FORUMS: list search recent posts

Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)

COW Forums : Adobe Creative Cloud Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Tim Wilson
Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 12:59:36 am

[Walter Soyka] "I'm happy to discuss this in some more depth, but I think it deserves its own thread."

Agreed! And here it is. Please gents, carry on.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 1:28:52 am

Reposted, per Tim's request:

[David Lawrence] "Can we agree that Avid takes the SOX argument for subscription-only with no perpetual exit off the table?"

I would say that SOX is an important part of understanding the subscription plan, but I would also agree with you that SOX does not require a subscription-only sales model.

Avid's move hasn't changed anything. SOX never forced the subscription-only move. That was a choice made after running perpetual licenses and subscription side-by-side.


[David Lawrence] "Why no perpetual exit? Why piss off millions of former loyal customers who would love to spend their money on your product? A lot of us have been loudly asking this question for close to a year and I have yet to hear a convincing answer from anyone."

I'm not sure you will ever be convinced, but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer.

Creative Cloud was re-launched in its current incarnation at the 2013 Adobe MAX conference, and Adobe execs talked about the decision. You can watch the videos here:
http://2013.max.adobe.com/sessions/online.html

Adobe drafted their open letter to the community that outlines the vision for Creative Cloud:
https://www.adobe.com/cc/letter.html

Contrary to the way we discuss it here in this debate forum, I don't think Creative Cloud is supposed to be a new way to sell Creative Suite. It looks like that today, but these are still early days. It will take time to get a compelling service layer going. It will take time to get 20-year-old desktop applications exploiting networking and connectivity.

I think this is like the initial introduction of Creative Suite. It took time to re-align development around the new direction. CS1 was really just a way to buy bundles of the products, but by CS6, disparate apps were really working well together.

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: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 2:36:47 am

Thanks Tim for rebooting this thread!

[Walter Soyka] "I would say that SOX is an important part of understanding the subscription plan, but I would also agree with you that SOX does not require a subscription-only sales model."

Agreed!

[Walter Soyka] "Avid's move hasn't changed anything. SOX never forced the subscription-only move. That was a choice made after running perpetual licenses and subscription side-by-side."

Sure, but again the only reason we're even talking about SOX is because it's constantly given as the reason for subscription-only. I'm not imagining this.

[Walter Soyka] "I'm not sure you will ever be convinced, but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer.

Creative Cloud was re-launched in its current incarnation at the 2013 Adobe MAX conference, and Adobe execs talked about the decision. You can watch the videos here:
http://2013.max.adobe.com/sessions/online.html

Adobe drafted their open letter to the community that outlines the vision for Creative Cloud:
https://www.adobe.com/cc/letter.html"


I've watched and listened and you're right, I'm not convinced. In fact, just the opposite. ;)

What I see is typical corporate marketing hype and BS.

Nowhere do they address the core problem - no perpetual exit. They don't talk about it because they know the main reason it exists is customer lock-in. And that's not a very attractive story.

[Walter Soyka] "Contrary to the way we discuss it here in this debate forum, I don't think Creative Cloud is supposed to be a new way to sell Creative Suite. It looks like that today, but these are still early days. It will take time to get a compelling service layer going. It will take time to get 20-year-old desktop applications exploiting networking and connectivity."

You may be right, but I can only look at what's on the table right now. And right now that's really what it is - CC is essentially a rebranded CS suite with a few purely optional online resources.

Adobe Anywhere probably shows the most potential as an example of where networking and connectivity can enhance workflows in a meaningful way, but that's a very specific use. Powerful, creative desktop applications will continue to benefit from the desktop for a long time to come. Creative Cloud is a marketing name. The core applications are still desktop applications.

[Walter Soyka] "I think this is like the initial introduction of Creative Suite. It took time to re-align development around the new direction. CS1 was really just a way to buy bundles of the products, but by CS6, disparate apps were really working well together."

Perhaps, but again, nothing in the vision precludes allowing customers to keep a working copy of the software on their machine after paying a fair price. It's lock-in. Pure and simple. And millions of us don't like it.

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


Return to posts index


Chris Pettit
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 4:30:39 am

"[Walter Soyka] "Contrary to the way we discuss it here in this debate forum, I don't think Creative Cloud is supposed to be a new way to sell Creative Suite. It looks like that today, but these are still early days. It will take time to get a compelling service layer going. It will take time to get 20-year-old desktop applications exploiting networking and connectivity.""

It will take more than time. It will take a complete restructuring of how the internet works, and how we access and purchase bandwidth, with substantially higher north/south traffic that even exists now, unless your talking about non-video workflows. And BTW, we are only getting started on the broad discussion about WHO gets to consume the most bandwidth, who pays for it, whether its an even playing field and who controls the flow (Netflix vs Comcast for example)

Here in Phoenix, we are a potential early test market for the new Google fiber optic network, but its years away, not guaranteed, and even then, only in certain cities (I could have access here, but a post-house across town might not). Until that type of technology is widespread, effective, affordable and reliable, these are frankly "what if" scenarios. And that doesn't even deal with the "haves and haves not" issues in different countries, a problem that Adobe is greatly exacerbating with their unfair pricing in non USA markets. No matter what Adobe does to innovate, if the backbone for truly efficient cloud based services aren't actually there and widespread worldwide, then this is just a exercise in "imagine how cool it would be", only what Adobe is asking us to do is sign up now, pay monthly forever, and "trust" them that it will evolve into an actual valued service in the end. In the meantime, I'm sorry, but Creative Cloud is largely a marketing scheme, not a new technology.

This was an observation made by an analyst on Bloomberg recently as well BTW: http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/378/7365

When they're ready to ACTUALLY deliver a service, I'm all ears. Until then, it's really just the same software paid for with an open ended and perpetual commitment. Trust us. Pay forever. Eventually it will be really cool.

No thanks, I'll invest on DAY ONE when I can get off the merry-go-round if they fail


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 5:00:52 am

I have nothing against a subscription model but when there is no exit strategy I am very reluctant to join.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 4:10:26 pm

[David Mathis] "I have nothing against a subscription model but when there is no exit strategy I am very reluctant to join."

So that means, pretty much every other subscription based service (they are popping up everywhere) you are reluctant to join?


Return to posts index


David Mathis
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 4:39:50 pm

As long as they offer some type of permanent license, no. Avid has a great strategy. Offer someone a permanent license up front but have a mandatory one year subscription plan. After that one can leave and keep whatever current version they are on when they decide to leave. They change their mind later, back to square one. I think this is fair and everyone comes out a winner.

Another example would be the Red Giant Universe, a simple and fair plan. Go with a lifetime membership, one simple fee or choose to subscribe. One can do this on a monthly or annual basis.

To me, it comes down to choice and does it fit my needs. Right now the current subscription model that Adobe offers will be expensive over the long term as I do some freelance work and as a hobby. Should they offer some type of buyout or other exit strategy then I might consider joining. Nothing personal, not angry, just need to go with what fits my current budget and needs.

Right now I am staying with Final Cut Pro X and Motion, they fit my needs along with staying within my budget. Will be subscribing to Red Giant Universe once it is available. Will start out with a monthly plan and as budget allows, upgrade to the lifetime membership plan.

Again, this is nothing personal, just need to make a business decision, nothing more.


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 9:31:27 am
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Apr 17, 2014 at 9:58:48 am

Agreed, Chris. If you go back into this whole "Adobe Creative Cloud: The Debate" site, you will find that my comment to Walter B and others was "Not Getting on the Creative Cloud Merry Go Round" . Pretty much where this discussion all started. That comment came from the initial exchange summarized by:

[Jim Wiseman] "Sorry, Walter. "Chopped Liver" just didn't describe my feelings."

Where the whole mess was being compared to "Chopped Liver", which somehow seemed an inadequate metaphor for the gravity of the situation. Search chopped liver and you will find it. And after "chopped liver" here we are in the same place almost a year later. No "Merry Go Round", thank you, and no way to get off if you climb on board...

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.1.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.5, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1 TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Lance Moody
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 4:21:10 pm

I am quite sure that Adobe could tailor their offerings to many of the suggested forms discussed here.

They chose not to.

I don't understand the angst about the getting off metaphor. I assume that folks are worried that if they decide to use the CC and then leave that they will be unable to access their older projects for revisions etc?

Wouldn't one still be able to buy a month at a time to work on the old projects.

From my perspective, the CC model (while not perfect) is better than the old method of updating once every year or so. And the cost is roughly the same.

Lance



Return to posts index


Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 5:15:42 pm

[Lance Moody] "Wouldn't one still be able to buy a month at a time to work on the old projects."

Lance,

Theoretically, this is a possibility.

Practically - as anyone who has used software and hardware for extended periods will tell you - versioning and compatibility can be a problem.

A simple example: a Premiere Pro project, created today, and needed lets say five years from now. If you were to rent one month of the software, you'd be faced with the question: do you "upgrade" the project? Will that be possible in five years? What about plug-ins and third party compatibility? What about media compatibility? Will my hardware run the then-current version of Premiere Pro or will I need new hardware?

Perpetual license, or "owning in the software" allows an individual to maintain a hardware / software configuration as they feel comfortable and as they see fit to address their own needs. It's an important aspect of business, education, craft, or art (however you'd like to frame it).

If I wish to run FCP 7 today (note: it's about five years old) I can keep the OS, hardware, and other configurable options in place to keep that system running. There will, of course, be a point at which this becomes less feasible or more burdensome, but the question of how and if I can do this rests more within my control.

I think a lot of the divide on this issue is a result of differences in how and why people use the software - many can't conceive of a reason or need for access to old projects.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 5:54:18 pm

[Chris Pettit] "It will take more than time. It will take a complete restructuring of how the internet works, and how we access and purchase bandwidth, with substantially higher north/south traffic that even exists now, unless your talking about non-video workflows. And BTW, we are only getting started on the broad discussion about WHO gets to consume the most bandwidth, who pays for it, whether its an even playing field and who controls the flow (Netflix vs Comcast for example)"

A complete restructuring of how the Internet works? I think that's a bit of an overstatement. Netflix is where it is because it generates 1/3 of the Internet traffic in the US during evening hours. I doubt post production use is going to get anywhere close to a number that's even a blip on any Internet backbone provider's radar. We may deal with big files but at incredibly low volume compared to players like Netflix and YouTube (ex. 100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute of every day and that numbers just keeps getting bigger).

I do agree that the service side of CC is pretty thin and doesn't currently offer anything unique (i.e. cloud storage and video hosting can be done with a variety of other companies). One thing I would like to see, and someone at Adobe even mentioned this in a blog a while back, is cloud computing to help render intensive FX/filters. Microsoft is experimenting with cloud computing to enhance the number crunching abilities of its new Xbox One console but the latency involved maybe too high for video games which expect fast, real time performance. That same latency wouldn't be an issue for a big render in PS, AE or PP because they aren't real time to begin with.


[David Lawrence] "Adobe Anywhere probably shows the most potential as an example of where networking and connectivity can enhance workflows in a meaningful way, but that's a very specific use. Powerful, creative desktop applications will continue to benefit from the desktop for a long time to come"

With Adobe Anywhere you still work locally but with footage streamed from a central location (ex. a post house) to remote users via the Internet. It's not editing with cloud-bases apps, i.e. Google Docs. It's basically like traditional shared storage except users aren't forced to be in the same physical location as the storage. From what I hear the specs needed on the server side are pretty beefy right now, but given the pace of technology it will probably be just a few years before the prices start entering the range of affordability for boutique sized businesses.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "A simple example: a Premiere Pro project, created today, and needed lets say five years from now. If you were to rent one month of the software, you'd be faced with the question: do you "upgrade" the project? Will that be possible in five years? What about plug-ins and third party compatibility? What about media compatibility? Will my hardware run the then-current version of Premiere Pro or will I need new hardware?"

Adobe has said that at least 5 major versions of the apps will be available for via CC. Right now PP 6 and PP 7 are available via CC and PP 6 should stick around until at least until PP 11 comes out. Not a perfect solution but as your post implies nothing really is in the post world today.


Sometimes I pine for the days of yesterday when an EDL and a wall full of master tapes covered most of the bases.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 6:23:31 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "With Adobe Anywhere you still work locally but with footage streamed from a central location (ex. a post house) to remote users via the Internet. It's not editing with cloud-bases apps, i.e. Google Docs. It's basically like traditional shared storage except users aren't forced to be in the same physical location as the storage. From what I hear the specs needed on the server side are pretty beefy right now, but given the pace of technology it will probably be just a few years before the prices start entering the range of affordability for boutique sized businesses."

Understood. I only mention it because it's a clear example of a new workflow that has major, obvious benefits and intrinsically depends on the network to make it possible. I could imagine renting time on a system like this for specific projects. Rental would be appropriate in this case because the hardware requirements are expensive and beyond my everyday needs.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 6:32:09 pm

[David Lawrence] "Understood. I only mention it because it's a clear example of a new workflow that has major, obvious benefits and intrinsically depends on the network to make it possible. "

I'm with you now. I've just seen a lot of people confused about what Adobe Anywhere is and wondering how they are going to upload terabytes of footage into the cloud for people to share a la Google Docs.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 6:38:16 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Adobe has said that at least 5 major versions of the apps will be available for via CC. Right now PP 6 and PP 7 are available via CC and PP 6 should stick around until at least until PP 11 comes out."

Andrew,

Yes, this is positive, but it's pretty unclear what it will all mean until we actually see it - particularly since version numbers are more marketing that meaning now (should we assume one "major version" per year? except this year?).

I think current PPro and AE are 7.2 and 12.2 respectively. And yet I see no options for access to 7.1 or 7.0, etc. Do these count as "major versions" or not? If I need access to 7.1 how do I get it? etc. Adobe haven't exactly dazzled with their installation management options so far.

In other words - and this is the substance of my post - it's a question of how much of this is in your control as a user and how much is under control of a large company that may or may not be responsive to your needs. As users, we've had a certain kind of control and practical management with perpetual license models - Adobe is claiming we don't need this, or that they aren't interested in providing it.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 7:30:24 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I think current PPro and AE are 7.2 and 12.2 respectively. And yet I see no options for access to 7.1 or 7.0, etc. Do these count as "major versions" or not? If I need access to 7.1 how do I get it? etc. Adobe haven't exactly dazzled with their installation management options so far."

Major versions are whole number changes (6, 7, 8, 9, etc.,) not point changes (X.1, X.2, X.3 etc.,). Getting to a specific point release is a problem many times because companies want people on the most recent version for stability, security and simplicity reasons. One time I had to reinstall FCP 6.0 and only the most recent point update was available via Apple (which I didn't want for a reason I can no longer remember) but thankfully I found a FCP user on line that manually downloaded and saved all the point updates and he sent the DMG to me. I think Avid does a better job of keeping old point releases available but I can't say for sure off hand (I also think Avid is very robust with newer versions of MC opening up old projects).

I agree that Adobe currently takes a lot of control out of the users hands but I also think that users have an inflated sense of control than what actually exists. I mean, 'freezing' a machine in time is just a stop gap solution that will inevitable fail. The machine will physically fail, software can corrupt requiring reinstallation which may not be possible if required drivers, plugins, point updates, etc., are no longer hosted on the vender's site, you might start running out of space to store old towers (here's one for FCP, here's one for Avid, here's one that's PPC, here's one that's Intel, etc.,) and not to mention what happens when the activation servers get turned off (and the big software companies use activation servers). It's akin to keeping an old library of 3/4" tapes around instead of migrating them to a modern format.

Given the recent volatility in the NLE market (FCP X, CC, Avid's bookkeeping, Resolve emerging as an NLE, Lightworks trying to make a comeback, etc.,) I'm not assuming that my primary NLE today will be my primary NLE in three years so my goal is to try to go with the flow and roll projects forwards. Between exporting out masters and master elements in common (and ideally open) codecs and kicking out XMLs I'm aiming to make my edits as platform agnostic as possible. Will they be 100% cross compatible? Of course not, but if I can get it 80-90% of the way there I'll be happy. I feel like this is a better use of my time than trying to 'freeze' old systems in time when I can realistically see myself using a half dozen different NLE's over the next 10 years (I've already used three in the past 12 months alone).


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 9:40:36 pm

I have resigned to the fact that everything needs to remain current and updatable, unless I feel like writing my own programs to use.

Using Adobe as an example:

I was given a very old Ae project a month ago. I tried to open it in Ae CC, and couldn't do it. Here's the warning:



Luckily, I had an old version of CS laying around on an old machine. I was able to open it, save it out, and then open THAT version in Ae CC.

I was very lucky that I had the machine laying around, and it still worked. Damn Apple computers. Terrible overpriced quality.

:)


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 9:56:02 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Luckily, I had an old version of CS laying around on an old machine"

Jeremy,

That's more than five versions out. It's a good example of what I posted above.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 10:06:59 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "That's more than five versions out. It's a good example of what I posted above."

It is. Now we all just have to keep all of our old computers forever. Someday I may have to open up a PPC-only application and then boy will I regret getting rid of my G4 tower. ;)


Return to posts index

Dave LaRonde
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 4:26:47 pm

[Andrew Kimery]: "...Someday I may have to open up a PPC-only application and then boy will I regret getting rid of my G4 tower."

The example is little extreme perhaps, but if you're in the cloud, what DO you do when a paying customer wants you to work with a project file that's a couple-three versions old?

Give him a dope slap and tell him to get with the times?

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:29:11 pm
Last Edited By Andrew Kimery on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:32:37 pm

[Dave LaRonde] "The example is little extreme perhaps, but if you're in the cloud, what DO you do when a paying customer wants you to work with a project file that's a couple-three versions old?
"


Since Jeremy and Jim have a bunch of old gear laying around I'll contact them for help. :)

Considering I don't have a back catalog of Adobe apps in my desk draw I might have to do some creative problem solving. No different than if someone wanted to give me a project file from software I don't own/can't run (like Sony Vegas or Smoke) or some archival footage that's on 3/4" tape. I feel like most people under 60 have a good idea that computer tech becomes dated very quickly and that can cause problems when trying to revive something very old.

I did some house cleaning a while back and got rid of some old floppy disks (probably full of Word Perfect files from the mid 90's), some ZIP disks (the drive itself died long ago) and some PATA HDDs (which of course don't work in any of my machines/enclosures anymore since they are all ATA).


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 6:30:14 pm

[Dave LaRonde] "The example is little extreme perhaps, but if you're in the cloud, what DO you do when a paying customer wants you to work with a project file that's a couple-three versions old?"

Your project files stay local. You'd just need to pay $75 for a month of access to the software. Bill it as a line item, or tweak your rate to cover the cost.

Whether or not a subscription will work for you in the long run is a different question of course. But unless I'm reading this wrong, you could actually decide today that you're done with Adobe because you refuse to be held hostage -- and then when a client comes to you in a few years with a Premiere Pro or After Effects project to rework, the "ransom" is $75 for a month of access.


[Andrew Kimery] "Considering I don't have a back catalog of Adobe apps in my desk draw I might have to do some creative problem solving."

I'm pretty sure you can solve the problem by billing $75. :-)

I could also be wrong about this, but it even looks to me like you can go month to month for only $50 through Amazon. But let's be safe for this example and stick with $75 direct through Adobe.

If $75 is too much for you to either bill or build in, then you really do have some creative problem solving in front of you. :-)

Am I misunderstanding the question?


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 6:47:10 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Am I misunderstanding the question?"

Yes. ;) What started this sub-conversation was that Jeremy was given a very old AE project file that would not open in CS6 or CC but he had an old copy of AE (6.5) sitting on an old computer in the closet and that was able to open the project file.

An extension of this isn't just subscription vs perpetual license but also physical media vs download only. Taking the above example, if Jeremy didn't have AE 6.5 on hand he probably could have found someone on Craigslist or eBay selling a used copy. With digital downloads (from any company) this second hand market pretty much ceases to exist. I mean, if in 2020 I need a copy of FCP X 10.1 but Apple only sells FCP X 11.5 how do I get my hands on it (w/o resorting to a hack)?


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 19, 2014 at 3:12:49 am

Just pull out that DVD Apple sent you.., oh, wait a minute. It's even hard to burn the download to disk, although you can fool the system if you are fast enough...

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.1.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.5, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1 TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Dave LaRonde
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:42:09 pm

[Tim Wilson]: "...You'd just need to pay $75 for a month of access to the software. Bill it as a line item, or tweak your rate to cover the cost."

I think you might have misunderstood. I'm talking about current CC users being handed project files created in .... oh, CS2, for example.

Or a several years down the road, being handed a a CC project file from the year 2013.

While Adobe wants everyone on the planet to stay current, it's a fact of life that many people do not. Nor will they. Thus, such a situation is something to ponder.

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


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 23, 2014 at 9:14:19 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Whether or not a subscription will work for you in the long run is a different question of course. But unless I'm reading this wrong, you could actually decide today that you're done with Adobe because you refuse to be held hostage -- and then when a client comes to you in a few years with a Premiere Pro or After Effects project to rework, the "ransom" is $75 for a month of access."

While the cost may certainly be doable, for a month's rental to be viable Adobe needs to drastically improve its customer service. If there is a problem getting your month subscription to download or open, currently getting it fixed via customer service is a nightmare that can take days to resolve.

As I have said in the past, for this subscription model to work, Adobe has to figure a way to make their customer service much more effective. What good is a month's rental if it takes 10 ir more days to get working properly.


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 19, 2014 at 3:08:13 am

Some people over 60 may have an even better idea how fast it changes!

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.1.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.5, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1 TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 10:08:58 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Jeremy,

That's more than five versions out. It's a good example of what I posted above."




Well, what can be done about it?

Mind you, this was not an old project that was from my archive, it was a project that was sent to me.

Can we expect Adobe to keep everything compatible with each other forever?


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 4:42:16 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Well, what can be done about it?"

Tell whoever sent that to you to stop being a cheap-ass and upgrade.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 4:52:45 pm

[Gary Huff] "Tell whoever sent that to you to stop being a cheap-ass and upgrade."

It's not about that. It's about an old project that was done years ago.

Everyone has upgraded since then, I was just lucky enough to have the dusty computer with the dusty software to open it, and save it to something that CC could read.

This was handed to me through a network of producers. I don't know who the original author is and how cheap (or not: the debate) they are. You never receive projects like that?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:11:36 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " You never receive projects like that?"

I have, but never that far back, and I was lucky to have the CS5.5 to bridge the gap between CS5 and CS6. I was just being snarky.

But, again, to a point I made later, people have to be ready for this, exporting elements that can be combined back in any project. If you kept your precious home videos on Betamax until sometime in the future and then finally get around to trying to get it back on a medium you can actually watch, I don't have much sympathy if you suddenly find yourself faced with an expense because you can't find any units. If it's worth keeping, it's worth updating along the line.


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:34:21 pm

I'm in that process with my old tapes, 3/4", Betacam, DV, DVCPro, S-VHS, all with working VTRs, even some old B&W 1/2" Porta-Pak and color reel to reel studio tapes from early '70's. A lot from my video synthesizers (that still work because of restorations). Tape machines for the 1/2" with the help of a friend with a major video archive and museum. We broadcast that stuff when we had to bump it to Quad with CVS 504 TBC's at WTTW in Chicago. You think going back three or four versions of AE is a major journey. I still have a copy of COSA and a machine that would probably run it, though I honestly never did much with it.

I'm no stranger to moving assets down the line. Thus my recent purchase of the Teranex. But I certainly wouldn't want to redo everything I've ever edited completely if I can just fire it up for a rework or move to a modern digital format as a straight dub through the Teranex.

The new stuff for my major client and my own work is all done on the Mac Pro 2012 Tower and the Tube. With modern software. Just not Adobe beyond CS6 unless something changes.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.1.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.5, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1 TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:13:19 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Everyone has upgraded since then, I was just lucky enough to have the dusty computer with the dusty software to open it, and save it to something that CC could read."

Here's the story: http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/04/09/300614977/the-new-age...


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:50:00 pm

Excellent article. Thanks. I feel justified...

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.1.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.5, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1 TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 1:41:30 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "That's more than five versions out. It's a good example of what I posted above."

And how does a PL protect Jeremy in this situation? You haven't been able to buy AE 6.5 since 2007 when AE 7.0 was released, and the cut-off for reading AE 6.5 projects was AE CS5.5 (AE 10.5).

Now, if CC had been around in 2007 (or even in 2011 when CS5.5 was released), Adobe's policy of offering old CC versions to subscribers would have actually allowed Jeremy to open the project -- without requiring that he owned a license three to eight years ago or had a machine with AE 6.5 loaded on it encased in carbonite.

I think that open access to project data is vastly more important to the future than "closed" access to project data via old PL software only. I've asked Adobe for open, documented XML project file formats, and I'd encourage you to join me in filing feature requests.

I "own" a license for AE 6.5... but today, in 2014, so what? Wouldn't it be better to know how to read the AEP?

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

Shane Taylor
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 10, 2015 at 12:27:23 am

I'm still using GoLive CS3, because I could never successfully upgrade the template structure that I use to GREAT advantage to DW (using Adobe's OWN tool). Plus, it works great for my needs. I can only imagine if I were using GoLive CC at the time that they killed it and forced me to go to DW. Now, DW is a good product, and I may finally start using it at some point, but it will happen on my own schedule, not Adobe's. I own it as part of CS6 Master.

I also agree that Adobe's use of SOX to justify leasing is complete BS. It's all marketing hype to try to lock users into perpetual slavery. I continue to read both rave reviews of the new CC leasing (mostly by people making their living off writing tutorials on the latest version, or books, or people who simply strive for the latest and greatest), and an increasingly unhappy population of working professionals on forums who have been reduced to Adobe SW testers. You can pretty much guarantee that Adobe is taking advantage of users of CC to find bugs. After all, what's better than a million beta testers testing your PRODUCTION SW, who are also paying you for the pleasure? Having come from a corporate environment, where stability, security, and uniformity are necessary for effective business operations, I can see SW leasing, with its 'continual release', a disaster waiting to happen for all but the most novice users making videos of family picnics to post on YouTube.

SOX required companies to improve their processes in order to more fairly report revenues to investors and provide better products to the consumer. Adobe failed on both accounts and has skirted both issues by simply refusing to sell perpetual licenses in the guise of "it's good for us". Having had a long career as a SW engineer, I can only imagine how cool it must be for Adobe engineers to no longer have the pressure of doing it right the first time, since there is always next week's release to patch any issues your users discover for you on the last disaster. Even my major release Adobe Audition crashes 80% of the time on first launch after a reboot. I've learned to live with it. After Effects threads go on a dying spree often, interrupting work with continual pop-ups. I've learned to live with it. Premiere Pro won't encode a sequence at times, but I've learned to live with it by copying and pasting the clips into a NEW sequence as a workaround. All part of being an Adobe SW user. We've learned to live with it. And now there's CC. SMFH.

As for me, I fear I'm relegated to CS6 for the foreseeable future, until either all this nonsense blows over, Adobe begins to once again offer a perpetual license, or I switch to the alternatives. It seems like such an easy thing for Adobe to tie off a branch every 12-18 months, and offer it as a perpetual license major release to all those of us who prefer it and are willing to wait. They could have the best of both worlds, instead of alienating untold hundreds of thousands of long-time Adobe customers who just don't want to rent their SW. But that wouldn't be slavery, and Adobe likes to have their way, just like Apple, who still remains (after how many decades) to own less than 10% of the desktop/laptop/netbook market. Go figure.


Return to posts index

Todd Kopriva
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 19, 2014 at 9:09:41 pm
Last Edited By Todd Kopriva on Apr 19, 2014 at 9:10:47 pm

Let me address the issue of opening old files. I can go into detail about this for After Effects (since that's what I work on).

First, read this document that I posted a few months ago:
http://blogs.adobe.com/aftereffects/2014/01/opening-after-effects-projects-...

Note that the oldest projects that can be opened by After Effects CC (12.x) are those created by After Effects 7.0, which we released more than 8 years ago.

So, what if you want to open a project created in After Effects 6.5 (released 10 years ago) or earlier? In that case, you would need to download an older version of After Effects (e.g., CS5.5) and use that.

Of course, we continue to make downloads of these older versions available on our website---though finding the links is admittedly difficult, so it's good that some of our partners have made them easier to find, like here:
http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-cs5-5-direct-download-links.html

You can then just run this older version as a trial for the brief time that you need to do the up-conversion of the old projects.

Because After Effects 7.0 is the oldest version from which projects are opened by the current After Effects, you can make do by just having After Effects 7.0 installed for conversions, if you have a computer that will run it. You can download it from this part of the Adobe website:
https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=cs2_downloads
(Note that it's categorized with CS2 software, even though this is before After Effects was part of Creative Suite.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Kopriva, Adobe Systems Incorporated
After Effects quality engineering
After Effects team blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 20, 2014 at 7:18:37 pm

Thanks for the info and the links, Todd. Much appreciated.


Return to posts index

Tim Kolb
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 23, 2014 at 9:00:44 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I was given a very old Ae project a month ago. I tried to open it in Ae CC, and couldn't do it."

Hmmm...interesting. Premiere Pro seems to go back quite a distance into the past and still loads projects, though AE has had a lot of changes over the years...

TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,

Adobe Certified Instructor


Return to posts index

Todd Kopriva
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 23, 2014 at 9:10:55 pm

> Premiere Pro seems to go back quite a distance into the past and still loads projects...


I think that Premiere Pro goes back about as far as After Effects does.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Kopriva, Adobe Systems Incorporated
After Effects quality engineering
After Effects team blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Return to posts index

Tim Kolb
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 23, 2014 at 9:44:35 pm

[Todd Kopriva] "I think that Premiere Pro goes back about as far as After Effects does."

I haven't tried for a while, but I see that Premiere (pre-Pro) projects are no longer on the import list...

TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,

Adobe Certified Instructor


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 24, 2014 at 2:11:28 am

[Tim Kolb] "Hmmm...interesting. Premiere Pro seems to go back quite a distance into the past and still loads projects, though AE has had a lot of changes over the years..."

It's certainly a rarefied case and I was just using it as an example, but it did happen just recently.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 4:40:58 am

[Andrew Kimery] "One time I had to reinstall FCP 6.0 and only the most recent point update was available via Apple (which I didn't want for a reason I can no longer remember) but thankfully I found a FCP user on line that manually downloaded and saved all the point updates and he sent the DMG to me."

Final Cut Pro 6.0.6 is virtually impossible to find online. I just had to install that on a new Mac Pro for a client (imagine that). If I hadn't had a version saved on my software RAID archive, there would have been no way for me to get to that point release.

But Apple gets a pass, naturally.


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 7:33:40 pm

I also think the amount of emotional involvement you have with your work has a lot to do with wanting to have the access to past projects under your personal control. If your work is primarily commercial with little repurposing, in the door and out the door, check please, and thank you, you probably don't care about years down the line. However, the video artist, filmmaker, documentarian, etc. cares a great deal about future access. I find myself these days very much in this camp. It is actually where I started at Cal Arts, the Art Institute of Chicago and at WTTW, PBS as a producer there.

Although I had a long professional career and still have one major contract with a scientific/cultural organization, I am now doing a lot of editing of older projects and footage, some of which goes back to the early and mid '70's. A lot of this stuff was broadcast on PBS and others with the use of the first time base correctors. Video synthesizer work, documentary footage, cultural documentation in the Pacific Islands. My Media 100 system can play and edit stuff I began working on in the '80's, although it is certainly not the only system I use now (see below).

Frankly, I just don't trust a corporation, any corporation, with my legacy. Especially after this experience. I have no desire to be paying Adobe or any other company monthly when I am on Social Security and have the time to polish my own work.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.1.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.5, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1 TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 8:06:18 pm

[Jim Wiseman] "If your work is primarily commercial with little repurposing, in the door and out the door, check please, and thank you, you probably don't care about years down the line. However, the video artist, filmmaker, documentarian, etc. cares a great deal about future access."

For what it's worth I almost exclusively work in the doc/unscripted world and one of my projects lasted about 6 years from first day of shooting until final deliverables were sent to the distributor (I started it in FCP 5 and finished it in FCP 7). Usually my lower budget projects move along at a slow and steady pace (due to budget reasons) while the TV shows I work on typically last just a few months and are much more stand alone entities. With that being said, one show, which premiered in 2009, has all previous episode master timelines and source media available for the editors as footage is recycled on a regular basis.


[Jim Wiseman] "Frankly, I just don't trust a corporation, any corporation, with my legacy. "
Neither do I which is why I'm trying to transition my projects into being as cross platform as possible. I'm done trying to divine which OS, which computer maker and which NLE vender will be around the longest. Hell, just within Apple's ranks you have OS 9 to OS X, PPC to Intel, 32bit to 64bit (1st and 2nd gen Mac Pros can't run 10.8 or 10.9 without a hack), FCP 7 to FCP X and that's in the last 15 years alone.

Although my first NLE experience was with Avid, I was heavily invested with Apple and FCP and when they dropped the X bomb, killed the old apps and took their sweet time rolling out a new Mac Pro that really drove home how vulnerable I'd let myself become. Even with more personal things like smartphones, tablets and media streaming/download services I avoid getting too invested in any one ecosystem. I don't want all my eggs in one basket personally nor professionally.


Return to posts index

Todd Kopriva
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 19, 2014 at 9:18:19 pm
Last Edited By Todd Kopriva on Apr 19, 2014 at 9:19:03 pm

> I think current PPro and AE are 7.2 and 12.2 respectively. And yet I see no options for access to 7.1 or 7.0, etc. Do these count as "major versions" or not? If I need access to 7.1 how do I get it?


The difference between a major version and a minor version is that a major version has a change in the number before the decimal point.

The way to get whatever minor version you want is to download and install the x.0 version (e.g., After Effects 12.0) and then apply the minor version patch manually. This is admittedly annoying, and we are working with the people who make the installer software to get them to make this easier.

So, for now, how do you do this?

In the Creative Cloud desktop application, choose the option to download and install After Effects CC. Pay attention to the status string in the Creative Cloud desktop application. Cancel the process when the string says 'Updating', which comes after 'downloading' and 'installing'. This will prevent the update beyond the 12.0 version. Then, you can manually run the After Effects 12.1 updater.

There are links to the manual patchers in each of the announcements for each update:
http://adobe.ly/DVA_updates

That said, we _STRONGLY_ encourage you to not do this unless you have a very good, specific reason for doing so. When we put out an update, it includes a lot of bug fixes; failing to install the most recent version means that you are deliberately not accepting many bug fixes. That is almost always a bad idea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Kopriva, Adobe Systems Incorporated
After Effects quality engineering
After Effects team blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 19, 2014 at 10:28:04 pm
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Apr 19, 2014 at 11:33:20 pm

hi there Todd *Kopriva*, (edit - I'm a moron for spelling)

Is Adobe, to your understanding, open to modifying the forced shift to perpetual subscription for standing license holders of your software.

yours etc,

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 9:44:57 pm

***This is a continuation from the thread below***


[David Lawrence] "Yes, but this doesn't change the fact that removing a perpetual option is a choice, not a requirement in a subscription-model."

Of course it's a choice. Who ever said it's a requirement? Wasn't the CC service model a choice? I think I pretty much laid out some hypothetical arguments about how Adobe may have came up with the choice to go forward with the plan they are offering. That's not to say it can't be changed, but it is a choice they made. SOX might not have been the only reason they chose to go down this path.

Avid's subscription model, the month-to-month, or $39-$75 model is exactly the same as Adobe's. You do not get to keep the software. If you skip a month of payment, your software is DOA once it pings the license server after any grace periods.

The perpetual + maintenance plan allows one to subscribe to Avid's support plan. The support plan comes with software updates and feature releases. You get to keep the software after your year runs out, and you receive no more updates or fixes. That first year, you pay the full amount + any other plans you may add (tiered hardware and other support plans). If you decide to not re-up, you will pay the full amount again, for an upgrade to the latest software. I would assume they get around the SOX accounting stuff by saying that you are entering a year long rental agreement. After that expires, you receive no more updates/fixes.

Or you keep the tab running at $299/yr and receive unlimited drinks.

So, since Adobe has a huge suite of products they would have to offer the Master Collection at $2700, and a yearly upgrade fee of probably something like $400-$500/yr.

Or they can offer tiered plans, (like they had with CS, Production Premium, etc) for lower initial prices and lower yearly re-up fees.

But this becomes a mess when you start to swap project files with everyone who's not on the current CC, which brings me to:

[David Lawrence] "As long as you're on the same major release (CC 7, 8, etc.) all dot releases will be compatible."

OK. Let's say you and I are unknowingly working together on our separate coasts (yes, Chicago has a "coast" :P). The perpetual yearly maintenance subscription for Adobe CC (if you let the account lapse) is $2700.

Two months ago, I am on Pr7 and my subscription ran out (but I have kept my perpetual software). I have been editing this piece for the last 4 months. The agency calls and wants to move to your shop for the finish.

This week, Pr8 is released to CC subscribers and maintenance holders. You update, you edit and go for the finish and send the final back to me for archive.

Next month, the client calls, they need to tweak a few things that don't require going back to you. I now have to pay for a full license to get from Pr8 to Pr7 as my system is not compatible, not to mention any other direct or dynamic link tools you may have used to get to the finish. I have a few options.

-Pay $2700 to re-up for another year.

-Pay $50 for a month, and lose access to the latest updates after that month.

So, a slight tweak has cost me either $50, or $2700.

Now multiply our little problem across millions of users and 20 something applications.

If we were on Avid, it would be a lot easier as there's really only one product to worry about, and that's Media Composer. I would probably just keep the $299/year option going. With Adobe CC, i have to worry the compatibility and interoperability of many many apps. The Adobe CC model has shown that updates and features are coming fast and furious.

So, Adobe had a choice to make. Let people figure out a virtual land mine of compatibility issues, or offer the suite as a service that you can subscribe to by jumping on or off at will.

Maybe they thought that every Adobe user used everything in the suite, therefore making the Adobe CC suite an incredible deal and miscalculated the potential issues more casual users of ALL Adobe products.

The current CC model was not the only way to get there, but I think that Avid's and Adobe's users are totally different and have different needs, therefore they had to make different choices.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 10:56:49 pm

I'd just like to say this has all kicked off quite nicely.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 11:02:25 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I'd just like to say this has all kicked off quite nicely."









Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 11:07:10 pm

So what's going to happen first - tracks in FCPX or Perpetual option from Adobe?

Steve Connor
Mellowing slowly


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 11:12:12 pm

[Steve Connor] "So what's going to happen first - tracks in FCPX or Perpetual option from Adobe?"

Perpetual exit track strategies in Resolve 11.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 11:41:12 pm

I, for one, welcome our new perpetual exit track strategies overlords!


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 4:04:41 pm

but do they have PIOPs?


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 4:19:59 pm

But of course. An NLE without PIOPs is like a lake without water. ;)


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 4:42:24 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "But of course. An NLE without PIOPs is like a lake without water. ;)"

Ah. You mean those waterless lakes where world speed records are tried and tested?

:P







Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:35:14 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Ah. You mean those waterless lakes where world speed records are tried and tested?

:P"


Dammit Jeremy, I'm a boater not a driver! Waterless lakes are useless to me! ;)


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 20, 2014 at 10:04:56 pm

oh piops, how I did lie about my deep understanding of piops. walter and david gave great cover there.

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


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 17, 2014 at 11:38:10 pm

[Steve Connor] "So what's going to happen first - tracks in FCPX or Perpetual option from Adobe?"

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? :-)

If tracks became available in Final Cut Pro X, that would be awesome. I did have a dream the other night, you could actually buy that version from any Apple store location and get it on disc. Then reality came after I got out of bed. Nothing wrong with dreaming.

Sorry for getting slightly off track here.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 12:21:49 am

[Steve Connor] "So what's going to happen first - tracks in FCPX or Perpetual option from Adobe?"

Sonny & Cher getting back together.


Return to posts index

Dave LaRonde
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 4:35:38 pm
Last Edited By Dave LaRonde on Apr 18, 2014 at 4:52:31 pm

[David Mathis]: "...If tracks became available in Final Cut Pro X, that would be awesome. I did have a dream the other night, you could actually buy that version from any Apple store location and get it on disc."

Ah, the long-awaited FCP 8! Boy, I miss that application... and it never even happened!

If the other Final Cut Suite were also included, it would would have made Adobe Creative Cloud irrelevant for many, many people. It probably would have maintained FCP's lofty status as a serious production tool as well.

Well, that's enough speculation and blue-sky dreaming.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 1:11:21 am

[David Lawrence] "Sure, but again the only reason we're even talking about SOX is because it's constantly given as the reason for subscription-only. I'm not imagining this."

SOX is one reason why subscriptions make sense for developers. It's hard to talk about subscription-only without talking about subscription in general. But there's nothing about SOX that forces subscription-only.


[David Lawrence] "What I see is typical corporate marketing hype and BS."

But... what if it's not? What's BS about Adobe looking around and suggesting that the world is very different than it was 20 years ago, and the way we worked 20 years ago might not be the best way for us to work today?

I don't see "typical corporate marketing" here. I see an insight that could actually change the way I work for the better.


[David Lawrence] "Nowhere do they address the core problem - no perpetual exit. They don't talk about it because they know the main reason it exists is customer lock-in. And that's not a very attractive story."

Can we agree that there are a lot of happy, paying customers today who do not see this as a core problem?


[David Lawrence] "You may be right, but I can only look at what's on the table right now. And right now that's really what it is - CC is essentially a rebranded CS suite with a few purely optional online resources."

I agree. I think Adobe has largely failed to differentiate CC from CS.

However, I think they're approaching the transition the right way: developing in the light. The ship is just too big to turn in a single release. Isn't a series of transitional releases better than going dark for a few years while working on the next big thing (a la FCP7 to FCP X)?


[David Lawrence] "Adobe Anywhere probably shows the most potential as an example of where networking and connectivity can enhance workflows in a meaningful way, but that's a very specific use."

Anywhere is cool, but it's evolutionary. I think CC could be so much more.


[David Lawrence] "Perhaps, but again, nothing in the vision precludes allowing customers to keep a working copy of the software on their machine after paying a fair price. It's lock-in. Pure and simple. And millions of us don't like it."

Then maybe Media Composer will sell millions of licenses this year!

I think there's room for a lot of conversation around this topic, and while I understand the appeal of a perpetual license, I question its utility in 2014.

What benefits does a perpetual license provide? Is a PL the best way to get those benefits?

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

Jim Wiseman
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 1:43:28 am
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Apr 18, 2014 at 1:53:53 am

On the contrary, Walter, I see the utility of a perpetual license as it continues into 2014,15,16,17, etc. That is kind of the point many of us have been making. The perpetual license as a foundation that will work in the future without constant required expenses. Upgrades on our own schedule. Software that always works at a level we are comfortable with and no locked in payments for usage.

I have a 2012 Mac Pro tower with 10.6.8, 10.8.5, and 10.9.x boots, and a new 2013 Mac Pro. That should keep me going for quite a while. I also have Macs loaded with Adobe, Avid, and Media 100 software on working Macs as early as an 840AV, 9500, 9600, a software loaded and a new boxed Quadra 950 for the old Avid, a G4 and G5 Power Mac, etc. And they all still work. With no payments to anyone, if they are needed.

But that doesn't mean I am stuck in the past. I see more FCPX in my future and I'm very curious about Resolve 11 with my new Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4k and Teranex for the new Mac Pro. But nothing past CS6 Production Suite for me from Adobe without permanent versions. Too bad, I would have probably kept upgrading as I have for many times annually in the past, both for myself and the entities for whom I consult. Don't see how this helps me, my clients, or Adobe, who is chopping off a very large part of their base.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.1.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.5, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1 TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 1:48:43 am

[Jim Wiseman] "I see the utility of a perpetual license as it continues into 2014,15,16,17, etc. That is kind of the point many of us have been making. The perpetual license as a foundation that will work in the future without constant required expenses. Upgrades on our own schedule. Software that always works at a level we are comfortable with and no locked in payments for usage."

So it's about the money?

What if a PL cost dramatically more? Would you still prefer it?

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

Jim Wiseman
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 2:01:30 am

Not the money at this point as much as the permanence. Even if permanence is relative, of course. See my edits in the post above re hardware. It is about the money as well, of course. I have to assume, as we all grow older, our incomes will likely decline. I still want to be working on my own projects. Food, shelter, medicine, or Adobe? Kind of a no brainer. Especially if there are alternatives. And for me, fortunately, there are.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.1.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.5, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1 TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 2:17:42 am

[Jim Wiseman] "Not the money at this point as much as the permanence. Even if permanence is relative, of course."

That's my point: permanence isn't what it used to be. Software and hardware development is constantly accelerating.

System 7 was released in 1991 and succeeded by Mac OS 8 six years later in 1997. OS X 10.7, 10.8, and 10.9 were all released one year apart.

Betacam SP was king of the hill for 15-20 years, DV overlapped that for about 8, then HD became the thing. Now we have a new 4K format every couple months.

The sell-by dates on our tools keep getting closer.



[Jim Wiseman] "I have a 2012 Mac Pro tower with 10.6.8, 10.8.5, and 10.9.x boots, and a new 2013 Mac Pro. That should keep me going for quite a while. I also have Macs loaded with Adobe, Avid, and Media 100 software on working Macs as early as an 840AV, 9500, 9600, a software loaded and a new boxed Quadra 950 for the old Avid, a G4 and G5 Power Mac, etc. And they all still work. With no payments to anyone, if they are needed."

That's a lot of money tied up in hardware to avoid spending $50/mo for software!

And what do you do when (not if) the hardware fails?

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

Jim Wiseman
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 3:18:50 am

It's not the hardware, it's the projects that still live on them, or could. Ones that I couldn't open on new software and hardware. I rarely sell anything, as you can see. Most of it is old enough that if I were to sell it would pay for a year or so of CC. I was an Apple Video VAR for that entire period. The only Avid dealer in Hawaii and a Media 100 and Panasonic Pro video dealer. I ultimately just object to being held hostage to a monthly payment to have access to my work. I see it as a form of extortion, honestly. (not the crime)

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.1.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.5, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1 TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 4:45:34 am

[Jim Wiseman] "I ultimately just object to being held hostage to a monthly payment to have access to my work. I see it as a form of extortion, honestly. (not the crime)"

Sounds more like your inability to plan out how to archive your project in ways that can easily be opened down the line. This is going to be more and more crucial going forward, no matter what path you take. And I would say you cannot trust any of the NLE makers to support old project versions, so one might as well get over that.

And keeping old systems frozen in time? Screw that.


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:11:32 pm

Not everything can be archived to open "down the line". It's a lot easier to just fire it up on one of the old bad boys. At most these Macs just need a new PRAM battery. HD's are cloned. They'll probably outlive me. That being said, Almost everything I do is on the 2012 Tower with 3 boots and the new Mac Pro 2013 (which I love).

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.1.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.5, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1 TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 4:32:30 am

[Walter Soyka] "Permanence isn't what it used to be."

This is a plaque.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 4:30:21 pm

The true calculated cost to infinity. ;)







Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:28:17 pm

[Richard Herd] "The true calculated cost to infinity. ;)"

That's Numberwang! ;)






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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 6:22:12 pm

That's awesome!

Creative Cow from now until infinity costs $(-1/12). Numberwanging means they owe us money at the end that never ends.


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 2:46:29 am

[Jim Wiseman] "But nothing past CS6 Production Suite for me from Adobe without permanent versions. Too bad, I would have probably kept upgrading as I have for many times annually in the past, both for myself and the entities for whom I consult. Don't see how this helps me, my clients, or Adobe, who is chopping off a very large part of their base."

For me, perfectly worded except the word "probably". In my case it is "absolutely" ....regarding upgrades. And same on the consulting. People ask me regularly what software I'm using and what they need to remain compatible(in some cases anyway). The answer currently is CS6 ONLY.

Wouldn't it be better for Adobe if the answer was CC? (because I have protection for my investment and can start finally subscribing and recommending subscribing)?.

"I" am a small operation, so "I" don't currently matter to Adobe.

But there is a whole lot of "me" out there.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:57:33 am

[Walter Soyka] "SOX is one reason why subscriptions make sense for developers. It's hard to talk about subscription-only without talking about subscription in general. But there's nothing about SOX that forces subscription-only."

Exactly, which is why I hope the SOX argument can be put to rest when we discuss subscription-only.

[Walter Soyka] "But... what if it's not? What's BS about Adobe looking around and suggesting that the world is very different than it was 20 years ago, and the way we worked 20 years ago might not be the best way for us to work today?

I don't see "typical corporate marketing" here. I see an insight that could actually change the way I work for the better."


I think I have a much better idea of how I and my teams actually work then Adobe's marketing people ever will. No one's arguing that the world is the same as it was 20 years ago. It's great that Adobe has a vision. But ultimately customers are the ones who will decide how meaningful and useful that vision really is. Adobe can build tools and offer workflow solutions, but customers will have their own ideas about how to use those tools and solutions. It's a two-way street.

Adobe's vision does nothing to make the case for forced software rental lock-in.

[Walter Soyka] "Can we agree that there are a lot of happy, paying customers today who do not see this as a core problem?"

Of course, I don't thing that's ever been in question. Can we agree that millions of former customers do? ;)


[Walter Soyka] "However, I think they're approaching the transition the right way: developing in the light. The ship is just too big to turn in a single release. Isn't a series of transitional releases better than going dark for a few years while working on the next big thing (a la FCP7 to FCP X)?"

Couldn't disagree more. Adobe botched a historic opportunity to possibly capture and own the post-production market after Apple fumbled the release of FCPX. They could have easily come up with a transition plan that eased customers into subscription using any number of scenarios we've discussed, including Avid's. They could have taken their time, built loyalty and goodwill, and bootstrapped CC.

Instead, they chose to keep users in the dark, teasing awesome new features we were jumping at the bit to get our hands on. Remember the build-up to NAB 2013? A bunch of us throwing down the same Futurama clip "Shut up and take my money!"?

And then they drop the bomb. Rental only. Pay forever or your software stops working.

Online petitions, angry comments, millions of unsatisfied customers. Instead of what could have been a triumphant NAB 2014, people booing at Al Mooney's talk.

Adobe learned nothing from the Apple debacle. What a waste.

[Walter Soyka] "Anywhere is cool, but it's evolutionary. I think CC could be so much more."

Please say more. I'm curious what you imagine.

[Walter Soyka] "Then maybe Media Composer will sell millions of licenses this year!"

I wouldn't mind. Or maybe Black Magic?

[Walter Soyka] "What benefits does a perpetual license provide? Is a PL the best way to get those benefits?"

For me (and to answer your question below), a perpetual license is about control, not cost.

Personal computers were invented to provide individuals with the ownership and control over computer resources that previously could only be rented or timeshared. This genius of personal computers is that they allow anyone to own one of the most important means of production in our world today.

Software ownership is intrinsic to the history of the personal computer's success. The reason personal computer's took off was because you could buy one, buy the software, and it was yours to use as you wish.

Software rental is a return to the timeshare days, where a large central entity controls the computing experience. But in this case, the reason is not because the technology itself is unaffordable, it's because a large corporation wants to lock-in recurring revenues.

Perpetual licenses create an equal balance between customers and software vendors. A customer can choose to buy upgrades or not, depending on the value the software vendor provides in new versions. Forced software rental gives all the power to the software vendor. You must pay rent or the software stops working.

Once I buy my system (the hardware and software) I want that system to be controlled by me, not a large corporation.

It's not about money, it's about who controls what runs on my computer. I want it to be me.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 6:22:04 am

[David Lawrence] "Perpetual licenses create an equal balance between customers and software vendors. A customer can choose to buy upgrades or not, depending on the value the software vendor provides in new versions. Forced software rental gives all the power to the software vendor. You must pay rent or the software stops working."

I've got to disagree with you on this point, David. I think competition creates a balance between customers and vendors. There are numerous examples of companies with little competition underperforming and overcharging in the eyes of their customers even though the software was sold with a perpetual license (or sometimes even given away for free in the case of Internet Explorer).


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 8:26:58 am

[Andrew Kimery] "I think competition creates a balance between customers and vendors. There are numerous examples of companies with little competition underperforming and overcharging in the eyes of their customers even though the software was sold with a perpetual license (or sometimes even given away for free in the case of Internet Explorer)."

I completely agree with you, Andrew.

I would argue Adobe is actually one of those companies. For example, their core creative product, Photoshop, has been mature and robust for many years. You could easily make the case that since CS5, most innovations have been of limited value for a large majority of users.

It's no accident Adobe came out with a special deal for Photoshop users. It's the one area where they face real competition - not just from competitors like Pixelmator, but from themselves.

They have to make a special deal or customers will bail. And plenty of them will anyway, or simply choose not to upgrade from CS6 or lower. Photoshop has been good enough for years.

A perpetual license doesn't force a company to innovate anymore than a subscription would. Especially if the product is an industry standard.

A perpetual license simply protects the user by giving them choice whether to upgrade or not, and control over what runs on their computer.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:10:09 pm

[David Lawrence] "I would argue Adobe is actually one of those companies. For example, their core creative product, Photoshop, has been mature and robust for many years. You could easily make the case that since CS5, most innovations have been of limited value for a large majority of users.

It's no accident Adobe came out with a special deal for Photoshop users. It's the one area where they face real competition - not just from competitors like Pixelmator, but from themselves.

They have to make a special deal or customers will bail. And plenty of them will anyway, or simply choose not to upgrade from CS6 or lower. Photoshop has been good enough for years."


Well said!

CC development also entails some kind of de facto "Adobe Operating Environment" where the roundtripping between apps is seamless.

Please note, video can be edited in Photoshop, and as more and more photographers switch their cameras to video mode (and back again to stills), everyone everywhere needs to know editing.

Where are we as creative pros?

For me to stay ahead of the curve, my After Effects technique and Audio mastering is coming along quite nicely, and Cinema 4D is on order along with 10 hours of tutorials, and who knows how many creativecow questions.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 12:13:04 pm
Last Edited By Jeremy Garchow on Apr 18, 2014 at 12:14:07 pm

David, have you used CC yet?

And when I say used, I mean beyond a trial version?


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:57:08 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "David, have you used CC yet?

And when I say used, I mean beyond a trial version?"


Yes, long enough to know it's excellent and I would love to buy it.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:11:29 pm

[David Lawrence] "[Walter Soyka] "However, I think they're approaching the transition the right way: developing in the light. The ship is just too big to turn in a single release. Isn't a series of transitional releases better than going dark for a few years while working on the next big thing (a la FCP7 to FCP X)?"

Couldn't disagree more. Adobe botched a historic opportunity to possibly capture and own the post-production market after Apple fumbled the release of FCPX. They could have easily come up with a transition plan that eased customers into subscription using any number of scenarios we've discussed, including Avid's. They could have taken their time, built loyalty and goodwill, and bootstrapped CC."


Adobe is not only a video post-production software provider. They also have photographers, print designers, website designers and programmers, portable document creation and security, mobile content creation, etc. Many many different disciplines. Adobe CC is not just about the orphaned FCS3 users.

I have argued time and time again, Adobe needs to offer different pricing that is in line with what you need to buy. If the price was better (like the photogs get what they need for $10/mo) then it won't be a big deal. It will be priced to professionals, it will be priced to semi-professionals or retired professionals, and it won't be a big deal to reup for a month or a few months, or whatever you need. You will pay for what you use for. I'd also love to see a micropayment system.

Also, there was a transition in place at Adobe.

CS 5.5 had some subscription options. CS6 had both, and then there was CC.

Adobe does give an updated perpetual in CS6. IF Adobe products are as mature as you suggest, then CS6 should be fine for your needs, right?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 6:35:30 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Adobe is not only a video post-production software provider. They also have photographers, print designers, website designers and programmers, portable document creation and security, mobile content creation, etc. Many many different disciplines. Adobe CC is not just about the orphaned FCS3 users."

Yes, but their video and post-production tools easily have the most innovation in their entire product line. As Aindreas is fond of saying, Al Mooney and his team are on fire! The Photoshop team? Not so much. I mean, the camera shake reduction filter is kinda nice (when it works). But I'm fine without it.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I have argued time and time again, Adobe needs to offer different pricing that is in line with what you need to buy. If the price was better (like the photogs get what they need for $10/mo) then it won't be a big deal. It will be priced to professionals, it will be priced to semi-professionals or retired professionals, and it won't be a big deal to reup for a month or a few months, or whatever you need. You will pay for what you use for. I'd also love to see a micropayment system."

My argument from above:

[David Lawrence] "It's no accident Adobe came out with a special deal for Photoshop users. It's the one area where they face real competition - not just from competitors like Pixelmator, but from themselves.

They have to make a special deal or customers will bail. And plenty of them will anyway, or simply choose not to upgrade from CS6 or lower. Photoshop has been good enough for years."


A perpetual license is not about price. It simply protects the user by giving them choice whether to upgrade or not, and control over what runs on their personal computer.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Adobe does give an updated perpetual in CS6. IF Adobe products are as mature as you suggest, then CS6 should be fine for your needs, right?"

They absolutely are... except for their video post-production tools. Premiere Pro CS6 is good but CC is better.

Funny thing is of all the products in CC, Premiere Pro CC is the only application that can't save a project in a legacy format. Wonder why that is... must be because Sarbanes Oxley. ;)

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 21, 2014 at 5:08:30 pm

[David Lawrence] "Yes, but their video and post-production tools easily have the most innovation in their entire product line. As Aindreas is fond of saying, Al Mooney and his team are on fire! The Photoshop team? Not so much. I mean, the camera shake reduction filter is kinda nice (when it works). But I'm fine without it."

You, personally, are fine without it, sure. But other photogs or designers? People that have been given video, that aren't really video people, but have to incorporate it in to design? This is where CC shines, and it's not about the egocentric video editors, it is about content creation in the broadest sense of the term. For those that say Photoshop is perfect, I'd say no way.

[David Lawrence] "A perpetual license is not about price. It simply protects the user by giving them choice whether to upgrade or not, and control over what runs on their personal computer."

But it is about development. From a developers perspective, Adobe engineers and reps have said it, Avid now says it, Autodesk has said it, a subscription model allows a different development pattern.

If that is something that is not important to you, a regular and constant update and development cycle without a lot of "tah-dah" and big 2 year development reveals, then perhaps this model won't work.

Adobe has shown that the CC development model has been working. If you think they're lying about it, and that subscription has nothing to do with it, well, you can see my past comments about the differences in offerings that Adobe needs to provide vs the offerings that Avid needs to provide. Also, we have yet to see how Avid's updates will measure up as compared to Adobe.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 21, 2014 at 6:52:33 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Also, we have yet to see how Avid's updates will measure up as compared to Adobe."

They will have to up their game considerably to match Adobe!

Steve Connor
Mellowing slowly


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 21, 2014 at 9:11:47 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You, personally, are fine without it, sure. But other photogs or designers? People that have been given video, that aren't really video people, but have to incorporate it in to design? This is where CC shines, and it's not about the egocentric video editors, it is about content creation in the broadest sense of the term. For those that say Photoshop is perfect, I'd say no way."

Sigh. I never said Photoshop was perfect, only that it's good enough. For more than 90% of the people who use Photoshop, it's been good enough for many years.

Have you actually tried using the video features in Photoshop, Jeremy? It's designed to help artists rotoscope and paint over video frames. It doesn't handle audio at all. If you're expecting even a simple NLE, I think you'll be disappointed.

Where CC shines is in inter-application round tripping via dynamic link. Ideally, you could send a Premiere Pro video timeline to Photoshop for paint/roto work then have it dynamically update in Premiere. Maybe one day they'll do that but right now it doesn't work that way.

Photoshop is the Microsoft Word of image editors - a decades-old industry standard, packed with tons of features most people don't use. The reason Adobe may be worried is because a company like Pixelmator, offering a cheap, modern, lightweight application is poised to disrupt their market dominance once they achieve a critical mass of core features. Pissing off millions of customers is a great way to send them to the competition and Pixelmator and the other venders know it and are stepping up their game. Just like Adobe stepped up their game in video applications after Apple dropped the ball with FCPX.

Speaking of FCPX, I thought the reason Apple simplified FCPX's UI was to attract the people that have been given video who aren't really video people.

[Jeremy Garchow] "But it is about development. From a developers perspective, Adobe engineers and reps have said it, Avid now says it, Autodesk has said it, a subscription model allows a different development pattern."

It allows for a different development pattern but only in so far as it affects corporate management, accountants and marketing people who dictate development.

[Jeremy Garchow] "If that is something that is not important to you, a regular and constant update and development cycle without a lot of "tah-dah" and big 2 year development reveals, then perhaps this model won't work."

The only thing that doesn't work for me is suddenly being forced to pay rent to Adobe forever, or my software stops running on my personal computer.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Adobe has shown that the CC development model has been working. If you think they're lying about it, and that subscription has nothing to do with it, well, you can see my past comments about the differences in offerings that Adobe needs to provide vs the offerings that Avid needs to provide. Also, we have yet to see how Avid's updates will measure up as compared to Adobe."

I've never said Adobe is lying about their vision or the benefits of their model. But they are absolutely not addressing the core problem that millions of former customers have with their current model.

Us egocentric video editors are simply asking for a choice, a win-win situation for everyone, including artists, students, freelancers, indy creatives and anyone else who doesn't want to pay rent to a big corporation forever.

Avid's new plan is simply one of many ways way to achieve this. I think in the long term, speaking out for change will serve users and the software industry better than the attitude of egocentric post facilities who suggest we shut up and move on.

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


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 22, 2014 at 2:15:32 am

This^

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.1.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.5, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1 TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 22, 2014 at 4:29:24 pm

the long term, speaking out for change will serve users and the software industry better than the attitude of egocentric post facilities who suggest we shut up and move on."

I had a big response written out, but I just deleted it. It doesn't matter, really, as we have a different needs in the value we want from software.

I don't think that Adobe CC does not favor the part time, hobbyist, or freelance video editor. It is obvious that Adobe wants to go big, really big. They want to be the enterprise class of creative services. They want Master Collection users to subscribe all of the time, forever.

Adobe CC doesn't make sense for us (we are not a facility) since it's a giant amount of software most of which we won't use, but a lot if it we use rarely. It is a terrible deal with tremendous bloat. Right now, we have to pony up, but we may not in the future if it simply stops making sense. I hope Adobe does tell me to shut up and move on, I'd rather know than not know.

The photographers got a great deal, I think video editors could, too, or web/print designers for that matter. Why should web/print programmers pay for Pr, Speedgrade, and Ae if they never use it?

I could care less about ownership of the software as that aspect has less value to me. But if it's going to be a rental agreement, let me truly rent what I need when I need it.

I don't rent a Red when I need an ENG camera and vice versa.


Return to posts index

Tim Kolb
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 23, 2014 at 9:19:57 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I could care less about ownership of the software as that aspect has less value to me. But if it's going to be a rental agreement, let me truly rent what I need when I need it."

I think the photographer's bundle indicates that Adobe hasn't swept all the other options to subscribing to everything off the table...

I suspect that Adobe can't possibly think that competitors won't be coming for them as those seeking alternatives with permanent licensing are most motivated now...so increased competition will help drive some of this I suspect.

Enough users talk with their wallets and Adobe (like any other business) will be all ears. At the moment, there is certainly lots of complaint traffic around the interweb, but the actual revenue hasn't walked...

Until sales suffer, any company's board is going to look at a move like this and say "good on you" to management. Businesses exist to make money...

Adobe is leveraging the intellectual property they've spent billions developing as hard as they can to create shareholder value.

Apple is held up as brilliant because they charge 2 to 3X the price of any competitive phone for a device that doesn't cost any more to build than any other phone...how many doeth protest Adobe's exploitative practices via their iPhone?

:-)

TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,

Adobe Certified Instructor


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 24, 2014 at 2:17:51 am

[Tim Kolb] "I think the photographer's bundle indicates that Adobe hasn't swept all the other options to subscribing to everything off the table..."

I agree with you. It is the working model that we have as users, and I personally believe it is more attainable than asking Adobe to cobble together a support strategy like Avid is offering. Also, I should really stop comparing CC to Avid as they are to ally different products with different needs.

Adobe has shown, in writing, that there are more options available than a forever Master Collection rental.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 22, 2014 at 12:51:04 pm

David, I don't mean to argue with you. I am really sympathetic to your wish for perpetual licensing.

It's not my intent here to try to prove that you're wrong. It is my intent to show that there are some real advantages to the Creative Cloud model. Whether these advantages are worth the disadvantage of a perpetual license is an individual decision, and approaching this question with different values, I do expect we'd reach different conclusions.

For me, my highest priority with regard to the applications I use is for their continued health and steady development.

Maturity is a great asset in an application, but it's also a tremendous liability from a development perspective. I don't want to have my regular apps turn into another FCP7 or Avid DS or XSI, suffering for lack of architectural updates until an EOL announcement. Under CC, I feel much more confident in the long-term health of the applications I use than I was under CS.

With subscription-only, Adobe only makes good money when subscribers stay on for a long time. This means that retaining customers is, for the first time, as immediately valuable as getting a new one.

With PL sales (which your proposed buyout is, de facto), Adobe makes money when people quit subscription, too. I do not want Adobe to be rewarded when they don't deliver updates that make me want to continue my subscription.

I want the product managers for the apps I use thinking about their applications for the long haul. Our interests are better aligned when they don't have to think about quarterly sales or the next big update.

Photoshop, as you cited, is a great example. CS5 was good enough for most people? Maybe, but since CS5, we've gotten OpenCL processing, a UI overhaul, background save, more non-destructive operations with smart objects, and linked objects.

This is a partial list of improvements, but I called these out specifically because they're the sort of "boring" enhancements that have occasional users saying "ho-hum" and questioning whether purchasing that CS6 upgrade was worth it. However, I believe that all these features are critical to Photoshop's future, as they are the sort of architectural changes that allow new development and allow new workflows -- all without disrupting existing ones.

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

Jim Wiseman
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 22, 2014 at 8:38:12 pm

For me, beyond CS6, Adobe already has disappeared, precisely because I refuse to pay forever for access to my own files. That is a deal breaker, and will always be. Once on the CC bandwagon there is no getting off.

I hope Adobe is around long enough to keep CS6 working on new OS's for the Mac, (10.9 could be the last) but beyond that, they are already dead to me. I'll keep some of their apps working as long as I can on my 2012 tower and new Mac Pro, as they are truly useful, but by the time I have to upgrade my systems, I'm sure I will primarily be using other software. And those companies will be getting my money.

Such a waste. Surely they can come up with a better model than this.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.1.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.5, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1 TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 18, 2014 at 4:08:53 pm

[Walter Soyka] "But... what if it's not? What's BS about Adobe looking around and suggesting that the world is very different than it was 20 years ago, and the way we worked 20 years ago might not be the best way for us to work today?"

That's a version of Bill's argument.







Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Adobe, Avid, Sarbanes-Oxley, can they / can't they, Subscription-palooza (cont'd from below)
on Apr 23, 2014 at 2:31:09 am

[Richard Herd] "That's a version of Bill's argument."

I really enjoyed the "worlds are colliding" reference!

You're a logician. When the assumptions change, shouldn't you re-evaluate the argument?

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

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