-
CNN is going with Adobe CC & Adobe Anywhere
-
[David Mathis] “How much difference in cost is there between a 12 month plan upfront compared to pay on a monthly basis? I would have no issue going this direction but at present no clear exit strategy. This is why I am not willing to subscribe at the moment.”
AFAIK there is no difference in price between signing up for a year of CC and paying all at once or paying it off over all 12 months. If you just sign up for one month that is more expensive but that’s always been the case.
Adobe started offering the one year ‘lump sum’ payment option so users wouldn’t be obligated to keep a credit card on file with Adobe.
[Bill Davis] “and my point that they’re likely doing something for a large user like CNN that they don’t offer the average single seat user is kinda obvious.”
Stop alluding and just spit it out, Bill. We’re all friends here. Volume discount? Maybe, but that’s common. No monthly payments? That option is available to everyone. Is Adobe getting some super double top secret perpetual license that isn’t available to mere mortals? Probably not. But money talks though so who knows what terms they might have hammered out. I mean, if I put in a order for 20,000 Mac Pros I’m sure Apple would be open to giving me some personalized treatment that would not be available to customers that only need one Mac Pro.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “Stop alluding and just spit it out, Bill. We’re all friends here. Volume discount? Maybe, but that’s common. No monthly payments? That option is available to everyone. Is Adobe getting some super double top secret perpetual license that isn’t available to mere mortals? Probably not. But money talks though so who knows what terms they might have hammered out. I mean, if I put in a order for 20,000 Mac Pros I’m sure Apple would be open to giving me some personalized treatment that would not be available to customers that only need one Mac Pro.
“I’m not “alluding” at all. I’m musing on the fact that Adobe went to a “you can’t own this, you must RENT this” model for ostensibly all their customers. For the small user, it puts at least some burden of insecurity on them. If they’ve in fact solved what I see as this “insecurity” problem for one class of their users inside their internal sales ecosystem then it’s sensible to point out the inconsistency in their offering that for one class of user, but not for others.
Yes, volume buyers nearly ALWAYS get discount rates. Standard business operation everywhere. Whats NOT standard business operation is to set up two entirely separate CLASSES of customers – and force one of those classes to play by a whole different set of operating rules against their wishes – while your other classes don’t have access to those same terms. I’m not saying its WRONG. Any business is free to make whatever rules they like. I’m just saying that it’s not a business practice that I feel I can support.
Perhaps CNN is fine with paying for a year of service in advance? As any individual editor may be. But some of us feel that the classes of businesses who do that – who demand advanced payment for future performance (and there are lots of business models like the insurance industry that do that) – is a less desirable type of vendor than a company that charges you only for the value they deliver at the actual point of sale – which is the model that Apple (and Sony and every other “box goods” software offering out there have traditionally used for their NLE offerings.
I understand that Adobe is trying to change the paradigm. And I totally understand the benefit to them. I just can’t see any benefits for to their customers, unless they simply can’t compete in the financial markets without the type of hostage revenue streams that makes “pull the plug” entities such as electric utilities and the Cable TV industry so profitable.
BTW, I get that something akin to this same criticism was leveled at Apple over FCP-X in spades. (the kill the strong existing product contrary to loyal customer expectations, thing.) But Apple believed that the users simply couldn’t see the long range benefits of the changes Apple felt were required.. And it may prove that Adobe is correct, and the “perpetual pay” model may, in fact, be REQUIRED to increase the development pace and value of their products. If so, they deserve to win in the long run and the nay-sayers like me will have proved to be wrong.
And that’s OK. I still feel the way I feel. Removing customer options is bad unless you actually replace them with better ones. If the only way for Adobe to survive and build great products is to resort to ransom-ware – then I get why they’d do it. I just don’t have to publicly support it.
Time will tell if I’m right or wrong, I suppose.
Also, remember I’m an Adobe customer as well. I regularly use Lightroom in my still photo work. It’s just odd that Adobe seems to have so much respect for my desire to own my tools as a photographer, yet feels it’s important to force me to rent them as a video professional. Kinda weird, no?
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.
-
Every major network is evaluating EVERYTHING….I know that’s the case here in Washington DC. Networks pay licensing fees to AVID every year for Interplay and server software…this is no different.
Networks no longer have “heavy metal” editors – specialists who just edit. Everyone’s required to edit – even at the NBCCBSABC level…it’s done at desktops, not specialized edit rooms – save for a few programs now here and there.
Avid’s back office is a bit shaky with the latest financial information.
Avid’s learning curve is steep compared to Premiere, which, in CNN’s case, can be configured to work almost exactly like FCP 7.
Training and learning time is a HUGE consideration in a large new gathering operation.
Even if they might like FCP X a little better – the learning curve may have been too steep (read that as….you have to do it Apple’s way…not the way you know) for them to consider it.
The bottom line is – Editing is a capital and ongoing expense for every large news gathering organization.
Adobe has made it clear they want to put their software in these operation’s hands…and they have an army of folks making that happen.
Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852 -
[Bill Davis] “Whats NOT standard business operation is to set up two entirely separate CLASSES of customers – and force one of those classes to play by a whole different set of operating rules against their wishes – while your other classes don’t have access to those same terms. I’m not saying its WRONG. Any business is free to make whatever rules they like. I’m just saying that it’s not a business practice that I feel I can support”
What basis do you have for making such an accusation? Right now, it seems to be only a guess on your part. Or do you have specific details? It seems like you are making a big leap.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Bill Davis] “Yes, volume buyers nearly ALWAYS get discount rates. Standard business operation everywhere. Whats NOT standard business operation is to set up two entirely separate CLASSES of customers – and force one of those classes to play by a whole different set of operating rules against their wishes – while your other classes don’t have access to those same terms. I’m not saying its WRONG. Any business is free to make whatever rules they like. I’m just saying that it’s not a business practice that I feel I can support.”
We don’t talk about it much here, but there is an enterprise version of Creative Cloud, for education, government and business. It’s targeted at organizations over 150 seats.
https://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/enterprise.html
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
I’ll say this – coming from fcp7 it’s ludicrous how fast you can get going with premiere CC. that timeline is home and hearth.
on the issue of special consideration – Bill is perfectly right to be suspicious, but I know of another place with an awful lot of prospective seats, and an implementation of anywhere that did not at all get the kind of special consideration they were expecting. Adobe are being pretty hardball about their licensing scheme. you’d think they think they have worked hard on it, and they’re going to charge for it. the other place is still going for it – but the wrangling took up months on end.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
There are still editing specialists in the NYC market so I guess that’s a bit different, but as far as networks evaluating everything all the time you couldn’t be more right. And Adobe does seem to be actively courting high end post in a way that Apple is not (and doesn’t really have too.)
Tim
-
[Andy Field] “Even if they might like FCP X a little better – the learning curve may have been too steep (read that as….you have to do it Apple’s way…not the way you know) for them to consider it.
“I don’t know, maybe it’s me, but the learning curve on X is way easier than AVID or Pr
In news when they want producers and talent to cut stuff and that’s something that’s never been their focus, they would be all over X (or should be)
[Andy Field] “Everyone’s required to edit – even at the NBCCBSABC level…it’s done at desktops, not specialized edit rooms “
this to me is another argument for X
-
[tony west] “In news when they want producers and talent to cut stuff and that’s something that’s never been their focus, they would be all over X (or should be)”
But this is what Prelude was built for, and then it plugs right in to Pr via markers.
-
[Bill Davis] “Uh, an allusion to the fact that right now for a single user…”
[Bill Davis] “I’m not “alluding” at all.”
??? 😉
[Bill Davis] “Whats NOT standard business operation is to set up two entirely separate CLASSES of customers – and force one of those classes to play by a whole different set of operating rules against their wishes – while your other classes don’t have access to those same terms.”
And where did Adobe say they were doing this?
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up