford.

I have trouble seeing how previous purchases amount to some sort of say in how a company is run. Those are sunk costs, and they are in the past. I know Adobe's upgrade pricing for CC is only for a year, and probably doesn't amount to what it would have before---but does anyone think Adobe offers (and has always offered) upgrade pricing because they are nice? It's obviously a business decision, similar to their attempts to lock people in now.

I just think this whole concept of "loyalty" is strange. Were you loyal because you wanted to support their engineers? Or was it because you made a business decision that their product was worth paying for?

Editor, Producer, DP
JustinCrowell.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 19, 2013 at 9:27:48 pm

completely OK - we are talking about a free open market. they are like, great things. the point would be whether we want to make noise to improve the deal.

believe it or not there is reasonable decibel level.

http://www.studiodaily.com/2013/06/adobe-updates-creative-cloud-application...

"It's doubtful Adobe anticipated quite the volume of negative commentary that met its move to the subscription-only model. (Even Microsoft, a proponent of subscription software, seemed to think Adobe moved too fast.) If you're unhappy, ** **it might pay to keep making noise ** ** **. "

that's pay paul, pay for noise -cash in hand. or software security over a certain horizon. I prefer the latter.

Not to call everyone morons - but we have a limited window to raise a large `racket of FUD, depress the subscription rates, and get a better deal.

I swear to god - are we all feeding our IQ good fibre? - because this is actually straightforward. they don't hit the next stated CC milestone after november - until 2015. If november is a triumph - off a fraction of their user base, they are going to hunker down for a long time.

Seriously now: how. clear. can one MAKE it. there is a limited window for direct action.

the deadline is largely november - if the subscriptions play out at 1.25 million, which they probably will - adobe don't have to talk about it again for a while publicly.

could we please get our act together. its four months we're talking here. Does anyone have a brain. the analysts are hanging on every update.

we could actually, if we got our act together, briefly put our hands around their necks if we showed a tiny bit of sense.

would anyone, anyone at all like to improve this deal?

http://www.adobe2014.tumblr.com
#adobe2014

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


Return to posts index

Paul King
Re: Subscribe to this
on Jun 20, 2013 at 12:31:58 am

Loyal because I bought the product, I sold the product and I was a better tester for five years.

Now the distributors in Australia are dumping the product because no one can sell and support it any more.

So it's not just a user perspective of trust, it's also a reseller perspective.

We all contributed to Adobe for the last 8 years because it has never worked properly and has been a work in progress up until CS6 (although I can give you significant bugs that should be there and have not been fixed - I came to blows with Adobe over them so I don't beta anymore).

So Justin, I have invested more than just production funds into the product. All resellers have been to hell and back with Premiere and been paid nothing for it from Adobe. Adobe didn't ever support their reseller base technically and I could only do it because I had inside information from the betas.

Changes software is not like changing your car, it's more like changing your bank account (although harder than that) and banks treat us accordingly because they know how hard it is. Adobe are treating us the same.

Justin - do you own or rent your house?
I own for security reasons, same with the software.
If you own, how would you like your bank to convert your mortgage to rent, even though you entered into the arrangement as a purchase?



Return to posts index

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