-
**Danger Will Robinson** **Danger Will Robinson**
-
[David Lawrence] “No. It’s not the price. I want to give Adobe my money.
“I do get where you are coming from, and feel some of it to, though I did go for the cloud deal the other day. I would PREFER to own it, though I’ll go along for now because it is offering some add-ons that I like.
This is the issue for me: Right now I like where Adobe is going, and I want to go along. But what happens if Adobe decides to go somewhere I don’t want to go? If I’ve bought upgrades through CS8, but don’t like CS 9, and I own CS 8, well, I can just stop. No need to upgrade, no need to follow along. I can just keep working with what I have. If I’m Clouding it, however, that option isn’t as easy. Yes, I can not hit the update button, but I’d then be paying in perpetuity for something that was frozen in time.
To take it a little further, let’s say its not about the software. Let’s say its about the company. I like Adobe quite a bit right now, and I have no reason to think I won’t in the future, as well, but the cloud-only scenario marries me to them in a way I’m not completely comfortable with. If it turns out that they have been enslaving Time Lords, clubbing with baby seals (I don’t think Adobe would ever actually club baby seals), or are bought out by either Massive Dynamics or the Vogons, I want the opportunity to walk away without jeopardizing my work.
-
David, thanks for a very reasonable discussion on licensing models.
I see both sides of this issue: please remember that my favorite model is perpetual licensing plus maintenance subscription. I think that the perpetual licensing side on this debate is generally well-understood, and I think software as a service is not, so please forgive me if I seem too one-sided. I’m actually trying to balance the discussion.
[David Lawrence] “It’s not about the money. Really. It’s about control.”
Then commercial software is not for you, and you should look into open source. You can’t have total control of your destiny with a product unless you can build it yourself.
There’s been some buzz here about Lightworks. Is there any news on a Lightworks source release?
Is anyone bothered by the fact that Lightworks Pro is only available as a subscription?
[David Lawrence] “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 files. 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.”
I think Jeremy’s analogy holds. The ultimate output of the NLE is not the project file. A project file is just a means to an end. NLEs produce media files (your edited content), just the same as cameras do.
You don’t need a licensed copy of Premiere to play back its output. You don’t need the camera itself to play back its output. You do need a licensed copy of Premiere in order to edit (or re-edit). You do need the camera itself to shoot (or re-shoot).
That said, in addition to Premiere’s playable rendered output, it also produces industry-standard EDL, AAF, and XML. There are escape hatches. Neither your media output nor even your edit decisions are locked in.
[David Lawrence] “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.”
I don’t know — I can neither perform work nor access it without my electric service.
Not all services are fundamentally based on consumables. For example, my insurance policy is a service based on my exposure to risk and my insurer’s capacity to absorb it. It’s an ongoing bill, and much like Creative Cloud, its benefits to me are limited to the time I choose to pay for it. If I stop paying for it, both my “investment” in my policy (we would never call this an investment!) and my coverage goes poof.
With software as a service, the provider commits ongoing development resources in exchange for ongoing subscription fees. As long as I keep paying, I get the benefit of their continuing development. If I stop paying — if I stop giving the developer the benefit they seek — they stop giving me the benefit I seek.
We keep comparing our software tools to hardware tools, but as Tim Kolb eloquently pointed out here, this analogy doesn’t really hold up.
We want to think of a license for an application as a tangible product that we can own, just like a physical pair of pliers. However, when there’s an upgrade, we think that we bought something other than that tool, and that we’re entitled to lower-cost upgrades to the new version. I’m pretty sure Snap-On would still charge me full price for Pliers 2013, even if I just bought Pliers 2012 the day before.
As a developer, a tool like an NLE and a tool like pliers are nothing alike. Formats change. Platforms change. Computational capabilities change. Client expectations change. All these things require constant change on the development side just to keep up, let alone actually advancing the state of the art. Adobe et al do not have the luxury of designing a tool once and selling it forever like a pair of pliers. The developers still have to show up the Monday after launch day and get busy on the next release. (That’s a lie. It’s not that simple. They were already busy on the next release.) Tools like Premiere, FCPX, MC, or Smoke see more advancement (and incur more cost) while their developers sleep than tools like pliers have seen in decades.
Business relationships need to be win-win. Any ongoing win-lose relationship will eventually turn into a lose-lose relationship.
If selling a bundle of applications as a product is a lose for Adobe (and I don’t know if it is or it isn’t), then it will inevitably turn into a lose for me. If they’re not making enough money, or if their cash flow is too uneven, that’s a real threat to some of my favorite tools. I’d rather find a win-win relationship so I can keep using the tools I prefer and they can keep building them, and maybe it’s reasonable to explore subscription to do that.
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 -
[David Lawrence] “It’s not about the money. Really.”
Nope, it’s about the money! 🙂
It’s not about paying the actual amount (money), it’s about how you have to pay (money) in order to use the software.
[David Lawrence] “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.”
I hear that. But can’t you figure that you buy a year’s worth of Cloud service, and that’s what it costs to run the business? You don’t have to update when the updates come out. You can stay at the same version.
Do you use pay or any other services in your business? What makes this any different?
[David Lawrence] “I’m looking at it slightly differently – not in terms of action, but in terms of output, i.e. work produced.”
OK, I see it as tools that I need to get a job done. I don’t use a camera to playback files. I use a camera to capture images. I can’t do it without it. I can playback files anywhere, I can produce files anywhere, I can’t go out and shoot with an NLE.
[David Lawrence] “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.”
OK. So, I guess you have never paid for a service contract on software or licensed software the requires a yearly re-up.
I guess I am just used to it, and the value that Adobe is bringing to the table is tremendous. It’s a great deal, and I don’t see it as some big conspiracy, I see it as business.
[David Lawrence] “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 ;)”
Yessir. I wish I could make it back there regularly!
[David Lawrence] “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.”
But there really hasn’t been an announcement about the licensing deals, yet. Everything is still on CS6 terms, I am sure that will change to CS Next terms, as folks from Adobe have said that they will release details when there are details to release. Maybe the legal terms aren’t completely drawn up yet? Maybe the company wants to release the actual product with the new terms instead of releasing terms and then a product? There’s reasons to keep secret, the biggest being is that there’s nothing to release yet.
I am sure the folks at Adobe are reading the feedback, as it is something they are very diligent about, and I would trust that the preliminary feedback is being noted.
[David Lawrence] “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.”
I agree that feedback is good, and now is a decent time, but maybe things we be more clear once we have all the information?
I don’t know why the CEO dodged the boxed pricing questions. Maybe he can’t say, maybe he doesn’t want to speak ill of the trade license or Australian government rules, I don’t know. I’m sure there’s a reason, I don’t know if it’s a good reason, but I am sure there’s a reason why the question wasn’t answered directly, and perhaps it has to do with public perception.
It’s big business, and people do and say weird shit in big business, especially in a global economy.
[David Lawrence] “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.
“It is in these details that haven’t been talked about in full quite yet. These are the details that we need from Adobe. To spend a couple thousand bucks on the Cloud as an individual user, you’d have to pay in for more than 3 years at full price, and this is something you use every single day.
I have a better understanding of a bit of your concern now, thank you.
-
Great post, Walter. Thank you. Some more thoughts –
[Walter Soyka] “Then commercial software is not for you, and you should look into open source. You can’t have total control of your destiny with a product unless you can build it yourself.”
I know a lot of open-source purists but I’m not one of them. I’ve always believed there’s a place for commercial software that both protects user rights and allows for sustainable business models. As you’ve pointed out, subscription-based software maintenance contracts are a perfect example.
I really like this model and would sign up for something like this from Adobe without hesitation. It’s pure win-win.
[Walter Soyka] “The ultimate output of the NLE is not the project file. A project file is just a means to an end. NLEs produce media files (your edited content), just the same as cameras do.”
While this is true, I think my point may be getting clouded because the work product (the project) is also used to create another work product (the final output).
Let me further simplify. If CS becomes a rental only service, that means everything in the suite is rental only, including Photoshop and Illustrator.
I use a camera to take a photo. I manipulate the photo in Photoshop adding layers and text. I send the finished Photoshop document to my colleague who needs it for their project. The Photoshop document is the finished product.
A simple yes/no question for Mr. Shantanu Narayen:
If I end my Creative Cloud subscription, will I still be able to open my Photoshop documents?Without some form of perpetual licensing, the subscription becomes a dongle required to open your documents. To me, that’s like saying the camera would be required as a dongle to open up the files made with the camera.
Do you see my analogy now?
[Walter Soyka] “That said, in addition to Premiere’s playable rendered output, it also produces industry-standard EDL, AAF, and XML. There are escape hatches. Neither your media output nor even your edit decisions are locked in.”
I wish these were true escape hatches. I’m glad they’re there but the reality is that none offer the full fidelity of the native application. I had direct experience with the pitfalls just last week:
One of my clients wanted a quick turnaround redo of a video I made for them last June. This video was the first video I made after switching to Premiere. It was a UK version of a similar US version which was the last project I made in FCP Legacy. As it turned out, the new version required media from both projects. I tried XMLing the FCP into Premiere but even though it’s a very simple project made entirely of animatic moves over stills, Premiere uses a completely different coordinate system. So every single motion parameter would have had to be reconstructed. Time was extremely tight to I decided to go the other way – from Premiere to FCP. There were fewer XML translation problems and it was a much faster path.
I haven’t heard any mention of this, but I’m hoping XML translation is another thing that’s much improved in CSNext.
BTW, going back to FCP was painful. Guess I’ve officially crossed the line, there’s no going back.
[Walter Soyka] “I don’t know — I can neither perform work nor access it without my electric service.”
Well, not exactly. Your electric service is a government regulated public utility. For a long time, so was your phone service. Your health insurance is now subject to new government controls and one day I hope we’ll all have a public choice. I can’t wait to fire my health insurance company. The only reason I’m with them is because of lock-in.
If Adobe wants to start acting like a utility service, they’re welcome to being regulated like one. I doubt this is part of their business plan for Creative Cloud.
[Walter Soyka] “With software as a service, the provider commits ongoing development resources in exchange for ongoing subscription fees. As long as I keep paying, I get the benefit of their continuing development. If I stop paying — if I stop giving the developer the benefit they seek — they stop giving me the benefit I seek.”
Yes, all true. But future development doesn’t matter to everyone. When the tool is good enough, many people stop upgrading. I know many Photoshop users who are perfectly happy with CS5 and earlier. It’s all they need to get their work done.
In fact, the forced lock-in of a subscription model might have the opposite effect on future innovation. If everyone has to subscribe to be able to open their documents, the incentive for compelling innovation decreases because users are locked-in. If upgrades are optional, the incentive for killer, must-have upgrades is greater, because you have to be so attractive, already content users will want to give you their money.
[Walter Soyka] “Business relationships need to be win-win. Any ongoing win-lose relationship will eventually turn into a lose-lose relationship.
If selling a bundle of applications as a product is a lose for Adobe (and I don’t know if it is or it isn’t), then it will inevitably turn into a lose for me. If they’re not making enough money, or if their cash flow is too uneven, that’s a real threat to some of my favorite tools. I’d rather find a win-win relationship so I can keep using the tools I prefer and they can keep building them, and maybe it’s reasonable to explore subscription to do that.”
I agree with this and much of what you said above regarding tools. But I do think digital tools and properties are a unique new form that neither our existing legal system nor our business models are fully ready for. There’s a lot still in flux and everyone from dedicated individuals, to corporations to governments is angling for advantageous position.
Adobe has every right to experiment with new business models and I wish them success with Creative Cloud. But as a long time customer and recent convert to the Premiere Pro platform, I feel it’s important for myself and others in my situation to be heard. As long as Adobe continues to offer us licensing choice, it will indeed be a win-win for all.
Thanks again for a terrific dialogue!
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Jeremy Garchow] “Nope, it’s about the money! 🙂
It’s not about paying the actual amount (money), it’s about how you have to pay (money) in order to use the software.”
lol, well ultimately everything’s about money, sex or power, right? 😉
[Jeremy Garchow] “I hear that. But can’t you figure that you buy a year’s worth of Cloud service, and that’s what it costs to run the business? You don’t have to update when the updates come out. You can stay at the same version.
Do you use pay or any other services in your business? What makes this any different?”
Sure, the main difference is let’s say I’ve paid $1000+ and I want to take a break. Right now the software keeps working as long as I keep my system. I don’t have to keep paying for the privilege of using an old version. Remember, I’m still using a late-2008 MacBook Pro. I’m in bad need of an upgrade and will probably pull the trigger this year with the Rev2 Retina. But I like to squeeze my gear till it’s dry! 😉
[Jeremy Garchow] “OK, I see it as tools that I need to get a job done. I don’t use a camera to playback files. I use a camera to capture images. I can’t do it without it. I can playback files anywhere, I can produce files anywhere, I can’t go out and shoot with an NLE.”
Got it, fair enough.
[Jeremy Garchow] “OK. So, I guess you have never paid for a service contract on software or licensed software the requires a yearly re-up.
I guess I am just used to it, and the value that Adobe is bringing to the table is tremendous. It’s a great deal, and I don’t see it as some big conspiracy, I see it as business.”
Yep, just a difference in perspective. I’m way smaller. I always buy, own and depreciate it over time. If I were in your shoes I’m sure I’d see things differently.
Also, I have a radar that’s highly tuned into digital rights issues and I think it’s important to call out any changes that might be detrimental. I don’t trust big business to protect my digital rights. So while Adobe marketing rightly likes to talk about the benefits of the Cloud, I think it’s also important to discuss the DRM and lock-in consequences.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Yessir. I wish I could make it back there regularly!”
Sweet! 😉 Me too!
[Jeremy Garchow] “But there really hasn’t been an announcement about the licensing deals, yet. Everything is still on CS6 terms, I am sure that will change to CS Next terms, as folks from Adobe have said that they will release details when there are details to release. Maybe the legal terms aren’t completely drawn up yet? Maybe the company wants to release the actual product with the new terms instead of releasing terms and then a product? There’s reasons to keep secret, the biggest being is that there’s nothing to release yet.
I am sure the folks at Adobe are reading the feedback, as it is something they are very diligent about, and I would trust that the preliminary feedback is being noted.”
Yes, agreed. That’s why speaking out now is important.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I agree that feedback is good, and now is a decent time, but maybe things we be more clear once we have all the information?… It’s big business, and people do and say weird shit in big business, especially in a global economy.”
Absolutely! Things will become clear soon.
[Jeremy Garchow] “It is in these details that haven’t been talked about in full quite yet. These are the details that we need from Adobe. To spend a couple thousand bucks on the Cloud as an individual user, you’d have to pay in for more than 3 years at full price, and this is something you use every single day.
I have a better understanding of a bit of your concern now, thank you.”
Yes. These details are key. Once we hear from Adobe, any FUD will hopefully evaporate. But until then, remember, even though the the current Cloud cost is fantastic deal, nothing guarantees it will stay that way in the future except user acceptance.
You’re welcome and thank you Jeremy!
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “[Jeremy Garchow] “Nope, it’s about the money! 🙂
It’s not about paying the actual amount (money), it’s about how you have to pay (money) in order to use the software.”
lol, well ultimately everything’s about money, sex or power, right? ;)”
Absolutely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrAU7F4RmDk
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up