-
Crickets chirping in this forum now
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] ”
While I wouldn’t ignore the subscription issue, you could, for example, pay for DNxHD and develop a workflow where everything was transcoded to that.”Have dealt with that in FCP Legacy for so long, that it in no way entices me.
-
[Walter Soyka] “Do you realize that all the good stuff in Lightworks is still only available with subscription [link]?”
But the free version continues to work. You can convert to supported codecs in the free version externally. The cost is most likely due to licensing around the codecs, you’re not actually licensing the software itself.
In one’s fantasy one might be OK if Adobe did something similar. Allowing for a scenario where one might still be able to open a project to inspect it or even export an XML. The reality is that Adobe doesn’t seem to have any business reason to do that.
-
[Walter Soyka] “Totally valid point — but the free edition is really limited.”
Imagine being able to open a PP, AE, PS project from a client (or an old project) to inspect in a “free” version and then determine what additional work, if any, need be done. Then one could make the rental decision for the month and bill the client. Simply avoiding the complete lock out might put people at ease.
-
[Craig Seeman] “Imagine being able to open a PP, AE, PS project from a client (or an old project) to inspect in a “free” version and then determine what additional work, if any, need be done. Then one could make the rental decision for the month and bill the client. Simply avoiding the complete lock out might put people at ease.”
I filed a FR earlier this week which included basically this suggestion (among others) as ways to avoid lock-out.
I do understand the concern about being able to re-visit project files in the future. My personal view is that the best solution lies in improving open interchange formats, so that at least the major subset of the data becomes application-independent.
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 -
[Franz Bieberkopf] “But in terms of the subscription issue, I think it’s a price sensitive issue. “
It’s not about the money, but it’s about the money.
-
[Walter Soyka] “My personal view is that the best solution lies in improving open interchange formats, so that at least the major subset of the data becomes application-independent.”
I like that, too. Maybe its from years of being forced to move between programs, but the notion of community standards beyond any individual company is an important one to me. For me, one of the more troubling aspects of the FCP X release was the way that Apple, after investing so much time and energy in developing XML as an interchange format, chose to just walk away from the structure by redefining it, willy-nilly, to suit its own immediate needs. So, yes; I am all for strong interchange formats.
-
[Craig Seeman] “In one’s fantasy one might be OK if Adobe did something similar. Allowing for a scenario where one might still be able to open a project to inspect it or even export an XML. The reality is that Adobe doesn’t seem to have any business reason to do that.”
It also seems like a really messy coding problem.
I think, but don’t know for sure, that the Cloud will probably help Adobe wrangle the absolute mass of coding that happens at the company, especially on a given time frame for each application.
Why does InDesgin need to be ready for NAB 2012 for example?
Can’t the Creative Cloud truly help Adobe make better products and get them out of arbitrary time frames that have nothing to do with how long it take to create better products?
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Can’t the Creative Cloud truly help Adobe make better products and get them out of arbitrary time frames that have nothing to do with how long it take to create better products?”
If that’s what it is, but people are cynical for a reason, and that reason is called “history of humankind.”
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ”
It’s not about the money, but it’s about the money.”It is, but I think in this way: eventually, if you’re paying so much to not actually own anything, is that a good ROI?
I don’t think anyone argues with $29.99 at all…and then they seem to be okay with the bump to $49.99.
But what if that yearly subscription rate turns into $69.99? $99.99?
What if the CC turns into what used to be the cost of purchasing the full version of Creative Suite every single year, and on top of that takes money away from R&D and shrinks its development workforce.
Would that be a good ROI? I’d say that’d be a firm “no!” from most people…but then what do you do?
-
[Gary Huff] “It is, but I think in this way: eventually, if you’re paying so much to not actually own anything, is that a good ROI?”
I do not buy software to resell it later for a profit.
I buy software to use to make money, so, as long as I am making enough money to support myself and my family, yes, it’s good ROI.
[Gary Huff] “But what if that yearly subscription rate turns into $69.99? $99.99?
What if the CC turns into what used to be the cost of purchasing the full version of Creative Suite every single year, and on top of that takes money away from R&D and shrinks its development workforce.
Would that be a good ROI? I’d say that’d be a firm “no!” from most people…but then what do you do?”
If I find that it’s not worth it, I switch to something else.
This is what I don’t understand. Adobe does not have that much power. They cannot simply raise prices to a point where it’s too expensive that a working independent can afford, and if they do, they don’t need working independent’s business.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up