-
Apple and Adobe Software: Together
-
[Mathieu Ghekiere] “For a freelancer, much less so.”
I think it depends on the individual situation. For example, with the freelance work I’ve been doing in LA I’ve found that being flexible is very important (in the past two weeks I’ve used FCP 7, PPro and Avid) and that means NLEs having a lower cost of entry is very advantageous.
I don’t remember the math off hand, but I think the break even point for an Adobe subscription vs the old perpetual license cost is something like 6 or 7yrs (assuming you upgraded every year). Maybe I’ll subscribe to CC continuously for that long, maybe I won’t. The NLE market is changing so much in my neck of the woods (just look at all that’s happened since 2010) that trying to guess what NLE I’ll be using in 2020 is just about pointless. Doing the work I do in LA it’s a pretty safe bet that Avid will still be a widely used in the year 2020, but beside that it’s a total crap shoot.
Other people might have more control over which NLE they use so projecting long term can be a bit easier, but for me I wouldn’t even try to guess beyond 2-3yrs.
[Bill Davis] “Yes Andrew, but you were conditioned that the tools and the seat would be the property of the COMPANY. If anything has changed over the past decade it’s the end of the “only a commercial enterprise can afford the means of production” era.
I’d say I was exposed to it more than conditioned to it because I’ve had a foot in both worlds for a long time. For example, around the century (I love being able to use that phrase) I built a PC running Premiere (the old Premiere) with a Matrox RT2500 card for I/O and hardware acceleration to cut my own projects, but at the day job they leased all their Avid hardware.
Off-the-shelf desktop hardware becoming ‘good enough’ certainly broadened the playing field and allowed a much more ‘horses for courses’ type approach as opposed to the one size fits for all, ‘big iron’ approach of the past when the investment in all the required gear was such a massive expensive.
But coming back to my point, if I had only been exposed to the “I’ve always owned what I use on a daily basis” scenario then I would think what Adobe is doing is completely out of left field, but I wasn’t so I don’t.
What happens when the “hot editor” can simply come with his or her workstation in a bag, jack in – and contribute at the same level as the dedicated suite editor of today? Or even drop in via Skype, edit and upload a scene and log off?
“It depends on the situation. If all that is required from the hot editor is a final QT then the bring-your-own-NLE approach works very well. But what happens when the hot editor has to conform to an existing workflow but doesn’t have a copy of the required NLE? Certainly a case can be made for renting/subscribing being a better solution to that problem than having to pay full price for a perpetual license that you might only use for a matter of weeks.
I ran into a situation kinda like that last year. Long story short, I came in as a 2nd editor on a doc (working out of the company’s office, the main editor worked from home) and it was only for a couple of months so they subscribed to Avid MC for the two months as opposed to buying a perpetual license. After the project ended everything got boxed back up and put into storage (the director/producer only rents office space when projects are in post).
[Bill Davis] “Everything current I read about “big time” editing now seems to be a management team in LA, the Director in London, the EFX crew in Bangkok and what does it really matter where the editor is sitting? I know corporate cutters in Albuquerque working with scene loggers in Birmingham, England. “
It depends. It matters if the people involved want to make it matter. AFAIK much of the FX work that gets farmed to India or Southeast Asia is more along the lines of manual labor (wire removal, rotoscoping, etc.,) where as the final touches and more skill/creative work is done more local to where the production is based. Same thing when there was an animation work exodus in the 90’s to the same region. The creative work was done in Hollywood, but the actual coloring of the animation was done overseas. Apple is another example. Their products (besides the nMP) say “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China” on the back.
FWIW I’ve read that some big VFX shops in India and SE Asia that sprouted up 5-10yrs ago to do Hollywood movies have started shuttering recently. I’m not exactly sure why but I assume part of it is that the labor isn’t as cheap as it used to be (and it has to be really cheap to make sense). That’s a big reason why Vancouver’s film/TV industry, which was called ‘Hollywood North’ in the 90’s, crashed. The exchange rate between the Dollar and the Looney started evening out and more US (and Canadian) municipalities started offering film financing kickbacks. When Vancouver stopped being ridiculously cheap productions moved on to greener pastures. But now I’m just rambling…
Getting back to editing remotely, it really depends on the people involved in the project. For example, I do a lot of doc work where the producers/directors are very personally invested in the project so bringing in an editor is like bringing in a new member to the family. It’s not taken lightly so trying to score that gig from 1000 miles away is incredibly difficult. And on the flip side I’ve landed other types of gigs after only a phone interview. Just boils down to the situation and those involved.
One of my long term goals when I moved to LA was to build up a network and then hopefully be able to someplace else once technology made remote editing feasible. The longer I’m out here the less likely I see that as happening because of the type work I typically do it. Even when tech makes remote editing viable I still need to be local to continue to seek out, create, and cultivate these personal connections.
[Bill Davis] “Office space is EXPENSIVE. I know because I paid for it for 20 plus years. Thank you, no thank you. Not any more.”
I’ll have to take your word for it as I either edit out of my home or out of someone else’s office.
-
[Craig Alan] “Until your new Mac requires a new OS that does not support FCP legacy. “
Keep an old Mac ‘frozen in time’ until it breaks and can no longer be repaired. Personally, I prefer Walter Soyka opinion on this problem, push for more open project formats so it’s easier to take a project from one NLE to another.
[Bret Williams] “Not being able to open old projects just because you didn’t pay the bil”
If you can’t save or export what are you going to do with it? You could download a free, 30-day trial.
[Craig Alan] “Or maybe just allow end users to buy the current version of the software for an additional fee. Kinda of like buying the car you have been leasing.”
Tim has mentioned before how this option isn’t very viable due to unintended consequences from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
-Andrew
-
[Andrew Kimery] “Certainly a case can be made for renting/subscribing being a better solution to that problem than having to pay full price for a perpetual license that you might only use for a matter of weeks.”
I agree with that, that’s why I think the subscription is a fantastic OPTION.
Not as the only way of using the program.https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com
-
[Andrew Kimery] “[Craig Alan] “Or maybe just allow end users to buy the current version of the software for an additional fee. Kinda of like buying the car you have been leasing.”
Tim has mentioned before how this option isn’t very viable due to unintended consequences from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.”
It was an intended consequence, but yeah. 🙂 Not to say that it CAN’T be done, but in the real world, once you see what’s required, I honestly can’t believe that anyone can imagine a company that would want to try.
(Related, anyone heard the word “upgrade” from a publicly traded company lately? Even Avid’s “upgrade” language is “buy an annual service contract and receive any upgrades issued during that time.” I’m thinking that we’ve just about seen the end of a pure “upgrade” as we understood it 5 years ago to be gone, for the same reasons.)
Avid’s “buyout” solution is the only one that will actually work, which is, at whatever point you’ve decided that you’re ready to stop subscribing and would like to buy, you can buy at full price. Full stop. No discounts.
Of course, any scenario anything like this would also require Adobe selling software again, which, while undoubtedly appealing to a number of customers, is also long past the point of feasibility.
I could say that that’s beyond debate, but debating whether it’s debatable is a debate for another forum. 🙂
-
Ok. But bottom line is there is something deeply wrong that unless you continue to subscribe you loose access to your own intellectual property.
I remember Final Draft had a free program that allowed anyone to be able to read Final Draft scripts.
There should be a way that a former subscriber of Premier can read and export the projects and media to other programs or quick time files or whatever.
Or some sort of contract where you own a given version of the software but do not receive updates unless you continue to subscribe.
Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “Tim has mentioned before how this option isn’t very viable due to unintended consequences from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.”
I know this is becoming the conventional wisdom, but I really think it’s deeply flawed thinking.
My perception of Washington regulation is that they gleefully regulate right up until some party with massive clout doesn’t like the regulations – then they find a clever way to make the regulations moot. See all those CEOs and CFOs languishing in jail after nearly tanking the US economy in the 90s? Didn’t think so.
So the REAL question might be “What does the investor class LIKE about SOX in a practical sense. And one thing MIGHT be that it’s GREAT cover to let executives pry more money out of their customers while saying “WE HAVE TO – it’s the LAW.”
In reality, big business has a pretty spotless record over long periods of getting around ANY regulation that restrains profits.
Then they move on to the even bigger game – finding ways to REGULATE consistent profits.
For a subscription editing service such as we’re discussing, I guess what I’d REALLY want – is to try to convince BIG EDUCATION to teach it to the exclusion of other, competing solutions. (We’re teaching what the INDUSTRY wants!) Maybe lowering prices to students to get them to learn and LOCK IN as customers – so that they have to continue the habit after they graduate at full price.
But that will NEVER happen, of course.
Lots of Chicken and Egg stuff right here.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Bill Davis] “My perception of Washington regulation is that they gleefully regulate right up until some party with massive clout doesn’t like the regulations – then they find a clever way to make the regulations moot. See all those CEOs and CFOs languishing in jail after nearly tanking the US economy in the 90s? Didn’t think so. “
Spot on, Bill.
Adobe is the one of the largest software companies in the world and CEO Shantanu Narayen sits on President Obama’s Management Advisory Board.
Does anyone honestly believe that if Adobe wanted to sell software, they would be allowed or couldn’t work out a loophole to make it possible?
If so, I have some awesome bridge front property I’d be happy to sell you , lol! 😉
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
Oddly, I was scanning Reddit this morning and came across a post where an email marketer was talking about strategies that are available to “opt out” email operations.
AM NOT IMPLYING THAT ANY ONE COMPANY WOULD OR WILL DO ANYTHING LIKE THIS.
It just is a general comment on how Opt Out arrangements CAN be used by the unscrupulous to lock profits in general. The post reinforces my belief that opt out payment systems can be VERY consumer hostile and should be avoided unless you have a very high degree of faith in the vendor. (Which many here do about Adobe, in fairness.)
Cut and paste from a Reddit post:
(I’ve censored for language)Hi there.
I did professional email marketing consultation for years.
There are lots of ways around requiring an opt-out.
For example, you have to provide an opt-out link, but the regulation doesn’t say the link has to *work.*
So you just oops a typo into the link or remove the opt-out form from the server and you’re good.
You also don’t have to make it *easy* to opt out.
Another nice trick is to require the user to create an account and log in to opt out.
Weasel words work really well too.
You’ll notice that sometimes when you opt out you get a message that says “you have been removed from *this* mailing list.”
That implies that you have not been removed from all mailing lists.
If you opt out of a mailing list the sender doesn’t have to stop sending you mail, they just have to stop sending mail from that specific mailing list.
There are two tactics at work here: For high value targets email marketers will often add their email address to anywhere from two to two hundred mailing lists, and for every one you opt out of they’ll have a rule that automatically adds you to another.
A lot of times marketers will download a list of people who opted out and upload that list directly into a new mailing list. They call that “re-engaging.”
Sometimes they’ll throw in a coupon or come-back offer, but most of the time, especially **** spammers, they give zero ****s. They just dump all the email addresses into a new list and rotate IP addresses to get around spam blockers.
Another tactic marketers use is to make the opt-out link the same color as the background so you can’t see it, and make it plain text and not a hyperlink, because the regulation doesn’t specify that the link has to be visible in your mail client or that it has to be a clickable link.
Oh my there are so many tactics.
________
If you want to up-vote the post for helping spread some light on these shady internet practices the original post link is :https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/3r00lr/prez_rick_perry_selling_his_mailing_list_today_i/cwju961
This is just about general email subscription and not about software subscription – but it shows some of the overall thinking in modern “opt out” marketing – part of what makes the act of signing up for any “automatically OKed” action a pretty big red flag for me.
YMMV
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Tim Wilson] “Avid’s “buyout” solution is the only one that will actually work, which is, at whatever point you’ve decided that you’re ready to stop subscribing and would like to buy, you can buy at full price. Full stop. No discounts.”
To expand on this, once you pay full price for a perpetual license (which includes a one year service contract valued at $299) you have to keep paying for the $299 service contract each year if you want any (and I mean ANY) new code from Avid. If you don’t renew the $299 service contract then you have to pay full price again ($1299). Given Avid’s history of releasing bug fixes for old versions of MC I was very surprised to see that perpetual license owners no longer get bug fixes unless they have an active annual support contract.
So, for example, you might be eligible to get MC 9.0.0 when it comes out, but if you let your support lapse and then 9.0.1 comes out with a lot of bug fixes you are stuck with 9.0.0. The only way to get access to 9.0.1 is to pay the full $1299 again or to go the subscription route.
[Bill Davis] “I know this is becoming the conventional wisdom, but I really think it’s deeply flawed thinking.”
Can you expand with specifics on why you think SOX having an impact on software monetization practices by publicly traded companies is deeply flawed thinking?
Apple cited having to comply with certain accounting practices (presumably SOX) when it charged for things like iOS updates to iPod users and FaceTime and 802.11n upgrades to Mac users.
Adobe employees have publicly commented on how going to a subscription model has changed how they can do business (in part because of SOX).
Avid had some accounting problems that need to be fixed (presumably to comply with SOX) and it took so long that they got delisted from NASDAQ until they finally started filing paper work with the SEC again.
Whether or not the regulations were created in back rooms filled with conspirators puffing on cigars is a separate issue than whether or not the regulations are applicable to the situation(s) being discussed.
[David Lawrence] “Does anyone honestly believe that if Adobe wanted to sell software, they would be allowed or couldn’t work out a loophole to make it possible? “
That’s never been up for debate, David. Adobe can choose to sell software or choose to offer it as a subscription or choose to buy up all the Hostess IP and include Twinkies and Ho-Hos with every new subscription. But… for publicly traded companies in the US the rules are different if a product is being sold vs a subscription being sold, and that’s where SOX comes in.
Could Adobe do the same thing Avid is doing? Yes, though I think it would be significantly more difficult for Adobe to pull it off because they offer so many more programs than what Avid is offering. Could Adobe offer an ‘off ramp’? I’m not an accounting expert so I don’t know, but just from what I’ve read it doesn’t seem like that’s feasible (Avid doesn’t offer an ‘off ramp’ from it’s subscription service either). Could Adobe offer different bundles (kinda like the different CS bundles)? I don’t see why not and it’s a suggestion I’ve officially submitted to Adobe.
To be honest, when Avid announced its new business model last year I talked with a number of editors that wondered why can’t Avid just make it as simple as Adobe? It also doesn’t help that Avid lost SciptSync, downgraded to Boris Lite, etc.,. I think that added to the confusion as well. As Apple has proven, there is something to be said for not giving people options (even if people ask for them).
I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that NONE of the big three, publicly traded companies that sell NLE software offer a ‘traditional’ upgrade path anymore. It’s currently either subscription, pay once and get free upgrades for life (so far), or buy an annual support contract. The days of paying full price on the onset and then paying a reduced price (via an upgrade discount) on the new version every year or two seems to be dead.
-
Andrew, I’m simply reacting to the almost TOTAL lack of news reports of any penalties beyond wrist slaps being levied for ANY corporate malfeasance in the modern era. The group in our society that is supposed to provide the “stick” to motivate corporations to be concerned about penalties for infractions is government itself via lawmakers and regulation – but the regulatory system has been so crippled by political influence that it is widely acknowledged to be useless. If you aren’t actively killing people with tainted food or something similar – you’re kinda home free. Screw the consumer all you like. Certainly if you can boost profitability! This is still the era of “go for it if there’s a financial incentive, and we’ll just have to maybe pay the fine if we get caught.”
I’m not any wiz at business, but I know that “keep the money flowing” is the ONLY real business rule that can’t be broken.
It’s been a decade since SOX was passed. And I can’t think of ONE company executive who’s gone down because of it. Are you telling me that not a single executive has done wrong in the whole decade?
To me that’s the definition of toothless regulation.
What I think SoX HAS done, is give companies a nice excuse to promote software as a service – which as its practiced today – by PURE coincidence turns out to make it EASIER to auto-tap electronic accounts and lock-in customers.
What an AMAZING result!
Hint, when an industry is NOT spending money to actively overturn a regulation – that might be evidence that it’s actually helping them MAKE money. Just a wild theory.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up