-
**Danger Will Robinson** **Danger Will Robinson**
-
[Jok Daniel] “The problem is not the subscription model, the problem is the lack of open and well documented file formats in the NLE space.”
Pr has the same escape hatches that FCP did: EDL, AAF, and XML output.
Maybe outputting XML at the end of any project (from any app, not just Pr) is a worthwhile best practice.
Interestingly, a .prproj file is itself a flavor of XML.
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 -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “yes – but to be precise about this – if you rent that Alexa, the product of your work is unbundled. The camera shot it clean out.”
How often do you go on shoots or work in preproduction and production and create schedules?
I see your point, but its rarely that easy. Sure, if you have a nice and tidy production schedule, it’s a clean package, but when the production schedule is a moving target, renting the gear is harder. I cannot download an Alexa for a last minute client request.
With the Cloud, you simply swipe your debit card and away you go.
I can’t get behind this FUD, Aindreas. $60/mo is an incredible deal, is it not?
Sure, year over year, it’s more expensive than the Production Premium updates, but you are getting more.
On the one hand, you seem to be extra mad at Apple for cutting off access to a very popular NLE, on the other, you are extra mad that you don’t get your tools for free. This is a business, not a charity and I’m glad the folks at Adobe see value in thier own product.
Adobe is making commitments and seems to be structuring a fair deal with individual users, that allows near instant access to a broad range of media creation tools. The Adobe folks have said that there’ll be a new version of the suite every year. That’s not worth it to you?
And perhaps the deal structure will become more clear once we get official announcements from Adobe. The company has been extremely receptive this far, I can’t imagine the bait and switch tactics that seem to be perpetuating on the internet would go over very well.
A $999 Avid license will get you 16 months of the Adobe Creative Suite. Is it really that dangerous?
And have you actually read a software EULA? You might think you “own” it, but really you are granted the right to use the software.
I provide a service when I’m working, Adobe is now going to provide one to me. I don’t see as much harm in it, especially for individual users.
-
[Walter Soyka] “[Jok Daniel] “The problem is not the subscription model, the problem is the lack of open and well documented file formats in the NLE space.”
Pr has the same escape hatches that FCP did: EDL, AAF, and XML output.
“Yes. Actually, the file formats have never been more open and more well-documented than they are now. Moving back and forth between MC and Pr or Pr and FCP 7 is stable and easy, especially if you use matching transitions and filters, like Avid FX and Boris Red. A decade ago, the ONLY real option was creating multiple passes on tape and ADAT, and an EDL.
Frankly, the degree interoperability between rival platforms is actually stunning. Yes, you might have to double check your speed changes, and a transition or two might need to be reset, but really, the seamlessness between NLEs has never been as tight. And with Pr now taking in DNx, I doubt it can get much tighter.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “on the other, you are extra mad that you don’t get your tools for free. This is a business, not a charity and I’m glad the folks at Adobe see value in thier own product. “
Huh??? No one’s talking about getting tools for free. Just the opposite. Maybe you missed this? Three in a row. Just sayin.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
I’m talking to Aindreas.
Three of what in a row?
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I’m talking to Aindreas. “
Yes, I know. Apologies for butting in. I was just taken aback by your statement:
[Jeremy Garchow] “On the one hand, you seem to be extra mad at Apple for cutting off access to a very popular NLE, on the other, you are extra mad that you don’t get your tools for free. This is a business, not a charity and I’m glad the folks at Adobe see value in thier own product. “
I mean, come on. Really?
[Jeremy Garchow] “Three of what in a row?”
Three Futurerama clips in a row, all instantly thrown up in response to Dave McGavran’s post about new Premiere Pro media management features
#1) https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/50917
#2) https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/50920
#3) https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/51005The notion that anyone expects these tools for free is complete nonsense.
That’s all I was pointing out.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
Aindreas is terrified of “direct debit”.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “They’re coming for all our bank accounts on direct debit for real.”
My point is that it will cost $60 and you will have access to the software.
Let’s just throw out the hypothetical that one might not be working every day.
So, a person can use it for 2 months for $120. Come back one month later and spend another $60.
That’s $180 over four months.
You still own the project files, you still own the media, you just have to check in the software.
If you happen to be working all the time, it’s a heck of a deal.
I liked it in to renting a camera. We do it all the time, so “renting” software doesn’t seem like a big deal to me.
You have a job, you rent the camera and shoot, need to shoot again, rent the camera again. Need it for an extended period, rent for an extended period. At $720 (US pricing), you could even gain access to it for a whole year.
I just don’t understand the amount of FUD present:
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Looks like they’re really going to try and do it – force their entire customer base, at gun point, to hand over their private bank details and set up perpetual direct debits for hire purchase software that they will never own.
What’s worse, if you think about it this way – the files, the personal output you create are your own right? but if for any reason the financial agreement is suspended – the personal intellectual copyright material you have created can never be opened or modified again. In effect – adobe are selling olive oil here – it sounds nice at the beginning, but you are incredibly at their mercy in the long run. If they ever decide to turn off your Creative Cloud oxygen, or there is a failure of any kind on the direct debit, all of the work you have created with that software is dead – it cannot even be opened, nevermind modified. Until adobe decide it can again.
they have direct control, for life, over everything you create. you may have the files, but they will always have the software. And the power to switch it off – month by month, and year by year by year. That’s a lot of creative intellectual property hostage to fortune, not to mention Shantanu Narayen’s rapacious desires for ever more money off the base.
80% of the Adobe customer base are not currently on Creative Cloud. This is an incredibly aggressive posture from adobe – they are literally screaming
“give me your bank details now – lets get that perpetual direct debit started”you say – “is there no way to maintain the current licensing relationship?
they say – “shut up and give us the bank account number and sort code now. Right. NOW.””
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Aindreas is terrified of “direct debit”.”
I’m not so fond of the idea either.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Let’s just throw out the hypothetical that one might not be working every day.
So, a person can use it for 2 months for $120. Come back one month later and spend another $60.
That’s $180 over four months.
You still own the project files, you still own the media, you just have to check in the software.
If you happen to be working all the time, it’s a heck of a deal. “
You’re missing the point. It has nothing to do with money.
As long as you have to “check in” with Adobe, Adobe owns access to your property. Maybe that’s OK with you but it’s unacceptable to me.
Here’s another hypothetical. I spent most of December on an artist residency in Buenos Aires. It was awesome. My internet connection on the other hand, was not awesome. Maybe spotty at best. I also used to spend a lot of time in Costa Rica. Where I stayed we had electricity, but zero phone or internet connectivity. Why should my tools stop working in these places if I’m lucky to be able to be there for a couple months?
The rental model is inappropriate in these and many other situations.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I liked it in to renting a camera. We do it all the time, so “renting” software doesn’t seem like a big deal to me. “
The problem with your analogy is that you don’t need to keep renting the camera to play back the files you create with it. What if every time you wanted to play the video you created with the Alexa, you had to go rent the Alexa? That’s what software rental makes you do.
The only reason software rental many not seem like a big deal is because the rental price is cheap (for now). Once you look at the cost in terms of access, ownership and lock-in, cheap suddenly isn’t such a great deal.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “I’m not so fond of the idea either”
What are you worried or concerned about? If you buy a year, then it’s like buying an update every year. At some point you have to give adobe money unless you pay cash for your software? I am genuinely curious about this. A good friend of mine often says, it’s not about the money…but it’s about the money.
[David Lawrence] “As long as you have to “check in” with Adobe, Adobe owns access to your property. Maybe that’s OK with you but it’s unacceptable to me.”
Again, you should read a EULA and see exactly what “your property” entails, but only if you like to watch paint dry.
Adobe doesn’t own your project files, media, or anything created with the suite. You have to pay them a fee for using their service, just like clients pay you and me a fee for our services.
Certainly, it is a bit of a new model with software, but this isn’t a new business model. Walter Soyka pointed out many services used to run a business, the Adobe software might now be a part of it.
[David Lawrence] “Here’s another hypothetical. I spent most of December on an artist residency in Buenos Aires. It was awesome. My internet connection on the other hand, was not awesome. Maybe spotty at best. I also used to spend a lot of time in Costa Rica. Where I stayed we had electricity, but zero phone or internet connectivity. Why should my tools stop working in these places if I’m lucky to be able to be there for a couple months?
The rental model is inappropriate in these and many other situations.”
You are 100% correct in that the B.A is awesome. What a sweet gig!
As far as the software, this seems to be a bit more FUD. I hate that word, but it is accurate.
We all know, and Adobe has proven over and over, that the people at Adobe listen to their customers. Do you think that Adobe hasn’t thought of situations like yours? Before we flag it as inappropriate, we should probably get all of the details. Dennis Raedke said that the details will be released on launch. He did not say the details won’t be released at launch, so it seems to me that there might be something worth waiting for?
[David Lawrence] “The problem with your analogy is that you don’t need to keep renting the camera to play back the files you create with it. What if every time you wanted to play the video you created with the Alexa, you had to go rent the Alexa? That’s what software rental makes you do.”
In this analogy, editing = shooting and the NLE = camera.
In order to shoot (edit), I need a camera (NLE).
I cannot shoot without a camera, so every time I need to shoot, I rent. It is a very common production business model.
[David Lawrence] “The only reason software rental many not seem like a big deal is because the rental price is cheap (for now). Once you look at the cost in terms of access, ownership and lock-in, cheap suddenly isn’t such a great deal.”
I see. So you are also worried the price is going to go up so much that it will price people out of the software?
We know the price. It’s $49.99/mo as I type this (I thought it was $59.99 earlier) $600/year that is tax deductible. It’s a pretty good deal and there’s no roaming fees so you traveling to the B.A. won’t cost you any more.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “What are you worried or concerned about? If you buy a year, then it’s like buying an update every year. At some point you have to give adobe money unless you pay cash for your software? I am genuinely curious about this. A good friend of mine often says, it’s not about the money…but it’s about the money. “
It’s not about the money. Really.
It’s about control.
Maybe I’m crazy, but the idea of another corporation with a direct debit hookup to my bank account just doesn’t thrill me. I have zero interest in another monthly bill. Oh, and by the way, once I stop paying that bill, the tools I use to earn the money to pay all my bills self-destruct? Um, no thanks.
It really isn’t about the money. Really.
If I were a facility-owner, no doubt I’d think about this differently, but I’m a freelancer. It’s just me and my laptop. For me, NLE software is a capital equipment purchase and doesn’t always happen every year. It doesn’t need to. I skip years when the upgrades aren’t useful for my needs. I catch up when the time is right for me. The important thing here is that I’m the one deciding. I need to be in charge of the timing of my capital equipment purchases.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Again, you should read a EULA and see exactly what “your property” entails, but only if you like to watch paint dry. “
EULA’s have a rich history of being filled with unenforceable BS. EFF is a fantastic organization and great resource for learning more about EULA and digital rights in general. Highly recommended reading.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Adobe doesn’t own your project files, media, or anything created with the suite. You have to pay them a fee for using their service, just like clients pay you and me a fee for our services.
Certainly, it is a bit of a new model with software, but this isn’t a new business model. Walter Soyka pointed out many services used to run a business, the Adobe software might now be a part of it.”
No, currently I pay them for their products. And after I’ve paid, I can use these products as I like in perpetuity.
Software tools are different than consumable services like cable TV, phone or internet services. This is because we depend on software tools not only for performing work, but also for accessing work. When a tool product becomes a tool service, access to work is controlled by the service provider. I’m not OK with that.
[Jeremy Garchow] “You are 100% correct in that the B.A is awesome. What a sweet gig!
As far as the software, this seems to be a bit more FUD. I hate that word, but it is accurate.
We all know, and Adobe has proven over and over, that the people at Adobe listen to their customers. Do you think that Adobe hasn’t thought of situations like yours? Before we flag it as inappropriate, we should probably get all of the details. Dennis Raedke said that the details will be released on launch. He did not say the details won’t be released at launch, so it seems to me that there might be something worth waiting for?”
Have you been to BA? It was my first time and everything about it – the place, the people and especially the project blew my mind. I’ll save that for another thread 😉
Agree there’s a lot of FUD and we need to wait and see. At the same time, I think the issues raised by folks like Tom Daigon, Aindreas and others in threads like this are very important and valuable. Adobe needs to hear what their customers think about their new business model, both the good and bad.
It’s ironic that Adobe, a company I consider one of the best in the industry in terms of customer support and engagement, is facing this FUD by being secretive. Remember how well that worked out for that other A company?
I understand that they’re possibly still figuring things out and don’t pre-announce price/availability, but the fact that they first publicly confirmed then denied perpetual licensing doesn’t make them look good and only adds to FUD.
So does this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78yigV0GYGQ
What an embarrassment.If there were legal reasons for not answering, he might have made a statement to that effect. But no.
This video does not make me feel warm and fuzzy about the cloud. Just the opposite. If a decision is still being made, I think now’s a good time to give feedback.
[Jeremy Garchow] “In this analogy, editing = shooting and the NLE = camera.
In order to shoot (edit), I need a camera (NLE).
I cannot shoot without a camera, so every time I need to shoot, I rent. It is a very common production business model. “
I’m looking at it slightly differently – not in terms of action, but in terms of output, i.e. work produced.
Camera -> produces media files
NLE -> produces project filesI rent the camera because it’s relatively expensive and I don’t use it often enough to buy.
I own the NLE software because it’s relatively cheap and I use it every day.After I make video with the camera, I can play it anywhere when I’m done. I no longer need the camera.
After I make a project with an NLE, I still need the NLE software to open and access the project.In the software rental model, once I stop my rental subscription, my software stops working. I can no longer open my projects. Even if I’ve spent thousands of dollars over the years. In order to open my files I must always subscribe whether I want to or not. The subscription controls access to my work.
Imagine if your media files worked this way with cameras. By this analogy, in order to play back your files, you’d have to have the camera connected to your system as a dongle. Which means you’d have to either buy or rent the camera every time you wanted to play a file created with it.
If it sounds absurd, that’s because it is. But that’s exactly the scenario created by software rental.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I see. So you are also worried the price is going to go up so much that it will price people out of the software?
We know the price. It’s $49.99/mo as I type this (I thought it was $59.99 earlier) $600/year that is tax deductible. It’s a pretty good deal and there’s no roaming fees so you traveling to the B.A. won’t cost you any more.”
No. It’s not the price. I want to give Adobe my money.
It’s about my software tools going poof after I’ve spent a couple thousand dollars and decide to sit out on upgrades for a year or two. Or going poof when I’m away from the internet for more than a month. Or going poof if I decide to go switch to a different NLE vendor. Once I spend the money, I need my tools to keep working so I can keep working.
As long as I have that option, I’m happy. But I have no interest in Adobe’s new subscription business model. It’s not right for my needs. And I’m not the only one who feels this way.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up