-
lively discussion at John Nack’s blog.
-
[Bill Davis] “Do you suppose that model won’t migrate to publishing or on-line video?”
No. Not with “work for hire” clients, like ad agencies, corporate video departments, TV show producers, filmmakers. It may work for them that way, but that has no benefit for the individual editor who services that work as a vendor.
[Bill Davis] “if you can build a 100,000 customer database for a piece of content, and revise it – and only ask a low barrier upgrade price of say, 99 cents.
You can generate a whole lot of incremental income with a sales model like that.”I believe we are talking about two completely different things. You are talking about the benefits of self-publishing and there I agree. Same model as software development.
What I’m looking about is the cost to me as a post-production vendor for managing a client’s assets in my possession. Yes, that drives future revenue, but the more we move to the “living document” model, the less likely it will be that I will be able to adequately charge for those services. It encourages the belief on the client’s part that these things have no cost and therefore my charges should be minimal. At that point editors become more likely – not less – to wash their hands of a project when it’s done, because of the diminishing returns of handling the media. At some point you DO have to call a project “DONE” or you’ll work for free forever.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “If you don’t own the software, you don’t own the product of the software. I think there are going to be certain scenarios where that really pinches.”
It’s like saying Arri owns your right to shoot.
If you don’t own the camera, you can’t own a shoot, or the media it creates?
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “If you don’t own the camera, you can’t own a shoot, or the media it creates?”
When we used to shoot on HDCam, we never owned the camera or the deck. We rented one in when we needed the rushes or access to the HDCam masters!
Steve Connor
There’s nothing we can’t argue about on the FCPX COW Forum
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “If you don’t own the software, you don’t own the product of the software. I think there are going to be certain scenarios where that really pinches.”
If you look at the Autodesk website these days, they phrase it this way. Software isn’t “sold” to you, it is “licensed”.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “If you look at the Autodesk website these days, they phrase it this way. Software isn’t “sold” to you, it is “licensed”.”
Exactly, you don’t really own it in as much as you are purchasing the right to use it.
The Cloud more accurately reflects this language.
-
[Steve Connor] “When we used to shoot on HDCam, we never owned the camera or the deck. We rented one in when we needed the rushes or access to the HDCam masters!”
Better sound the alarm bells.
Sony was trying to own you and your work!
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “It’s like saying Arri owns your right to shoot. If you don’t own the camera, you can’t own a shoot, or the media it creates?”
Despite your numerous posts, there is not any correlation between hardware rentals and software licensing. This is not to say whether software licensing is good or bad, it’s just entirely different. If it weren’t that they are both involved with producing video you would never think to compare them.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “Despite your numerous posts, there is not any correlation between hardware rentals and software licensing. This is not to say whether software licensing is good or bad, it’s just entirely different. If it weren’t that they are both involved with producing video you would never think to compare them.”
We are taking about video production tools, I can’t help but compare the tools to get the job done, production or not.
I could have this same conversation about any project based job that requires a variety of tools.
There is a relationship, if you don’t rent gear often and the rental model is new to you, the scarcity of the tools might give you the heebie jeebies.
I already mentioned that I rent software. It works fine.
I see it as a cost of doing business. No matter what, I am beholden to my software and hardware choices. Unless I begin to create my own software destiny, or build a camera, I must pay for what I think is best on terms drawn up by mountains of legal paper work for which in simpy click “Agree”.
Any company at any time can make a decision that will cost me more money than I want spend. I don’t have ultimate control, so I have to trust my own instincts to sink or swim.
We can argue about what is best. The Cloud is best for Adobe, it’s a very modern solution to box shipment and revenue “problems”.
To consumer’s some will love it, some will hate it.
If you have used it, you will know its very convenient if Adobe keeps their promises. If not, Adobe won’t do well. It seems to me they are almost betting the farm on the Cloud. My guess is that they will try and make it as enticing as possible.
If not for you, there’s other fish in the sea.
-
I’m not even sure where to begin. Let’s just say, from my point of view, football is a sport where the ball is 12″, and not a sport where the players use their feet, go ‘9ers.
On this side of the Pacific, way past Kansas, up in Tahoe, we do not own software, as a matter of legal definition, no US citizen owns software. We agree to “use the software” for a negotiated fee. EULA.
What are we talking about? Oh yeah: the business of rental v. ownership.
No one in the USA has ever actually owned Adobe software products. In theory, Adobe could recall photoshop like Encephalitis encrusted meat.
blah blah blah.
I edit to make money. It doesn’t matter what software I use. I tell stories. I make people laugh. I make people cry. Hopefully, it’s by design.
I like Adobe’s new business model because it places an emphasis on what John Galt called “build[ing] to higher standards.” I cannot wait for the day when Dennis Radeke is the John Galt of Adobe. And, with all due respect Dennis, you may be there now.
For me, it changes the bidding (AICP) to help me make more money (uh…that’s US dollars, not so bad against the yen, pretty bad against the pound). Three years down the road, client GSR wants some video, okay, it will cost you $30 just to open the file. Of course, I will pass that cost to the client as a COGS. Similarly, if GSR needs me to re-shoot, then I have to rent the same camera package. Of course, lenses are software. But…business is business.
Adobe, owning the work? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Man, that was funny. Whew. I owe you a Double Jack, my favorite beer. Think of all the movies audio dialogue tracks sennheiser owns, or the guitar player riffs Fender owns, or the goals Nike owns.
Well, I’ve read far too many of your posts. I think you need a blog–oh, alas–blogster would have to pay Cow for the rights to your words!
You might say “cheers mate.”
I say “later dude”Thanks!
Rich -
[Herb Sevush] “Despite your numerous posts, there is not any correlation between hardware rentals and software licensing. This is not to say whether software licensing is good or bad, it’s just entirely different. If it weren’t that they are both involved with producing video you would never think to compare them.”
It used to be very common for a production to rent an AVID (back when they were spelled with all caps), both the computer hardware and the software (dongle) together.
If software had never been sold as a product, the idea that you could own a license to software might be equally foreign. And I am very curious — where do you think the camera analogy falls apart?
Maybe comparing it to an Alexa isn’t as good as comparing it to a Panavision?
Here’s an interesting quote I cherry-picked from the Panavision Wikipedia article [link]:
Panavision operates exclusively as a rental facility—the company owns its entire inventory, unlike most of its competitors. This allows investment in research and development, and the integration of high-quality manufacturing, without concern for the end retail value. Maintaining its entire inventory also allows Panavision to regularly update all of its equipment, rather than just the newest models.
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
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up