Autodesk follows Adobe with Ransom based software.

[Steve Rhoden]

I dont know what on earth goes through the heads of these
software developers at times. Seems to be the software
companies who think they are too big to fail are embracing
this ransom type nonsense.
Im watching to see how long they think they can keep up this crap.

Steve Rhoden
(Cow Leader)
Film Editor & Compositor.
Filmex Creative Media.
https://www.facebook.com/FilmexCreativeMedia
1-876-461-9019

[Dave Haynie]

[Steve Rhoden] ” Seems to be the software
companies who think they are too big to fail are embracing
this ransom type nonsense.”

I think so. The old purchase model works in the customer’s favor. Sony or Adobe or whomever has to convince me to upgrade, or I’m sitting pat for the next upgrade cycle. No big deal. This way, they effectively end that choice — I’m either upgrading or I’m giving up the tools. Pretty nasty, IMHO. In the specific case, I only use Photoshop, but now I have to figure that, at some point, I may have to buy CS6 just to lock in on for-purchase versions while they’re still available.

The worst problem here isn’t this, though. But rather, think for a moment about those things you buy (cameras, Vegas, computers, etc) versus those services to which you subscribe (cable/satellite, ISP, smartphone, etc). Which one delivers the most value?

It’s inevitably the purchase. Part of that’s the retail market: I can shop for a good price on New Software Package, New Lens, New Camera, etc. I do the research, try a demo, etc… I’m certain that New Thing is just what I want. I pay, I’m done, it’s mine!

Subscription services usually optimize at the point at which we find cable, satellite, cellular today. They fully expect that some small percentage of users will be so frustrated with their services, they leave. They could make those people happy, but those are the most expensive customers to retain, so they don’t bother. As long as they can bring in more new users than they lose old users, they’re good… most of those new users won’t be the high maintenance kind.

So what this ultimately means is that, while some users are perfectly happy, there many, perhaps a significant percentage, who are in varying degrees of unhappiness, just not having passed that threshold of canceling the service. And this BY DESIGN — this is the services company spending the least money to retain the most customers. And I believe it’s inevitable, this model.

I actually did pass that threshold of frustration last fall, on both my satellite TV and Internet service. In both cases, pretty much all of the company efforts were spent on attracting new customers — they did virtually nothing to keep current customers happy… either you were or you were not, it didn’t seem to matter much.

And that’s the big trap I see with plans like Adobe’s: you pay or you leave.. you have lost any other leverage on the company’s performance. They may very well optimize like most other service companies, to push formerly satisfied users toward the edge of wanting to leave, only the threshold is significantly higher, given the eventual loss of access to existing projects. They can spend more money on applications with competition, like Premiere, but ignore those with little competition, like Photoshop.

This will also have the effect of pushing users slightly dependent on Adobe tools into being all-Adobe. The same kind of dynamic that won Microsoft the Office crown — you already had these other tools, so why pay for alternatives? Once you need more than one Creative Cloud tool, you might as well pony up for them all, based on the current pricing model.

-Dave

[Stephen Mann]

I would, in the past, upgrade my Adobe product when there were new, compelling features that I wanted. Therin lies the problem for Adobe. Put resources into R&D to come up with the new compelling features that will entice users to upgrade (at least those who don’t upgrade like lemmings with every release).

I think that the “New Features” well has run dry at Adobe.

Look at it from the bean counter’s point of view. We spend ten percent of revenue on R&D (numbers are made up) and maybe get a two percent bump in user base with the new product release. So, let’s instead rent the software and move the renewal rate to the 90% range. Then we won’t have to spend as much on R&D to maintain our cashflow and revenues are more predictable.

If I am right, in the next few years, Adobe profits will go up as R&D spending is cut back and software engineers are laid off. (I wonder how they sold this to the Adobe R&D team?)

How long before Sony jumps into the cloud – like a lemming? Personally I think it’s inevitable.

Steve Mann
MannMade Digital Video
http://www.mmdv.com

[Bob Peterson]

A related question is whether someone else will step up to the plate with a competitive product. If someone does so with an attractive feature set, I think they will have an instant customer base. As it is, CS6 does far more than I need to do. The major reason that I upgrade is to obtain support for a new camera’s raw format. However, I am not willing to upgrade if I cannot purchase the software. I will simply implement a less convenient option to get the photos from a new camera into CS6, and I should be ready to go for many years to come.

[Dave Haynie]

Yeah, I thought about that, too. Certainly in some areas, it works — there are plenty of competitive NLEs that sell fine without offering the whole suite that Adobe offers.

But here’s the thing… let’s say I successfully create a viable Photoshop alternative, something strong enough to compete against Photoshop (and not as mind-numbingly arcane as The GIMP). This could definitely be a big sell to anyone who’s on the Creative Cloud just for Photoshop.

First problem: my easiest target would be those most unhappy with Photoshop on CC… which as I pointed out up above, are also the most difficult customers to please in general. The guys with one foot out of the Adobe door are the most demanding, just based on the way the service model works. So I might inherit all the toughest customers first.

Second problem is that I only get the Photoshop-only customers. Everyone else is using some other CC tools, and the price for everything is about twice that for just one thing. If I can’t also supply that “other thing”, I may have no success at luring away all those malcontents.

I think where this may find traction is among existing companies. There are definitely some folks out there with good photo editing software, who’ve kept their packages strategically away from Adobe, maybe in the zone between Photoshop and PS-Elements or whatever. This may be incentive to up their game and take on Photoshop. Then again, this may have Adobe themselves upping their game on Elements. There have been plenty of users of Photoshop who don’t use half its power, but needed a bit more from Elements. Now with the distinctly different business models, maybe they find room for “Elements Pro”.

Either way, yeah, it’s a big climactic shift in software. And we haven’t begun to see what the new point of stability looks like.

-Dave

[Steve Rhoden]

On a side note speaking of Photoshop, Corel Photo-Paint to me
is a lot better and more fluid than Photoshop, i’ve used it for
many years in the past, but bitterly had to migrate over to photshop,
primarily because my clients from all over were sending in
PSD files and a lot of plugins were geared only towards it.
(still, some of photoshop plugins are compatible with photo-paint).

Now their lies the main problem at hand, and this is what gives Adobe
the power to dominate and hold us hostage to anything they choose.
I am not gonna upgrade past CS6, and when that time comes to move on
in a couple years, there are alternatives.
Dont be fooled thinking that nothing much is wrong with this new
subscription plan or rationalize the benefits it offers to customers in the long run….Everything is wrong about it!

Steve Rhoden
(Cow Leader)
Film Editor & Compositor.
Filmex Creative Media.
https://www.facebook.com/FilmexCreativeMedia
1-876-461-9019