FORUMS: list search recent posts

The Ongoing Creative Cloud

COW Forums : Adobe Creative Cloud Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Christian Schumacher
The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 21, 2014 at 10:42:33 pm

Hi, just wanted to gather input on this, as I am in the middle of this new Adobe update. Thing is I'm one of theirs AE monthly subscribers, and so far as I am concerned, Adobe has been playing nice with us here. I have had subscribed before, then cancelled it afterwards, and finally subscribed again. At the end, the whole process was really smooth. The only caveat is the need to call them via chat for cancelling, but that was pretty fast as well, even if I had to "manually" contact them in this case. Additionally, they give the monthly subscriber an extra time period, but cannot remember for how many days exactly, but I have appreciated it. And subscribing again is truly fast and simple. Nearly instantaneous. The software experience is jaw-dropping-incredible, as everyone already knows. There's isn't much too complain in this regard. At least for video production. (I have been working with Premiere CC too, but at a production company) For all that I have to congratulate Adobe. Those are real improvements and I enjoy the hard work done.

My concern now is the versioning scheme they have created for their products. I know how important it can be to have those versions clear enough for obvious reasons, but as I'm now upgrading to CC 2014 from CC, I am perhaps touching a delicate nerve there, so bare with me please. Despite of all the safeness of having those versions separated, not all softwares get that treatment, mind you! Adobe Bridge for instance will get updated and its former incarnation will be completely wiped out! Meaning if you are running both CC and CC 2014 and "call' Adobe Bridge the system can only bring you the newest one. How is that bad, you ask?

Well, I just tried to use an Animation Preset in CC 2014 and couldn't apply it, giving me one of those cryptic errors. I went to AE CC and it worked, even if it is a different Adobe Bridge now playing alongside. Nice, no harm done, you say! But I don't know...This doesn't bode well. I can only imagine when there will be 3 or 4 versions of the same software installed on my machine, you know? What will it be like for places where there are even more Adobe software together with all add-ons? What do you think is going to happen? Crazy times ahead? Right-click on a file and choose "open with" and there goes a gigantic list naming multiple software revisions? Yay! And doesn't it feel like they have changed directions in the middle of the path? I mean, CC should have been called CC 2013 if that was the plan, right? Or am I misunderstanding it? What about Bridge? Not that I really care for Bridge, but this is looking like a potencial mess to me!

UPDATE: Bridge is working well now with CC 2014 after it gave me a 'clear-cache-now' warning. But what if I need to use it with the previous CC application? Will it "fight" with CC 2014 over the one and only Bridge application Adobe has given to me? I know now -just clear the cache files... But I can easily extrapolate this situation much more further specially when facing the myriad of software titles that Adobe cranks out. This can be the mother-of-all-bloatwares, I'm afraid. Hope to be proven wrong though.


Return to posts index

Daniel McClintock
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 22, 2014 at 1:04:40 am

Yeah, I think Bridge is in the middle of a transition. I use the media browser in Premiere for finding and importing files.

It's Photoshop that I have an issue with. They no longer use the mini bridge because it used Flash. I think the reason Adobe has dropped Bridge is because it relied on Flash. By eliminating programs that rely on Flash they're cleaning up their programs and making them more responsive.

Just my two cents.

------------------

"Sometimes Life Needs a Cmd-Z!"


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 22, 2014 at 2:01:31 pm

I think you're spot on regarding Adobe Bridge, this is walking dead software indeed. Thanks for your perspective. I guess Adobe inner workings are just trying to advance the product line and so far they're pulling it off. I just question the need to put a unified sticker on every software every 12 months. By doing that, the chances of the intertwined softwares to crash onto each other are greater, aren't they? Adding to that, some parts may not get duplicated like Bridge just did and the plot thickens...Wouldn't it be better to have the individual applications to advance by themselves? As in AE 12, AE 13. When they are ready to do so?

Picture this;

June of 2016 (2 years from now) a certain computer will have the following Adobe's applications:

- Adobe After Effects CC
- Adobe After Effects CC 2014
- Adobe After Effects CC 2015
- Adobe After Effects CC 2016

And multiply that with Adobe (whatever) CC + CC 2014 + CC 2015 + CC 2016

That's 4 iterations of the entire set of applications in 36 months! If not well thought out, this may become an ugly can of warms. My 2 cents (to Adobe)


Return to posts index



Walter Soyka
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 22, 2014 at 5:27:28 pm

[Christian Schumacher] "I just question the need to put a unified sticker on every software every 12 months."

From a user's perspective, I like this. Date-based versioning is so much easier to keep straight than all the varied individual product versions (After Effects v13, Illustrator v18, Photoshop v15, Premiere Pro v8, etc.)


[Christian Schumacher] "Wouldn't it be better to have the individual applications to advance by themselves? As in AE 12, AE 13. When they are ready to do so?"

They are still doing this, with feature-bearing point releases.

I think there's some logic in coordinated major releases for interoperating products. In fact, Dynamic Link depends on this coordination.


[Christian Schumacher] "That's 4 iterations of the entire set of applications in 36 months! If not well thought out, this may become an ugly can of warms. My 2 cents (to Adobe)"

Agreed, but I am already there. I have every version of After Effects back to CS4 installed on my workstation right now for compatibility. I have never had a problem with multiple installations conflicting -- but I don't use Bridge for applying presets!

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


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 2:50:28 am

[Walter Soyka] " I have every version of After Effects back to CS4 installed on my workstation right now for compatibility. I have never had a problem with multiple installations conflicting -- but I don't use Bridge for applying presets!"


Fair enough Walter! Thanks. Being a well seasoned After Effects artist, you seem confident as to how Adobe is driving their way through this ongoing voyage. That's good insurance right there. But for fun sake, let's picture another projection: To "save as CC (12) " in After Effects CC14 will render you a "CC12" project file but intended for a 2013 CC suite version. By the time CC15 arrives, "save as CC 14 (13)" would then give you a "CC13" file to be opened in a CC14 suite version. Is that fun already? OK, let's throw in a few shared components, auto-save folders and cache files...And I haven't even mentioned their increasing set of indispensable add-ons like Cinema4D, Mocha, Color Finesse or Keylight, have I? Oh, my head hurts now. Nevermind! Definitely nothing to see here...And like that joyful song from the past, I'm sure every little thing is gonna be alright.

Regarding Bridge; Like a said, I don't care for it. I casually did use it for a remote meeting over the internet to demo a few things to a creative partner/client. When in Bridge, there are simple previews of those animations presets. Then I realised how Bridge turned into an orphan amongst all of that Adobe software. I was just trying to portray this little conundrum I bumped into, as an example of how mixing things can be explosive. On the other hand, that's how powder was invented, right? Tally Ho!


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 2:18:37 pm

[Christian Schumacher] "But for fun sake, let's picture another projection: To "save as CC (12) " in After Effects CC14 will render you a "CC12" project file but intended for a 2013 CC suite version. By the time CC15 arrives, "save as CC 14 (13)" would then give you a "CC13" file to be opened in a CC14 suite version. Is that fun already? OK, let's throw in a few shared components, auto-save folders and cache files...And I haven't even mentioned their increasing set of indispensable add-ons like Cinema4D, Mocha, Color Finesse or Keylight, have I? Oh, my head hurts now. Nevermind! Definitely nothing to see here...And like that joyful song from the past, I'm sure every little thing is gonna be alright. "

This is another scenario I live already.

I work with an agency that was frozen on CS4 until a couple of years ago (they skipped CS5, CS5.5, and CS6 and went straight ahead to CC). Projects that required AEP delivery were truly painful, as with no save-down feature going back that far, they required working in CS4. Nothing made me appreciate the added features in CS6 more than turning the dial back four years like that!

I have another client who has not updated beyond CS5.5, and who sometimes requires project files as part of the deliverable. I still work for them in Ae CC 2014, but I have to be smart about what features I use (new features like the global performance cache, snapping and "output to" templates are fine, but new features like the ray-tracer or CINEWARE are out!), and I have to do the save-down dance: Save in CC 2014, open and save from CC, open and save from CS6. I could just work in CS5.5, but there have been so many "creature comfort" features added since then, I don't want to.

So I do certainly have to keep the end game in mind when I start a project -- but hasn't this always been the case?

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


Return to posts index


Christian Schumacher
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 4:38:58 am

Walter, Do you think my reasoning is warranted? Couldn't CC be CC forever, thus updating independently its nuts and bolts? This way each software would be upgraded to a major release only when truly needed? Now we are due for a project upgrade every 12 months when, for example, we could be riding After Effects 12.2 to 12.9 for some time, until is mandatory to go 13? Like when some new tech is introduced? Sure this would be coordinated with the other video applications which in turn would upgrade in tandem. Like they already do but in a neat way? Adobe could even call it something like CC Rev N every year but the underlying softwares would have been updated to a dot release only type of upgrade, reserving major project upgrades to specific moments, targeted to specific softwares.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 2:08:41 pm

Christian, I see your point that more frequent updates are a double-edged sword.

However, looking at the features that have been released since Adobe went all-CC, I've been happy to install each update. Every one so far has offered some improvement in my daily work.

In case of disaster, I still maintain a periodic "safe" image of my workstation's boot disk. That has always been good practice, and with more frequent updates coming, I think I remains a sensible precaution.

My take on versioning is this.

One of the promises of Creative Cloud is that there are going to be more frequent updates across the product line. If last year is a guide, then we could see as many as three or four feature releases per product per year.

Although the upgrades will be made available to everyone at the same time, they are not mandatory and not everyone will choose to install them at the same time. Thus, you'll may end up with different artists collaborating, but each has different feature sets.

I like the date-based versioning as a way to make this easier to communicate. I recently did a project where we asked the artists to use Photoshop CC. Everyone did, but not everyone updated to 12.1, so some artists were using the new "Place linked" feature while others couldn't take advantage of it -- or even really understand what was supposed to be happening on those layers that were supposed to be smart objects but were reading flattened rasterized data.

As for major versus minor version numbers, what distinguishes among them? Traditionally with Adobe apps, this seems to track with file format, which in turn tracks with feature set. For example, Ae CC 12.0 can read a project from Ae CC 12.2, but not from Ae CC 2014 (13.0). Accordingly, the features implemented within a major version number do not require changes to the file format, but the features implemented in a new major version may.

Also, wouldn't Dynamic Link be more confusing if every up were making uncoordinated major/minor updates? Knowing that Ae CC 2014 dynamic links with Ae Pr 2014 is easy; knowing that Ae v13 dynamic links with Pr v8.0 is hard, and the idea that Ae v13.7 might dynamic link with Pr v9.2 is even harder.

TL;DR -- I like the idea of frequent releases, but I am ready in case an update fails catastrophically. I think that version numbers are becoming less meaningful, and that release dates are a smarter way to identify applications in a frequent-release suite.

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 2:49:41 pm

[Walter Soyka] "As for major versus minor version numbers, what distinguishes among them? Traditionally with Adobe apps, this seems to track with file format, which in turn tracks with feature set. For example, Ae CC 12.0 can read a project from Ae CC 12.2, but not from Ae CC 2014 (13.0). Accordingly, the features implemented within a major version number do not require changes to the file format, but the features implemented in a new major version may."

Walter,

Your theories here are rational and interesting, but discussion on this board has more or less confirmed that CC versioning is a marketing decision, and of course there's no policy from Adobe on this.

Franz.

Reference: http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/378/8578


Return to posts index

Ryan Holmes
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 2:56:56 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "and of course there's no policy from Adobe on this."

While there's no formal policy from Adobe on this, we have nearly 10 years of CS history to look at and 2 years of CC history. I believe this is what Walter is basing his theory on as it lines up with Adobe's release history and numbering.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "but discussion on this board has more or less confirmed that CC versioning is a marketing decision"

I'm unclear on how discussion amongst COW members solves the question de facto. Unless we can reference an Adobe rep stating as such (Todd, Kevin, etc.). So at best we can say that there are at least 2 plausible theories: (1) It's marketing, or (2) Version numbers track with file updates/feature sets.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 3:05:26 pm

[Ryan Holmes] "So at best we can say that there are at least 2 plausible theories: (1) It's marketing, or (2) Version numbers track with file updates/feature sets."

Also, these theories are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true at the same time.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 25, 2014 at 4:29:57 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Both can be true at the same time"

And of course, both can be false ;)


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 30, 2014 at 3:19:41 pm

[Richard Herd] "And of course, both can be false ;)"

Fair enough! But I do have some evidence [link] to introduce. Todd Kopriva writes on his blog:

One important technical fact about After Effects (and many other applications) is that the project file format needs to be incremented to a new version when we make certain kinds of changes to the data that is stored in it. For example, we needed to increment the project file format for After Effects CC 2014 (13.0) to accommodate the changes in the data model that effect mask and effect opacity compositing options features introduced. We tend to plan our feature work so that we do things that necessitate changing the project file format somewhat seldom, all at once.

Between minor versions (e.g., from After Effects 12.1 to After Effects 12.2), the project file format stays the same, and this allows people with any minor version of After Effects 12.x to open project files created by any other minor version of After Effects 12.x.

Similarly, we tend to plan changes to the plug-in API (the interface for creating plug-ins) so that folks creating plug-ins don’t need to make changes very often. In fact, as I mentioned above, we were able to keep the changes in this area to a minimum so that we didn’t even need to increment the number of the MediaCore folder, which is what allows the same plug-ins to be loaded from the same location for After Effects CC (12.x) and After Effects CC 2014 (13.0).

Another benefit of having a new major version that is installed alongside the old version is that it gives you a chance to try the new version out without needing to worry about whether there are any unwelcome changes. If there is something in the new version that you don’t like or need some time to get used to, you can bounce back to the old version to get some work done and then come back to the new version when you’re ready. If the new version just replaced/updated the old version, you couldn’t do that (at least not easily).


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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 30, 2014 at 3:30:19 pm

I hadn't even considered versions of Media Core and the plug-in API; hindsite is 20/20. Users running simultaneous versions is very similar to alpha-testing and beta-testing. With CC, the alpha-testing and beta-testing development cycle has been externalized to customers who write-in about bugs. It's no wonder the user manuals are a bit thin.

Thanks for sharing!


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 30, 2014 at 4:02:45 pm

[Richard Herd] "Users running simultaneous versions is very similar to alpha-testing and beta-testing. With CC, the alpha-testing and beta-testing development cycle has been externalized to customers who write-in about bugs."

I don't follow. Users have been running simultaneous versions for years (the Mac I'm writing this from has Ae CS5, CS5.5, CS6, CC and CC 2014 installed). Also, are you suggesting that software is no longer tested before release?

But I do understand the sentiment. See Jeremy Garchow's Endless development thread [link].

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 30, 2014 at 6:01:17 pm

[Richard Herd] "With CC, the alpha-testing and beta-testing development cycle has been externalized to customers who write-in about bugs. It's no wonder the user manuals are a bit thin. "

I keep seeing people make this comment and it makes no sense to me. Ever since the Internet became a viable method of delivering patches/updates (I'd say late 90's in the US) people have been complaining about half-baked products being shipped and/or paying customers becoming beta testers. I fail to see how CC unique in this area.

Hell, the new Wolfenstein game that came out a few months ago had a 7gig (yes, gig) day-one patch.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Aug 1, 2014 at 6:51:37 pm

The user manuals are in fact very thin. I'm not sure there's much to discuss there, and I know ADobe are working on it.

Regarding running simultaneous versions and sans alpha- and beta-testing...

This current era of deliverable, running simul-versions is a point of necessity. It was not a point of necessity going from CS3 to CS4. Or even skipping 4 and 5 and installing 6. But with CC to CC 2014, it is a point of necessity to retain BOTH copies simultaneously and when a bug is found to report it ASAP. (Whether that is good or bad is totally beside the point.) This particular development cycle diminishes the rigor of in-house testing and externalizes that cost onto users -- who appear mostly happy, important to add.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Aug 1, 2014 at 7:45:54 pm

[Richard Herd] " But with CC to CC 2014, it is a point of necessity to retain BOTH copies simultaneously and when a bug is found to report it ASAP. (Whether that is good or bad is totally beside the point.) This particular development cycle diminishes the rigor of in-house testing and externalizes that cost onto users -- who appear mostly happy, important to add.
"


I still don't see how what you are saying is new or unique to Adobe. Software ships with bugs. Users report bugs. Users complain that QC has gone downhill and that the public are being used as beta testers. Those sentiments work equally well for Adobe CC2014 as they do for software released circa 1999.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Aug 4, 2014 at 5:08:28 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I still don't see how what you are saying is new or unique to Adobe. Software ships with bugs. Users report bugs. Users complain that QC has gone downhill and that the public are being used as beta testers. Those sentiments work equally well for Adobe CC2014 as they do for software released circa 1999."

You have four sentences there.

(1) "I still don't see how what you are saying is new or unique to Adobe." Of course it is not, but Adobe is unique because of their rental model, which diminishes the rigor of beta testing even further (more below). It goes somewhat to the heart of PLs too: Would users pay a premium for the PL of fully debugged software, like CC (and let the current users debug CC 2014)?

(2) "Software ships with bugs." True. But not exactly. Some software has bugs that affects the performance of the software. Other software has bugs that users actively find. It's that second part "users actively find" that was the domain of beta testers, and remember people would brag about being a beta-tester.

(3) "Users complain that QC has gone downhill and that the public are being used as beta testers." Correct. That is verifiable. Developers across many industries rush to get the app into the app store. It's a different (and probably better delivery model) because fixes can be updated quickly, by design, the cost of delivery has reduced. Part of that cost is the testing phases, where users seek to break the app. The beta-testing was crucial because if a developer spent all that money on packaging and shipping yet the software didn't work, it was a nightmare scenario and the development cost could never be recouped. Now, users get the app and put it to work as work, not as trying to break it.

(4) "Those sentiments work equally well for Adobe CC2014 as they do for software released circa 1999." Not even close. In 1999, developers had to ship disks to customers (retail or direct). Those disks meant that the development cycle included a round of testers who actively tried to break the software, sometimes unfairly, but during that lots of stuff was discovered and user manuals were written during this phase. Some beta testers took the opportunity to write manuals, extensive reviews, and how-tos. All that is basically gone in the new delivery model's rush to get it on the app store (whether it's the app store or adobe.com is synecdochaic).

In the previous delivery model, the 1999 version, we users felt the upgrade gave us control, access, and power over our applications and the work it produced, so we updated. In 2014, updating is no longer necessary for control, access, and power; often, it's just the opposite case: people post that "I will upgrade after I finish this project" and "Has anyone tried the new app on the old os." These two sentiments are exactly how and where the rigor of beta testing has diminished. In a few months, we will have Yosemite and CC2015.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 3:01:31 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Your theories here are rational and interesting, but discussion on this board has more or less confirmed that CC versioning is a marketing decision, and of course there's no policy from Adobe on this."

Let me try another angle.

Autodesk has, for years, done one major release per product per year (with car-year-model numbering) -- but these were not necessarily jam-packed with the kinds of features you'd expect in an x+1.0 product. This was in part because additional features were provided throughout the year to subscription customers as extensions, and bug fixes in service packs.

What defines a major release? Is the designation "major release" meaningful to a user? Does it make sense for these ideas to be reconsidered now with the more frequent but smaller feature releases than we had been in the past?

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 3:17:38 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on Jul 24, 2014 at 3:30:25 pm

[Walter Soyka] "What defines a major release? Is the designation "major release" meaningful to a user? "

[Ryan Holmes] "Unless we can reference an Adobe rep stating as such (Todd, Kevin, etc.). So at best we can say that there are at least 2 plausible theories: (1) It's marketing, or (2) Version numbers track with file updates/feature sets."


Walter, Ryan,

Mike and Todd have been pointedly vague on what a "major version" means.

[Mike Chambers] "Once a year, we designate a milestone version."
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/378/8577

[Todd Kopriva] "By "major version", I mean a version where we change the number before the dot (e.g., from 12.2 to 13.0)."
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/378/5831

[Todd Kopriva] "Our current thought for After Effects is that we'll change the major version number every year or so, but this could change to be less frequent."
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/378/5834

Franz.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 3:20:26 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Mike and Todd have been pointed vague on what a "major version" means."

What does "major version" mean to you, and what do you think it should mean in the context of Adobe CC?

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 3:29:39 pm

[Walter Soyka] "What does "major version" mean to you, and what do you think it should mean in the context of Adobe CC"

Walter,

"Major version" should indicate a milestone in terms of features and functionality. This is most obviously reflected in file/project format. That might come once a year or once in five years.

In the context of Adobe CC, it should mean options for perpetual license on milestone releases.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 3:36:06 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] ""Major version" should indicate a milestone in terms of features and functionality. This is most obviously reflected in file/project format. That might come once a year or once in five years."

I'd certainly agree that's what major version meant. But with feature-bearing releases coming three or four times a year, how do you make this milestone distinction?


[Franz Bieberkopf] "In the context of Adobe CC, it should mean options for perpetual license on milestone releases."

Then presumably you do favor frequent and synchronized major releases?

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 3:43:10 pm

Walter,

[Walter Soyka] "But with feature-bearing releases coming three or four times a year, how do you make this milestone distinction?"

Indeed. One wishes there were someone in authority that could shed light on such an issue.

[Walter Soyka] "Then presumably you do favor frequent and synchronized major releases?"

I think synchronized releases have advantages, but as is apparent in some recent threads I think Adobe has some sorting out to do on their suite and how it interacts.

I'm not sure why "frequent" is necessarily a virtue in this context.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 30, 2014 at 12:27:16 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "In the context of Adobe CC, it should mean options for perpetual license on milestone releases."

So nice to hear that phrase again...

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, Blackmagic Teranex, 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

Ryan Holmes
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 3:42:40 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Mike and Todd have been pointed vague on what a "major version" means."

Given that...it would seem that Walter's response to me is most accurate:

[Walter Soyka] "Also, these theories are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true at the same time."

So version numbers are tied to a marketing aspect, helping users differentiate what they're buying/using. As well as being tied to "milestone" or "major" releases.

I've historically interpreted the version number, as both a marketing aspect (like the naming of cars, smartphones, etc) to help users differentiate what they're buying and secondly, as a differentiation between feature sets. So I expect version 2.0 to have more and newer features from version 1.0. I also expect version 2.0 to not necessarily be backwards compatible, meaning I can't open version 2.0 files in version 1.0....I do expect, however, to open version 1.0 files in version 2.0 however.

Historically I would point to Final Cut 4, 5, 6, 7 or Adobe CS2, CS3, CS4 as marketing terms, but also as "major milestone differences" within the software. Major milestone releases typically involve a manipulation of the code base of the program to add or provide hooks for additional features. Dot releases are typically security or bug fixes with the occasional added feature (as FCPX has employed since 2011 and Adobe with CC this past year).

However, with both the progress of technology and programming those distinctions about feature set vs. bug fixes vs. marketing appear to be getting blurry. As Adobe CC has issued "major" feature releases as dot updates and version updates. FCPX has done the same thing as it's grown over the last 3 years. Maybe our terminology needs to change as we move forward? Or as Walter suggests Adobe adopts a model year designator (CC 2013, CC 2014, CC 2015) much like Autodesk does for its software.

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 3:45:23 pm

[Ryan Holmes] "Maybe our terminology needs to change as we move forward?"

Ryan,

What do you think "Adobe CC 2014" means or should mean?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Ryan Holmes
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 4:01:24 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "What do you think "Adobe CC 2014" means or should mean?"

I interpret it as both a marketing designator to differentiate it from Adobe CS6 or Adobe CC (which will likely come to be known as Adobe CC 2013), and as a rollout of more features that are not available in CC 2013...what we would typically dub a "milestone/major release." And Adobe did deliver major new features for CC 2014 (live text edit inside Premiere, masking and tracking in Premiere, Direct link to Speedgrade, perspective warp in Photoshop, 3D printing in Photoshop, etc.).

I imagine that moving forward Adobe will begin to name the new "upgrade" via year. CC 2014, CC 2015, CC 2016. I don't think this will coincide with any perpetual options being offered. It will simply allow the subscribed user an easier time for identifying and downloading previous versions of software if they need to open up old projects. If you open Adobe apps today you'll notice that they are denoting version numbers 2 ways (Premiere used as example):
(1) 2014.0 - CC 2014 designator
(2) 8.0.0 (169) build - PPro version number

So they are denoting the CC bundle as well as the individual app progress. I would guess that within any of those years the individual programs will retain their version number so that users who need to drill down can see if they are on Premiere 8.0.0 or 8.0.1 or 8.1.0.

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 4:07:31 pm

[Ryan Holmes] "I imagine that moving forward Adobe will begin to name the new "upgrade" via year. CC 2014, CC 2015, CC 2016. ... So they are denoting the CC bundle as well as the individual app progress"


Ryan,

Do you think this is more or less a continuation of the CS5, CS6, etc. designations?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Ryan Holmes
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 7:08:34 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Do you think this is more or less a continuation of the CS5, CS6, etc. designations?"

Seems plausible. Just moving over to a CC+Year designation....quite possible. As time goes I assume this will become clearer as we see how they lay out the numbers.

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


Return to posts index

Ryan Holmes
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 2:19:03 am

[Christian Schumacher] "June of 2016 (2 years from now) a certain computer will have the following Adobe's applications:

- Adobe After Effects CC
- Adobe After Effects CC 2014
- Adobe After Effects CC 2015
- Adobe After Effects CC 2016"


Why not just uninstall previous versions? If you need them to open an old project (plausible), re-download it when needed from the Cloud. I was just cleaning up a workstation today that had multiple versions of CC on it and the editor couldn't figure out why the AE project wouldn't open in Premiere Pro....it was because they were using AE from CC 2014 but running Premiere Pro from CC.

Uninstall is a beautiful thing....

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


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Jul 24, 2014 at 2:55:29 am

[Ryan Holmes] "Uninstall is a beautiful thing...."

I hear you. Things like these pop in all the time though: "changes in Photoshop cripples rigging in After Effects" or "in order to save a CS 6 version file you will need to use CC exclusively". And so on...I'm just trying to wrap my head around the march of progress. Have a good ride!


Return to posts index

JP Pelc
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Aug 1, 2014 at 4:35:51 pm

I don't really know about Bridge as I don't use it all that much. It does seem problematic that they deleted CC and kept only CC 2014.

At any rate, in terms of your fear that you will have loads of different versions of each software, that shouldn't be much of a concern. You can quite easily delete old versions. And if they called this version "CC 2014" that leads me to believe the next version will come out in 2015, then 2016, and so on. I really don't see them making major upgrades more frequently than once every year. If this is the case, I don't see why anybody would feel the need to have more than 2 versions of anything at a time (if not just one). Do you really foresee yourself keeping 3-year-old software on your machine when you have two update versions that have proven stable on your machine?


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Aug 5, 2014 at 5:39:00 pm
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Aug 5, 2014 at 5:41:55 pm

Frankly, this seems awfully similar to the old CS4, CS5, CS6 annual major versions with occasional dot updates we had in the past, minus Perpetual Licensing. It appears that the greater advantage goes to Adobe , in that you are forced to pay continuously to keep your software working and maintain access to your projects. It also seems like a perfect opportunity to reintroduce Perpetual Licensing for those who want it. Buy into a version year, 2014, 2015, etc.

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, Blackmagic Teranex, 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

Hans Swets
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Aug 18, 2014 at 7:07:51 pm

Here is why:
I am using CS3 (Ultra), CS5.5 (On Location) ,and CS6 (Encore)
CC has no Ultra, On Location, Encore.
I like to decide what programs to use in my work flow. to not be at the mercy of Adobe management



Return to posts index

JP Pelc
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Aug 18, 2014 at 7:17:12 pm

I imagine the switch from a perpetual license model to subscription model has nothing to do with which software gets further development. In other words if we had CS8 right now instead of CC 2014, I'm sure you still wouldn't have a new version of Ultra, On Location, Encore.


Return to posts index

Ryan Holmes
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Aug 18, 2014 at 7:18:27 pm

[Hans Swets] "CC has no Ultra, On Location, Encore."

You are right that CC has no Ultra, but neither does CS4, CS5, CS5.5, or CS6...largely because it was incorporated into Visual Communicator 3, Premiere Elements, and finally into Premiere Pro as a plugin called "Ultra" in 2010.

CC uses Prelude, which is like a steroid injected version of On Location. Encore is still available as a download if needed (or there's always the 3rd party route: Toast, Cyberlink, Premiere Elements 11, etc).

[Hans Swets] "I like to decide what programs to use in my work flow. to not be at the mercy of Adobe management"

If you use any companies software you're at their mercy in some sense. Apple discontinued FCP7, Final Cut Server, etc. Users will have to move on eventually or maintain a legacy system indefinitely. The software you've listed was largely phased out even before CC came along, specifically Ultra and On Location.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Brame
Re: The Ongoing Creative Cloud
on Aug 18, 2014 at 7:28:45 pm

As a former Ultra user back before Serious Magic was gobbled up by Adobe, I was glad to see it incorporated as the native keyer in Premiere circa CS4 or 5 I believe, and it remains today. It's called 'Ultra Key'.

We also used OnLocation quite a bit back when Firewire was available on cameras, but alas, we don't have that type of connection any longer. However, since all of our cameras have monitors built in, and we were mainly using OnLocation for creating DTE files, it's not missed.

Last but not least, we use CC 2014, and I just built a DVD with Encore. Of course the direct connectivity between Premiere and Encore isn't there, but I always liked to encode my DVD files directly with Adobe Media Encoder anyway.

Asus P6X58D Premium * Core i7 950 * 24GB RAM * nVidia Quadro 4000 * Windows 7 Premium 64bit * System Drive - WD Caviar Black 500GB * 2nd Drive(Pagefile, Previews) - WD Velociraptor 10K drive 600GB * Media Drive - 2TB RAID0 (4 - WD Caviar Black 500GB drive) * Matrox MX02 Mini * Adobe CC
-------------------------------------------
"98% of all computer issues can be solved by simply pressing 'F1'."
Steve Brame
creative illusions Productions


Return to posts index

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