FORUMS: list search recent posts

3-2-1...

COW Forums : Adobe Creative Cloud Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>

Ridley Walker
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 2, 2013 at 9:13:02 pm

"Autodesk is facing declining sales and profit this year. The change will make it easier and cheaper for customers using old versions of the company’s products and will attract new consumers, Anagnost said.

“A customer that comes and joins as a renter is much more valuable over a number of years,” he said."

No doubt.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 2, 2013 at 10:44:53 pm

yes, sure paul, maybe we all get broadly run over as customers here. fantastic. Adobe broke the dam. Lets start that countdown.

hooray everyone, lets prepare for all our house software purchases to magically turn into rented accommodation.

I swear to living god, I despair for the brains.

"ARR is a wonderful business model for any company that can implement it, as the associated cash flow stream requires little incremental work beyond the initial investment at the firm."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1719782-creative-cloud-drives-adobe?source=...

That Paul, relates to the outlay involved in generating the subscriber base. Adobe are, very publically, engaged in that right as we speak.

thereafter, Paulino, we can, all of us, look forward to markedly and fundamentally different software companies over time operating a subscription maintenance model, these companies will quite literally change based on this cashflow model - we are kidding ourselves if we think the adobe of five years is the adobe of now.

god, you would nearly grind your teeth.

It will have a fraction of the current engineers as steady state subscription with partial monopoly, and we will be subject to exactly the same customer service with clockwork price hikes as any other subscriber base - churn allows for crappy performance, and lets face it - the adobe back end is already hollowed out. Only we're not opting for cable here, we're a market identified captive base with extremely limited mobility. That is basically a mark.

At this point Adobe are still partially operating with actual customers - and they are throwing them out as fast as they can.

we are morons, actual true morons, to let this slide. If adobe get critical mass on subscriptions it is likely going to lead to really aggressive models on a wider scale over the next 5-10 years.

Have you looked at other subscription model services lately? Or the implications of truly captive markets?

In short, i'm not actually saying that you're an idiot Paul, but there's a decent chance you could be.

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


Return to posts index


Paul Neumann
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 2, 2013 at 11:15:14 pm

Cheers Aindreas! I was just counting down to some fresh new fodder for the Debate. No offense meant and no offense taken. Have to get back to you on the idiot thing....but how will I know?


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 2, 2013 at 11:24:32 pm

and cheers there to you Paul! just to be clear - you are, say, broadly in favour of the new software rental system adobe are trying to get off the ground tho yes?

I'd be right in thinking that?

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


Return to posts index

Paul Neumann
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 3, 2013 at 3:49:17 am

Aindreas I think we all can agree that $50 a month for everything that the Creative Cloud offers is a great deal. Where we differ is in paying for this in perpetuity. If it were only available to buy, I'd certainly buy it. Then I'd buy every upgrade or new suite as well as I have since Creative Suite was released and that includes PPro 1.0 before that. As it is, it's not available to buy, but only available as a subscription.

Since that's the only way to have access to these tools I've resigned myself to that. I know, for me, not having access to the Adobe tools would be most damaging to my professional output/advancement so I pay the monthly cost.

I truly don't know if I'm like most of the people or like nearly none of the people. I just accept it as a cost of doing business.

I'm for the success of the products that Adobe is offering us right now. They are that good. I'd like everybody to use them.

The rental model doesn't sit right with some people. Fine.

I don't have a dog in the fight about whether SaaS is a good thing or not.

I was really hoping to hear what people thought of the Autodesk guy's comments vs. what the Adobe folks have been saying.


Return to posts index


Ridley Walker
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 3, 2013 at 4:01:52 am

[Paul Neumann] "I was really hoping to hear what people thought of the Autodesk guy's comments vs. what the Adobe folks have been saying.
"


At least he's honest. It has nothing to do with serving the customer and everything to do with serving the shareholder.

It is indeed a Brave New World.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 3, 2013 at 3:31:59 pm

[Ridley Walker] "At least he's honest. It has nothing to do with serving the customer and everything to do with serving the shareholder."

I don't think that serving the customer and the shareholder are mutually exclusive.

In fact, there's a whole pile of serving the customer right around the corner:

http://blogs.adobe.com/aftereffects/2013/09/after-effects-cc-12-1-whats-new...

http://blogs.adobe.com/premierepro/2013/09/adobe-premiere-pro-cc-october-20...

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

Ridley Walker
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 3, 2013 at 4:25:45 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I don't think that serving the customer and the shareholder are mutually exclusive.
"


Fair enough. However, the article is is freighted with investor speak, which one would expect from such a source.

I've already stated that I hope Adobe flourishes, I want them to continue to produce exceptional software. I also want a perpetual license or some form of buy out exit from the subscription model.


Return to posts index


Chris Pettit
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 3, 2013 at 12:42:01 am

ouch. Hot knife through butter.


Return to posts index

Gustavo Bermudas
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 3, 2013 at 7:19:09 pm

One thing to note though, Autodesk still plan to offer perpetual licenses along with the rental model


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 3, 2013 at 9:29:06 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "It will have a fraction of the current engineers as steady state subscription with partial monopoly, and we will be subject to exactly the same customer service with clockwork price hikes as any other subscriber base - churn allows for crappy performance, and lets face it - the adobe back end is already hollowed out. Only we're not opting for cable here, we're a market identified captive base with extremely limited mobility. That is basically a mark."

This paragraph contradicts itself. If there is subscriber churn, then by definition we are not a "captive base with extremely limited mobility."

The scenario you describe is a recipe for a death spiral. As Adobe would lower quality to save cost and raise prices to drive revenue, customers would leave. The more customers left, the more Adobe would have to lower costs and raise prices, the more customers would leave...

I don't see how Adobe could afford to rest on their laurels and ignore their customers' needs. In your Bladerunner software dystopia example above, all it would take to win those neglected customers over en masse is one single competitor. Citation needed? Look at what Adobe did to Quark.

Everyone here has been talking about how Creative Cloud makes subscribers dependent on Adobe, but it's a two-sided relationship: Adobe will also be dependent on their subscribers.

I know it's sacrilege around here, but there is actually a scenario wherein users also benefit with Creative Cloud as Adobe works to keep their existing customers happy.

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


Daniel Frome
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 3, 2013 at 10:00:55 pm

Avid is losing money, Apple (pro division) is kind of a charity product of their phones and tablet market, And now Autodesk says they are losing money too...

The moral of the story is...

Making video editing software is really, really hard!


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 3, 2013 at 11:09:22 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Everyone here has been talking about how Creative Cloud makes subscribers dependent on Adobe, but it's a two-sided relationship: Adobe will also be dependent on their subscribers."

Way less two-sided than ever before -- pay forever or lose the ability to open your project files. Until this changes, Adobe has all the leverage. Still waiting for the "tweaks" they mentioned months ago.

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


Return to posts index

Dave LaRonde
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 4, 2013 at 12:42:31 am

[David Lawrence] "...pay forever or lose the ability to open your project files."

Which is the raison d'etre for this entire forum, in my opinion. Adobe fixes that and life is good.

Dave LaRonde
Former Sr. Promotion Producer
KCRG-TV (ABC) Cedar Rapids, IA


Return to posts index


Ridley Walker
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 4, 2013 at 12:51:45 am

+1


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 4, 2013 at 12:57:31 am

[Dave LaRonde] "Which is the raison d'etre for this entire forum, in my opinion. Adobe fixes that and life is good."

Yes! Millions of us are ready to give Adobe money. They just have to start selling software again.

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


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 4, 2013 at 8:56:51 am

Amen! But do it through a third party. Adobe won't be getting my credit card info even if they bring back perpetual licenses.

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


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 4, 2013 at 11:00:01 pm

[David Lawrence] "Millions of us are ready to give Adobe money. They just have to start selling software again."

they won't. and they have carte blanche to do any act under god to realise that 3.5/4 million subscriber number. this is a direct failed conversation. any pressure we could apply is being smothered because they can answer with a variety of ludicrous short term deals.
if you read it adobe basically have a wall street carte blanche to do absolutely anything for around two years - in order to generate a working base.

the profits are dropping like a stone, but the shares are rising, because adobe are offering them a captive subscription locked in.

let's all pause for pantomime dopes here. stu mashwits here? great lets carry on.


Adobe is architecting a high wall cul de sac. you are captive, you need to get in and out (say indesign and PS or something), basically you need to buy passage. but you can't - you have to pay inflated rent. your creative work is now locked to competition retarded subscription software. I'm sure stumashwits has no fear that anything will eclipse the new forever backwards compatible AE. because AE has to be be the new letraset.

no one could actually be that stupid right?

why the hell did letraset never pull this? or the letterpress guys?

oh right - lets genuflect - its software

my ass.

we're morons.

no really. Morons.

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 5, 2013 at 1:11:46 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "they won't. and they have carte blanche to do any act under god to realise that 3.5/4 million subscriber number. this is a direct failed conversation. any pressure we could apply is being smothered because they can answer with a variety of ludicrous short term deals.
if you read it adobe basically have a wall street carte blanche to do absolutely anything for around two years - in order to generate a working base."


Keep the faith, brother Aindreas, this is a long game. It may well take two years but when the Wall Street gamblers get bored with lost revenue, they'll run for the exits like they always do.

Remember, Quark didn't wither overnight either.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 4, 2013 at 9:43:41 pm

[Walter Soyka] "This paragraph contradicts itself."

no. churn happens at the bottom of the barrel - churn rates, particularly in telco subscriptions are a fact of life - you have a large steady state subscription base, with a marginal churn rate of entry and exit. you are being wilfully (maybe :) ignorant here walter.
It is a basic math of subscription. you are not selling live to a market place, you are managing tangential churn from a steady state subscription base.
If this takes hold in core creative software, the impact is going to be basically unwelcome and profound.

its fine that a telco or a video stream provider operates in a habitual churn subscription environment. they effectively have a steady state service (voice/ video content service),

thats why this argument gets so intellectually irritating - the degree to which people are being wilfully stupid about it. this is not a steady state environment. if we allow our software providers occupy steady state subscriptions in their territory across 3D, print, etc, what are we achieving? what are the creative software providers now there to do? with subscriptions in their hands? advance the software, or curate a steady subscription base?

Exactly how stupid is everyone here regarding the ramifications?

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 7, 2013 at 1:33:11 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "you are being wilfully (maybe :) ignorant here walter."

Or -- and here's where it gets really crazy -- this is my honest and considered opinion.



[Aindreas Gallagher] "It is a basic math of subscription. you are not selling live to a market place, you are managing tangential churn from a steady state subscription base. If this takes hold in core creative software, the impact is going to be basically unwelcome and profound. "

What does "selling live to a market place" mean, and why doesn't subscription qualify?

The most important thing a subscription-based business can do is maintain existing customers. Unhappy customers will leave, so they need to keep customers happy. They need to continuously sell to their existing customers or risk losing them.

I have this crazy idea that subscription may actually be better for long-term customers. Consider the traditional licensing model: if you were a long-time user, you'd pay a small upgrade fee for the next version. If I were a new user, I'd pay the full license fee for the next version. That means Adobe is rewarded more for shiny bullet-point features that will sell a new license to me than for boring every-day features that will sell an upgrade to you.

I love that Ae and Pr CC updates are focused more on minimizing real user frustration than on shiny new but half-baked features to draw in new users. I use this software every day and these are exactly the improvements I want first.


[Aindreas Gallagher] "its fine that a telco or a video stream provider operates in a habitual churn subscription environment. they effectively have a steady state service (voice/ video content service), "


For what it's worth, this is exactly the opposite of what I've seen with my cable and cell phone services. Nobody in those areas have been sitting on their hands for the last decade, despite basically "managing tangential churn from a steady state subscription base."

Instead, as a customer, I've gotten more coverage and faster networks.



[Aindreas Gallagher] "thats why this argument gets so intellectually irritating - the degree to which people are being wilfully stupid about it. this is not a steady state environment. if we allow our software providers occupy steady state subscriptions in their territory across 3D, print, etc, what are we achieving? what are the creative software providers now there to do? with subscriptions in their hands? advance the software, or curate a steady subscription base?"

If Adobe fails to advance the software, they will fail to retain existing customers (or attract new ones), and they will fail in the market.

This is true whether they sell perpetual licenses or subscriptions.

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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 7, 2013 at 8:41:16 pm

[Walter Soyka] "This is true whether they sell perpetual licenses or subscriptions."

no, oh good god give me strength.

walter.

that entire dynamic is irrevocably altered by them forcing habitual subscription.

i don't get, how you cannot get that a subscription stream business is a natural impediment to going anywhere - look at the natural lock in rates for subscription services - there is a ton of built in friction. You are not selling something, you are tasked with maintaining a subscriber base. A forced one in this case. there is no competing subscription suite we can shift to, no other telco. this is a sole locked photography, mograph video telco without competitors at a suite level.

honestly - and without being unduly dismissive walter - what part of that is difficult to understand?

how actually, wilfully stupid are people prepared to be in this scenario?

throwing my hands in the air, as it were, how truly stupid is everyone here?

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 7, 2013 at 10:24:10 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "i don't get, how you cannot get that a subscription stream business is a natural impediment to going anywhere - look at the natural lock in rates for subscription services - there is a ton of built in friction. You are not selling something, you are tasked with maintaining a subscriber base. A forced one in this case. there is no competing subscription suite we can shift to, no other telco. this is a sole locked photography, mograph video telco without competitors at a suite level."

A) I don't accept the premise that there are no competitors. Look over any of these forums for lists of Adobe alternatives. I happen to think that Creative Cloud is better for my work than the alternatives (including CS6); if I change my mind because Adobe falters or the competition improves, I'll drop Adobe like I dropped Avid and Apple before them.

B) I don't accept the premise that subscription naturally leads to stasis. My cell service is better in every way today than it was 5 years ago. My Internet service is better in every way today than it was 5 years ago. My email/calendar is better in every way today than it was 5 years ago. You show me a static subscription service offering, I'll show you subscription service losing customers.

C) I believe that subscribers are customers, and that that one of the critical functions of "maintaining a subscriber base" is keeping those customers happy. When customers are unhappy, they will leave. Technology does not stand still, and neither can any developer or manufacturer. We've seen massive customer defections from juggernauts in the market who once seemed invincible: IBM, Microsoft, Dell, RIM/Blackberry. Quark in our sister industry DTP, and Avid and maybe even Apple in our own. Adobe would not be immune.

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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 7, 2013 at 11:43:13 pm

[Walter Soyka] "A) I don't accept the premise that there are no competitors. "

on a semi monopoly forced move across that many disciplines in software corralled by force into one subscription - you're wrong there anyway walter. there is no comparable offering to the forced subscription they are demanding. small sigh said he because this is both actually obvious, and a basic logic of their move. they are operating on the basis that there is precisly no competitor to the forced subscription they are creating. anyway so - welcome to the world called obvious.


[Walter Soyka] "B) I don't accept the premise that subscription naturally leads to stasis."
well done there - also your cell service has up to four direct competitors - count the ones in front of this newly constructed subscription. Oh you can't? well done again sir. how many was does this actually have to be spelt out in order to be functionally read?



[Walter Soyka] "C) I believe that subscribers are customers"
again - unfortunately wrong, and completely mis-understanding the basic context of the scenario - even in the less than optimum game scenario of a locked subscription, this is a locked subscription completely dissimilar to the live scenario of cell providers, it is in fact one that is lacking any direct comparable competitors. that last point is, again, for the mentally challenged amongst us.

again I am forced to raise the issue of the flagrantly stupid stretching in all directions, allied to the inability to see the things that are dangerously close to being in front of people's faces.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 8, 2013 at 1:40:43 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "this is a locked subscription completely dissimilar to the live scenario of cell providers, it is in fact one that is lacking any direct comparable competitors. that last point is, again, for the mentally challenged amongst us."

Aindreas, I think we can disagree without ad hominem argument. Your sputtering about my stupidity may be accurate, but could you detail where my reasoning is going off the rails?

You seem to think that Adobe can do whatever they want because they have no competition.

If that were true, it doesn't matter if they sell perpetual licenses or subscription software. They could do the things that you say with near Cartesian certainty that they will under any model: slow development and raise prices. Instead of subscription forcing customers along, the relentless march of technology would. (Want new image formats, or support for new operating systems or new hardware? Gotta upgrade!)

There are some really compelling arguments against subscription. David makes them all the time. You have made many yourself. I don't see how this one is uniquely targeted at subscription.

On the subject of competition, how is Adobe any different than the other companies who lacked "direct comparable competitors," like IBM, Microsoft, Dell, or RIM/BlackBerry? Complacency kills. Adobe is not immune.

In fact, Aindreas, you yourself have made this exact argument many times here with respect to Adobe and Flash, the recently-deposed king of multimedia delivery.

So what are we really disagreeing about here?

You seem to be claiming that Adobe will necessarily provide worse and worse service at higher and higher prices, by virtue of their business model.

I am arguing that if they do that, they will get absolutely clobbered in the market and subscribers like me would leave in droves.

I am also arguing that it's actually possible that they will continue delivering improved software under their new business model. Why do you think that scenario is impossible?

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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 11, 2013 at 9:00:14 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Aindreas, I think we can disagree without ad hominem argument."

yes - apologies walter: that was overboard. genuine apology. bar anything, my sputtering aside, I reckon you've got the better brain in hand.

its the utopian vista for corporate behaviour in a locked box subscription I have an issue with - you seem to give yourself an out on it by clearly stating that you would reassess if things did turn left. I'd argue things are turning left right now.

the basic point I'm trying to repeatedly make publicly is that we are at an inflection point, and if we hope to improve terms, now is about exactly the time that we might try to prove it by cohesive action to noticeably retard subscription numbers.

It's a game in essence this, and we are losing it. they threw out a largely fake photoshop deal given the catchment it actually describes, and they do have two to three year wall street carte blanche to see if they can create an energy supplier subscription dynamic for user critical software.

I've always said we were morons to walk into that, and I still think we are.

the coup de gras would be true energy provider lock out involving live application code at server end -something that has been repeatedly/accidentally dropped by adobe personnel.

I'd really truly ask anyone reading this to consider the ramifications of that state of affairs. You are then exactly no more than a sharecropper.

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 7, 2013 at 11:51:58 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I believe that subscribers are customers, and that that one of the critical functions of "maintaining a subscriber base" is keeping those customers happy. When customers are unhappy, they will leave."

Walter, with all due respect, your argument does not address the elephant in the room -- the fact that the seventh largest software company in the world now requires all customers who want their latest software to pay rent at whatever price they decide forever , or else lose the ability to open their native files.

None of the alternatives to Adobe software have anywhere near Adobe's scope of industry acceptance and use. I don't think leaving Adobe is as easy as switching cell phone carriers.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 8, 2013 at 12:31:23 am

[David Lawrence] "Walter, with all due respect, your argument does not address the elephant in the room -- the fact that the seventh largest software company in the world now requires all customers who want their latest software to pay rent at whatever price they decide forever , or else lose the ability to open their native files.
"


yes. god but the arguments are getting beyond irritating - i'll grant that the ultimate conclusion appears to be turkeys for christmas on all our parts, because we are apparently literal morons taken in the statistical round as a subscription catchment.

but there is no way I'm going to nod the head to some supposedly well reasoned brainy idiocy about all this. it's beyond tiresome.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 8, 2013 at 1:15:08 pm

[David Lawrence] "Walter, with all due respect, your argument does not address the elephant in the room -- the fact that the seventh largest software company in the world now requires all customers who want their latest software to pay rent at whatever price they decide forever , or else lose the ability to open their native files."

Fair, David. I was arguing with Aindreas within a pretty limited scope.

I disagree with the wording of your assertion. You don't necessarily need to pay forever. You do need to pay when you want access to an old project again after going off subscription. This may be a tradeoff for not paying a large license fee upfront.

I understand and respect that this is a dealbreaker for some. I've considered it and decided that it's not a dealbreaker for me.

It's pure economics. If I switch away from Adobe in the future and I need to open a CC file again, I'll pay for access. I'll accept that possible risk in the future for using the best tools for my needs today. We are talking about a month's use of CC for less than an hour's billing.

I understand that others will weigh this risk differently. I have no quarrel with them. We all have to decide what's best for us.

You seem to imply that the potential cost increase of an Adobe subscription is infinitely high. While this is certainly theoretically true, it's almost certainly not true in practice. Adobe's customers need to be able to profit with their tools for Adobe to profit from them.

And what if I'm wrong? I have other options for the tools I use, and if it's somehow cheaper for me to recreate an older piece of work in another application, I can do that.

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

Jamie Franklin
Re: 3-2-1...
on Oct 4, 2013 at 9:51:17 pm

Is someone here going to make the "Roger (Shantanu) and Me" of the multinational software companies.

We may get cheaper software, but the costs are going to start adding up.

I'm going to own nothing. Rent everything. Work harder for less. Because the apologists know all - "Look at all you get for the low low cost of perpetual licensing!"

Glorious.

All because sales are down 1%. Client servicing? Shares spike because they are going to serve us better!

Ahuh...


Return to posts index

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