-
Apple and Adobe Software: Together
-
[Michael Gissing] “What I don’t understand is most people are happy with subscription services in many areas like telephony, Internet ISPs etc but baulk on creative software. “
Michael, I’m sure you already know this but it bears repeating – the reason so many of us baulk is because unlike all the services you mention, software is not a consumable. Personal computer software has historically been an integral component of a personal computer system. Without software, your computer is an expensive brick. The only technical difference between Adobe Creative Cloud applications and Adobe Creative Suite applications is internet enabled DRM and optional online features. That’s it. SOX and business arguments aside, there’s no technical reason whatsoever why Adobe couldn’t offer perpetual copies of their creative applications if they wanted to. This is completely different than consumable subscriptions that only have a single possible use.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Michael Gissing] “Just as well Adobe isn’t selling a service that has no evidence of working. What I don’t understand is most people are happy with subscription services in many areas like telephony, Internet ISPs etc but baulk on creative software.
When I need to upgrade from CS6 to CC I will do it because I can afford it when I need those tools and that is all that is on offer. At the moment I don’t but when I do I will pay just like I do for so many other services in life. I would dearly like to buy a liftime’s garbage collection but the bloody council insist I pay quarterly subscriptions called rates for such services.
“I think a basic point may have been missed. The basic point is that
it’s not about what I can ‘afford’. I have grown more than tired of
people making comments like‘If you can’t afford to pay $50 a month, there is something
wrong with your business model.”B.S. I know plenty about business and running one. I even own another
business besides my video production business…..part of a national franchise
chain.. One of the first things, I know, is that you don’t spend money on unnecessary
expenses. Radio people try to get my other business to spend ‘only $200 a month’ on
radio spots….even though radio spots have been shown in our market to give you a
hot cup of jack squat in return. Why would I waste the money that way? So while there
are a lot of things I could ‘afford’ to spend my money on, I don’t spend money on
things for my business unless they actually can help me make money. And people
telling me things like‘your business model must suck if you can’t afford $50 a month’
are totally missing the point. Sure I could ‘afford’ it. But using Adobe doesn’t make
me anymore money than using FCPX, Compressor, Motion, and Resolve. Which cost
less than a year’s worth of using CC. Why the heck would I spend money on CC
when it just would cost me money but add nothing to my business?
I totally understand for some people CC works well. I don’t tell people‘You are wasting money on CC’
because they may be working as part of a team or for an agency that requires
them to use the latest version of CC, or something similar. If it works for your business
model and makes you more money, go crazy. For a small video production house that
does end to end stuff and has no need to collaborate with others (like me) it is just
a big waste of capital.Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com -
If something saves you time, and your business is selling creative time, then it saves you money. The continuing improvements on CC saves me time and makes me money. I will reiterate again — i’m not thrilled paying per month. But I am one of the people who upgraded each time, because the company made it worthwhile to do so with time saving, productivity improvements. I’m still doing that – just one month at a time. When I’m done doing this I’ll turn off the meter and move somewhere else. Right now I can easily move XML versions of a cut to other NLE’s if I need want to…..
Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852 -
[David Lawrence] “unlike all the services you mention, software is not a consumable.”
But that is a historic viewpoint. Years ago I read a fascinating book called Natural Capitalism by Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountains Institute. He was outlining that so many things we think of as products can and often should be redefined as a service. An example was Carrier who made air con systems. By selling building climate control services on rolling subscription, rather than air con hardware, they were able to hugely increase both the efficiency and reduce the cost of providing the service by preventing and passively controlling humidity and temperature fluctuations. What they found was that putting in an air con system was wasteful and not as good as passive systems, triple glazing etc. In other words offering a service was better business for everyone including the environment. Reducing waste was the growth area in a competitive market.
So although we see software as a product, not a consumable or service we may be missing the point that a subscription service may prove to be more efficient, better for both company and user and be far less wasteful or inefficient. I am not saying that is currently the case but I do think we should not base our perceptions in what has been ‘normal’ to date.
In my case I was on the verge of subscribing but was able to hold off until Resolve developed as a viable finishing tool. If I had needed to go to CC and paid a full fee to own it, I might have ended up with an expensive suite that I didn’t really need. Just recently two jobs came in that were cut on CC and I was able to work with the xml and OMF files and didn’t need to subscribe to do the job. But the situation is that if I need to, the cost is small compared to a complete investment in a system that will ultimately become out dated. So in my case the subscription model allows me to come and go as required for a nominal monthly fee. Annoying if the client wants the project reopened a few months later but certainly still more cost effective in my case than a full buy out.
All that said, we are talking about a tiny cost compared to a typical program post budget and in the grand scheme of annual turnover, I spend more on client coffee. So although I totally get the reticence and don’t understand why Adobe doesn’t offer a software buy out I think this is a case of perceptive inertia.
One reason why Adobe should offer a buy out option is that it will encourage people to get a cracked copy in the future if they have let subscriptions lapse.
-
Gabe at no stage would I miss the obvious point that spending any money on something that doesn’t pay for itself is bad business. I went freelance in 1981 and am still successfully running my business. But your example wasn’t making that point at all.
I presume it was designed to imply that people are paying for something demonstrably useless and that is not the case for many industry professionals when it comes to Adobe software. I call that BS.
So on your point of not wasting money on something you don’t need but could afford – totally agree.
-
[Michael Gissing] “If I had needed to go to CC and paid a full fee to own it, I might have ended up with an expensive suite that I didn’t really need.”
Absolutely. For the type of usage case you and many others have, a subscription makes perfect sense. Subscription is especially ideal for situations where seats need to be temporarily ramped up on project basis. The argument has never been against subscription. It’s about removing a perpetual option choice for customers who don’t want to change their business model just because Adobe wants them to.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Michael Gissing] “Gabe at no stage would I miss the obvious point that spending any money on something that doesn’t pay for itself is bad business. I went freelance in 1981 and am still successfully running my business. But your example wasn’t making that point at all.
I presume it was designed to imply that people are paying for something demonstrably useless and that is not the case for many industry professionals when it comes to Adobe software. I call that BS.
“As we say up in Alaska
“I’m not really concerned with what they are doing ‘down south.’People have said over and over, that there is ‘something wrong’ with
your business model if you ‘can’t afford’ CC…to the point of me being pretty
sick of that stupid argument. Others tell me how ‘it’s less than your morning
coffee’ (which is wrong by the way because I don’t drink coffee) or similar
arguments. I say there is something wrong with your business model if you pay
“for things that you don’t need. I need to edit together video, create motion
graphics, add VO’s, music and the other things that constitute a complete video.
There is no requirement I use something that anyone deems as ‘industry standard’.
FCP X is every bit as fast as CC, if not faster, so it’s not going to ‘save me time’
by using CC. I’ve been running my business for 15 years, not
as long as you, but I am the only person in my entire market that runs a full
time video business. Anyways, basically you shouldn’t read too much into it,
my example was exactly what it said…..I (notice emphasis on ‘I’) could ‘afford’ to pay a witch doctor
$50 a month to shake a bone rattle over my head…..but I’m going to passFor you guys that make more money somehow off using CC, go fot i! I totally
understand! All it would do for me (and plenty of other small time video companies)
is cost me money. It’s not any faster to edit a promo video in CC than it is in FCP X….
not technically that is. A person may be more ‘adept’ at editing one way or another,
but even then….I was a speed demon in FCP 7 and switched the keyboard shortcuts
in CS 6 to the FCP 7 ones, and it is still faster for me to edit in FCP X even though
I am not that good in it. And before you say it, I tried the CC free trial. It’s fine, I have
no problems with it, but I’m not going to pay $50 a month for who knows how long,
if it’s not somehow doing something for me. There needs to be an actual reason for
me to use CC, not just because someone tells me that ‘many industry professionals use
it.’ So you can call B.S. all you want, but you’ll have to forgive me if I ignore it as
another person from a big city that doesn’t understand.Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com -
[Shawn Miller] “How is AE a monopoly? It’ the most popular application in its tiny little niche… but so is Mocha. It’s not like Adobe bought competing products and then dropped them off the market. “
Anyone remember Freehand. Better than Illustrator. Bought by Adobe and dumped.
Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.2, Final Cut Studio 2 & 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC: Mid 2015 MacBook Pro Retina 15″: 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro Retina 2015, i7, 500GB, M370X 2GB: Macbook Pro 17″ 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems -
[Jim Wiseman] “[Shawn Miller] “How is AE a monopoly? It’ the most popular application in its tiny little niche… but so is Mocha. It’s not like Adobe bought competing products and then dropped them off the market. ”
Anyone remember Freehand. Better than Illustrator. Bought by Adobe and dumped.”
I thought we were talking about After Effects. My point was that Adobe didn’t buy and then kill applications like Combustion, or Commotion or Hitfilm to gain market dominance for After Effects… which you called a monopoly.
We can discuss the practice of companies buying other companies for specific applications or technologies, and then subsequently dumping those applications or their user base to increase market share if you’d like though. No one’s hands are clean on that account.
Shawn
-
[Tim Wilson] “The short version: the subscription-free Google will confirm the baselessness of any suggestion that there haven’t been scores of convictions under Sarbox, and that corporatist America hasn’t been fighting this tooth and nail. There have been, and they are.]”
Sure they fight it. It’s inconvienient Tim. But I still contend that even if there’s been 100 cases – it doesn’t really do anything but require executive types to find a new way to shuffle the same old papers.
Karen Seymore who was chief of the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan noted in 2012… after 10 YEARS of SOX!
“But in practice, exceedingly few defendants have even been charged with false certification, and fewer still have been convicted. The most notorious SOX criminal case, against former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, ended in an acquittal in 2005. In 2007, the former CFO of a medical equipment financing company called DVI pleaded guilty to mail fraud and false certification and was sentenced to 30 months in prison. In a more recent case, a SOX false certification charge against former Vitesse CEO Louis Tomasetta was dismissed. (Tomasetta’s trial on other charges ended in a mistrial in April.) The Justice Department doesn’t directly track Sarbanes-Oxley prosecutions, so there may be another case here or there. Even four or five SOX criminal cases in 10 years, though, makes them as rare as a blue moon.”
We have tens of thousands of corporations operating out there.
And a VIOLATION of the act requires someone to prove you KNOWINGLY falsified reporting.
So sorry, but I SOX regulation can be seen as the really having much to do with the primary REASON Adobe went subscription. Maybe it was one small factor. But the reason? Hardly, I think.
Subscription is a better profit model. Period. And that would be fine. Except the way it generates profit is PRIMARILY shifting to an opt out payments system where inattention, illness, theft, vacation, fire, cataclysm or ANYTHING else that arrives to interrupt your daily life will still NOT interrupt the agreed to monthly auto-draw. As I’ve said time and time again – a shift from deciding to SPEND money – to being required to decide NOT to spend money – is a HUGE deal.
THAT is why it’s popping up everywhere. Heck, today I went to a new CarWash in my new neighborhood. Seemed like a nice place. At the entrance where you put your credit card into the payment slot there were guys in red shirts “helping” us to use the system. Guess what they were hawking? Yep. Sign up for a Monthly Car Wash SUBSCRIPTION! Only $16 bucks a month and you get UNLIMITED car washes! – just OK the monthly auto-draw by signing right here and NEVER worry about having a clean car again!!!
For a brief moment I thought about explaining that when I’m on a big project months might go by where I hardly leave the house – and my garaged car stays clean enough. But then I just sighed and politely declined.
The “carwash subscription” sales guy seemed bummed.
Again, it’s TOTALLY possibly to do subscriptions ethically and in a customer friendly environment. Just make it as easy to unsubscribe as it is to subscribe = and code in a mechanism that allows the content creator unfettered access to their own creative work done via the software – permanently. Then I’m fine with it
FWIW.
.
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