Users moaned about Adobe PRo CC 2014.1
And now they have Christmas gifted us a load of fixes in 2014.2 :-)
+ a load of new stuff, including Destination Publishing to YouTube and Vimeo. This is really cool as I should be able to go to bed without waiting up for the publishing.
Merry Christmas and Peace to all for 2015.
All the Best
@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Soooo many BugFixes.
To correct all the fast delivered updates.
Happy New Year & Peace on earth (ok, on clouds also)
[Rainer Schubert] "To correct all the fast delivered updates. "
I just finished this piece on the "fast delivered updates" of Premiere CC 2014 and had no issues.
Until they fix the blue in the mange UI the updates don't mean anything to me. I can't use it.
And - if that´s what you are usually doing - I think I understand, why you don´t have any concern against that "cloud".
As you wrote "finished".
Seems, your work mostly gets to an end.
Things are done & the projects will never come on the table again.
No necessity to edit again.
If you are happy with the software distribution of Adobe. OK - it´s up to you.
And most of us don´t have any problems with the software itself.
My - andy many others - requirements are (totally) different.
There is no dot behind most of the projects - I have to use them for years sometimes.
I absolutely see no advantage in hiring my tools and to pay again, if I have to edit the work I created.
With unforeseeable costs nor any guaranty.
I want to be free in my decisions to change the software I use. And I don´t want to pay a cloud vendor for years if I do.
I can´t praise this business model like you do. It simply doesn´t fit my needs.
Nor can I understand, why you are so committed to evangelize us, that we have to love this clouds too.
Does your client pay when you redo or update the project?
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852
Think of Catalogues, which are update year by year. But big parts are based on former years.
Fair Trailers, which only get new subtitels or modified sequenzes (Because there is another fair in a different region).
Adds which remain the same, but are translated to other countries.
Websites, whose content has to be changed.
And so on.
So one can say - let the client pay for the cloud.
But, when I am not willing to pay for the use of my own work - why should my client do so?
Do we life in an economical world or not? Why should I pay extra costs, because a distributor has no other plan than this to succeed at wallstreet?
After all: It doesnt´t matter WHO pays for the additional cloud hiring. It matters, that there ARE costs.
Former Software Distribution was a fair thing. And I updated my Collections (and single products before) every time.
But I was ever able to use my work. That, what Abbobe is calling "cloud" isn´t acceptable without an fair exit.
Costs are not my concern (but I can understand those for whom it is).
As long as there is a chance to own a fair license, I will not rent my tools.
And I also will not pay for the use of my creations.
[Andy Field] "Does your client pay when you redo or update the project?"
So we're not entitled to simply be artists in addition to business people? We are only entitled to edit video if we have a fully funded and currently paying client? I cant edit video for a pro-bono project, no indies, no editing of my kids football games or work for a charity? I cant experiment in new editing techniques, work with a new 3D render that I just finished in C4D, try new ideas out for a script that may not have funding yet? It's simply business only? That's what we're supposed to be happy about after YEARS of paying for upgrades?
No, what you're saying is that for all the years of investing in the software, at the end of the day, I get nothing. Pay the never ending rentals fees or be denied access to my creative work, MY LIFE'S WORK.
For the life of me I cant figure out why this is so hard for some people to understand. If you want to be subject to lifelong software rentals, have at it. Go for it. It's your choice.
But the rest of us are NOT happy about it and are taking a serious look at alternatives.
A Double Like if it would be possible!
Nice Christmas Time to you and your Family!
[Rainer Schubert] "
Nice Christmas Time to you and your Family!"
And to you Rainer my friend, and everyone else! Merry Christmas
Ooh dear, in this festive season I managed kick off another round of armor piercing verbal bullets. My original post was to illustrate that there was problems with the previous version of PPro, such as red flash frames in rendered masters. Adobe listened, and brought out an upgrade to fix the issues + add a bit of new functionality. Which is great.
However, I had expected this discussion to be around whether upgrades are coming out too fast? And whether Adobe should throw more resources at testing software before releases, rather than a fix it later policy?
Instead, became once again about ownership...
[Chris Pettit] " I cant edit video for a pro-bono project, no indies, no editing of my kids football games or work for a charity?"
Chris, in all fairness you would have either paid for the car and petrol, or hired it, in order to get to the kids football game. Never the less, it would have cost you money. Why should a supplier pay towards your pro-Bono work? Particularly when there are free software that you can use, without having to pay a license for it...
And with Adobe CC components being available for monthly (one-off) rentals, I really can't see the argument?
And if one is concerned about future use, it is always possible to keep the assets as separate files and "re-compose" in other software packages - although that might not be an efficient way of working. But not impossible.
Merry Christmas & a Prosperous and Happy New Year to all!
All the Best
@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
adobe should contemplate a tierd solution for purchase, to both increase base and fortune.
maybe a version with limited tracks, codec,cpu/gpu usage among others a limited full version.
lf bm does it why cant adobe. bm gives away a free version almost identical to its priced one. in adove case one purchased and the full blown in subscrition. im sure that most of adobes 12 million licences would be in the lower tier version
[Ricardo Marty] "maybe a version with limited tracks, codec,cpu/gpu usage among others"
Adobe do make such version; it is called Elements and is on offer right now: http://www.adobe.com/uk/products/premiere-elements.html
All the Best
@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
im talking about a pro version. like the old cs video apps not a biggner app. like elements.
[Ricardo Marty] "adobe should contemplate a tierd solution for purchase, to both increase base and fortune.
maybe a version with limited tracks, codec,cpu/gpu usage among others a limited full version.
lf bm does it why cant adobe. bm gives away a free version almost identical to its priced one. in adove case one purchased and the full blown in subscrition. im sure that most of adobes 12 million licences would be in the lower tier version"
BM also requires that you use their I/O hardware, gives their fully functioning software away for free with camera purchase and sells a $30,000 control panel for those that want/need the most seamless experience using Resolve. Since Adobe doesn't sell it's own cameras, I/O cards and/or control panels it can't do the same thing that BM does.
Also, 'lite' versions are incredibly hard to balance (especially considering all of Adobe's apps and how they are trying to increase the seamlessness of going between all the apps). Avid tried for years to make various tiered versions of MC (DV Express, Express Pro, Pinnacle, even Media Composer and Film Composer) and it never went smoothly. Even Apple got rid of it's 'tweener app (Final Cut Express) when it launched FCPX.
[Andrew Kimery] " got rid of it's 'tweener app"
It's the natural state of evolution for all tweener apps to go away. I say this having been part of the management team for Xpress Pro, and later, Liquid. They're simply not sustainable.
One reason why is that they require dramatically MORE development and testing. Turns out that once a feature is IN software, it's very hard to keep it OUT. And I can assure you that spending your days in QA making sure that the good stuff stays out of customers' hands is pretty soul-sucking.
After development and testing, there's also the expenses of documentation, support, etc. -- all in the service of making LESS money. Ideally, still, making more money than was spent on the additional effort through volume, but in fact, spending proportionally much more money for proportionally much less money. It drives down profit margins on those products, making them harder to justify at the corporate level, while also dragging down margin on those entire divisions. No company can get away with that for long, which is why tweener apps always die. Always.
An additional mess to clean up is review cycles. It's a lot of work to manage reviewers who might only have a few hours or days to spend with the software before writing their review, and who necessarily are focusing on a limited feature set....but what's really the point from a developer's perspective? To get a reviewer to say, "Yeah, it's good enough that you can get by without spending any more money," or is it better for the reviewer to say "This simply isn't good enough. Skip it and get the full version."
In any case, if I'm a developer with limited access to Oliver Peters' schedule, I want his attention on my strongest products that tell my most important stories. Lite versions are neither, so I try to keep those OUT of review cycles...which of course lessens the ability to monetize my greater effort on the lite stuff.
Which is to say that my best-case scenario for the review of a lite product is that it gets people to skip over the "lite" version that I spent all this extra money developing.
This knot of issues leads to two inevitable outcomes.
-- People but it, say it's crap because it's not powerful enough and NEVER upgrade.
In a scenario where upgrading is the only path to profitability, you basically just blew up your own bridge.
-- In which case, you also spread the news that your software isn't powerful enough. Sure, the astute reader will read a whole review, and draw a reasoned conclusion on the big picture....assuming that a reviewer other than Oliver will get this right (in my experience: unlikely)....but most people will stop at the headline, and the number of stars or whatever and say, "New version of Premiere gets 3 and a half stars? No thanks. My current software is worth more to me than that."
Which can only be avoided by making your lite software so compelling that you work against your very reason for existence, making the best software you possibly can, or under-cutting your ability to earn a living from it.
[Andrew Kimery] "Since Adobe doesn't sell it's own cameras, I/O cards and/or control panels it can't do the same thing that BM does."
Once you add in broadcast infrastructure product lines (which are so easily overlooked in these conversations -- switchers, routers, standards converters), the percentage that they NEED to make from software is very low.
For that matter, to every appearance, the cost to acquire the software products was also pretty low. BMD is obviously undertaking significant development with them, but the scale of all of this is that keeping the software business in the black is NOTHING similar to Adobe.
More important, BMD is private. They can do whatever the hell they want. Publicly held companies have to account for the delta between what they COULD charge, and DO in fact charge in other contexts, vs. what they DID charge for a specific deal, and they have to write down the difference as a loss.
This even factors into something as simple as giving away a couple of seats of Media Composer with an enterprise-class deal at Avid. Sure, they make a lot more MONEY from storage, servers, broadcast infrastructure, but even writing down a small fraction of the deal lowers the overall margin enough that it's incredibly rare.
When software is your only product, you have nothing to write it down against, so nothing in BMD's or Avid's approach is easily applicable to Adobe, if at all.
So, that's not to say that Adobe couldn't offer lite products in this space, a la Photoshop Elements...but it's development effort that I think you'd agree would be better spent on new stuff we want.
As it is, agree or not, but I also suspect that the argument is that as little as $19/month for a single application is pretty dang lite. Trying to create a lite version of single apps, or the equivalent of the production bundle, creates a scenario with quite likely no way to ever make back what they spent on it, far more the case for a buy-out scenario.
Limited versions of apps at this level simply take more effort than you can earn back at a "lite" price, which is why they can't last. And so far, haven't.
As always, adding in the caveat that I might be full of it and have no idea what I'm talking about. LOL That might as well be my sig. All I can say is that based on my little bit of experience as a developer/marketing guy, and reading the tea leaves like very other schlub with a keyboard, I don't see how this is a) possible from a "making more than we'd spend" standpoint, and if it is, b) that it's how I'd want them to spend their time working on software in this market.
How long do you think that BMD can sustain the "Lite" versions of both Resolve and Fusion? Granted, they are a private company and sell a great deal of hardware. I would not mind paying a reasonable fee each major update cycle if it would really ignite a stronger development across the board. In fact I would not object to a permanent license purchase upfront with a one or even two year mandatory subscription. In the end, this could benefit the software company and the end user. Then again, all that desert I ate over Christmas is finally getting to me. LOL
Must be the weather and global warming. Excuse my random rambling, back to business as usual.
what you say sounds logiical but what about a company who after 3 years have not been able signin 3/4 of the previoous user base not to say that of those whove done so many are at a cut rate price. adobe is still bleeding money.
3 years into cc and only 61% of its users are full blown cc. does this make more sense or less?
[David Mathis] "How long do you think that BMD can sustain the "Lite" versions of both Resolve and Fusion? "
1) These apps are discrete. There are no inter-app dependencies (interchange for both Resolve and Fusion is standards-based exchange, eg XML, rather than shared code), so all that stuff I said above about massive extra development for lite versions? Doesn't apply to Blackmagic.
Standalone applications make this much easier. With the Adobe suite, there are HUGE inter-app dependencies, MASSIVE shared code. Adobe would have to rewrite a lot of super-basic stuff with code that they couldn't re-use anywhere else. Nononono.
2) Resolve/Fusion workflow usage is (largely) discrete. I'll talk about Resolve because we know what the uptake has been -- massive(ish). They blew open a door that Apple Color had opened, to make color grading accessible. But in reaching new KINDS of customers, Blackmagic has to first sell the value of grading as an IDEA, and there's no better way to do that than to show you the difference between three color wheels in your NLE and THIS.
For most of the people Blackmagic Design trying to reach with Resolve Lite, their USE of Resolve is "lite." For anybody who's been grading much at all, or was banging their head up against the wall with Color at least partly because Resolve was out of reach, $995 is a no-brainer. The easiest decision those guys might make all year.
Contrast this standalone, occasional use for most people, with an NLE. You already know what NLEs can do in general, right? They GENERALLY all work super-duper well. The question is, does this one work super-duper well for ME?
The only way to find that answer is to give me everything you've got. It's always the little things, right? And those little things have everything to do with interop, and touching every one of my most basic tasks, every single day. The one thing a Lite Adobe app or suite might hold back may be the one thing I need, so its absence isn't going to make me spend the dough. It's going to make me stick with what I have.
I'll note again that the "CC not for me" protest is being made almost exclusively by editors. Out of a user-base of millions there are obviously going to be exceptions, and this is a topic worth discussing some day, but I think PART of the reason is that NLEs are both immersive and a hub for every other task. A lot is at stake with a decision about Premiere.
Adobe has always understood this better than anyone, which is why it makes no sense to me at all that they'd consider trying to hook you with anything less than everything.
3) BMD doesn't need to support its entire business on Resolve. This can't be overstated.
Not that Grant Petty doesn't want your money. He does. But his business model is apparently based on leaving money on the table. LOL
Which also tells you something about how shrewd these acquisitions are. They CAN be monetized with small-to-moderate prices and volumes.
This is nothing like needing to support the 7th-largest software company in the world, whose only product is software and directly related services.
So I have no idea how Grant is making enough money to keep growing, but he obviously is....without charging anything for lite versions of Fusion and Resolve. I can't imagine that changing.
[Ricardo Marty] "what you say sounds logiical but what about a company who after 3 years have not been able signin 3/4 of the previoous user base not to say that of those whove done so many are at a cut rate price. adobe is still bleeding money.
3 years into cc and only 61% of its users are full blown cc. does this make more sense or less?"
Note that my previous post, and this post so far was ONLY about why I can't imagine a lite version of the suite, or Premiere and After Effects in particular.
However, 61% of Adobe users being full-blown CC is BIG SUCCESS.
You may disagree, but just as one example, did you know that 70% of Windows users are on Windows 7 or XP? Adoption of Windows 8 is at under 17%.
Also, we know that many people have downloaded FCPX, but do you get the feeling that more than 60% of FCP 7 users have completely converted to X after three and one half years? I don't. I think it's more like 60% of users have STAYED on FCP 7, and a good-sized number have left X altogether to come to Premiere. :-)
I will also disagree with the idea that Adobe is bleeding money. After their financial announcements in early December, the stock jumped 9% in a single day to a record high, because profits are so high.
Not just money in coming in. Profit is high.
I take this opinion from many other people who are much smarter than I am. Here are some excerpts from the Financial Times on December 12.
Adobe’s fourth-quarter profits rose to 34 cents a share, topping Wall Street forecasts of 30 cents, thanks to a 28 per cent climb in Creative Cloud subscriptions.
We agree that Adobe is aggressively discounting subscriptions, but you see this as a sign that they are bleeding. I, and others, see it as a sign that Adobe is using discounts to drive profits, and, most important, new subscriptions.
Again from Financial Times:
Subscribers climbed by 644,000, well above the average analyst forecast of 534,000, according to Bloomberg data. Creative Cloud subscriptions have risen by more than 2m this year.
The article also notes that analysts have revised their targets for Adobe stock upward yet again, now targeting $90/share, compared to $75 or so right now. This is excellent growth, outpacing the tech sector as a whole.
You should read the whole article. It is very interesting, with many more numbers....and no sign of blood. :-)
I apologize for writing such a long post on a holiday weekend. LOL I also apologize for mixing replies to different questions....but they are related.
The Creative Suite's appeal is the FULL capability of the SUITE. Adoption of the suite is EXCEEDING expectations. Even if some of that is because of discounts, Adobe is still achieving record profits.
So lite versions don't make sense to me as a technology play, as a marketing play, or as a profit play. So why would you do it? You wouldn't.
Which is why they'll announce it right after the first of the year. LOL Probably not. I know nothing. I'm writing this strictly as an observer who reads the same public stuff you do. I'm wrong on a regular basis, but I think I have this one about right.
So there's no benefit to Adobe to take their foot off the gas, or to distract potential users with multiple versions,
As always, great to hear your perspective. Your insight is resourceful, useful and above all, gets me thinking in a different direction. I certainly can understand the direction Adobe took, why they took it, and why they most likely will be steady as it goes -- no change in course direction. I respect their philosophy even though I often respectfully disagree. Then again, I don't know everything. LOL
Look forward to your words of wisdom and thank you for making the COW a great place to learn, share ideas, and the sense of humor. You are simply the best!
Well, you do have to use someones !/O hardware and you don't have to rent it. My AJA LHi is working 5 years later and came in a bundle with Media 100 Suite 2.x. Very reasonable. My Blackmagic Teranex was once $75k, now less than $2K, and I will get years of use from it, as I will from my new UltrasStudio 4k. I would much rather pay for good hardware with no rental and associated software, free or reasonable cost, than have my most prized assets, my actual projects, as Chris said, MY LIFE's WORK, held hostage to a company like Adobe who have shown no respect to a huge number of their very long term clients (PS 1.x) and their needs. If you have no emotional connection to your work, and it's in the door, out the door, it may work for you. It doesn't for me and MANY others. Not everyone works in LA or New York commercial environments. Not everyone considers their work their art. For me it is not just a job. Rentals without a reasonably priced working way out are an insult.
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
BTW, I am moving to FCP X, now 10.1.4. Can't beat the price, and it actually works as well or better for my projects. I actually prefer the Mac Pro 2013 hardware it is tied to and would have bought it anyway.
If only 1/4 of Adobe's former user base have moved to the Cloud and rentals, I would have to believe that 3/4 of the formerly paying users are being left on the table, high and dry. I really feel sorry for those who depend on AE. Not much out there that directly competes. Fortunately I don't need or use it. Motion 5 fulfills my needs.
Regarding CS6, I have a new Mac Pro 2012 with boot drives from 10.6.8 to Yosemite, so it will be quite a while before I need to retire that software. By then someone will be eating Adobe's lunch if all they care about is Wall Street and not their (former) users.
Sorry for the lack of Christmas spirit. Happy Holidays to all of you.
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.1.4, 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
[Jim Wiseman] " If you have no emotional connection to your work, and it's in the door, out the door, it may work for you. It doesn't for me and MANY others. Not everyone works in LA or New York commercial environments. Not everyone considers their work their art. For me it is not just a job."
I understand your point of view, but I don't think suggesting that people who use CC don't consider their work their art might be construed as insulting. For me the "art" is the finished film that I make, I rarely re-visit finished projects apart from my commercial work where the client will be paying for any changes anyway.
[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "Chris, in all fairness you would have either paid for the car and petrol, or hired it, in order to get to the kids football game."
I sure wouldn't rent the car to get them there, which is of course the whole point.
[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "Why should a supplier pay towards your pro-Bono work?"
??? They don't. The opposite is true. I've paid them.
[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "Particularly when there are free software that you can use, without having to pay a license for it..."
Other than the recent release of the basic version of Fusion, what are you talking about? Where are the free versions of PS, AI, AE, FL for example?
[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "And if one is concerned about future use, it is always possible to keep the assets as separate files and "re-compose" in other software packages"
A lot of our work is pretty complex. Weeks, or in some cases months of work. It's really not practical to say that we would ever rebuild it from the ground up, particularly when we've already paid for the software the first time.