-
lively discussion at John Nack’s blog.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “If I’m being honest I’m almost mind boggled that people can’t or won’t see the variety of downsides to the proposition – particularly some of the potential downsides that won’t really shake out for a few years.”
Agreed.
Just to play devil’s advocate, can anyone give any example of consumer lock-in resulting in greater innovation and lower prices? Anyone?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “what is the basis for that. “
Logic and intuition.
Think about all that needs to go in to producing a boxed set. And then about all the licensing that needs to go with that boxed set, the time constraint, the print, the “manual”, the shipping.
All of that is gone, the updates can come faster, and we, the user, benefit from the faster accessiblity.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “I don’t want to sound heavy handed here – but you do realise that asking me to buy something, selling me wares – ie an upgrade, is a different incentive structure for the seller than having me continuously on a rental subscription. You do get that one of them is a stronger incentivising motive for the seller right?”
Is it? What’s the basis of that?
When you have a deadline, you run like hell to get it done and make decisions about what is going to make it in the boxed and printed set, and what isn’t.
I know you won’t want to, but look at FCPX. The updates that have come with that application (and granted, a lot of them are known as “catch-up” features) are recent and many. These point releases would have been major updates in years past. I think the incentive, for a lot of tech companies these days, is to simply hold your attention. A company can probably hold people’s attention when you have a constant stream of updates, it can’t, however, hold their attention in this day and age if they have to wait a year plus for the next box to be shipped to them.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “also there is the issue that if you transition at any point to other software, it won’t be like keeping FCP in reserve, where it was a purchase and we can boot it up without thinking for a very long time. Adobe get paid everytime we want to boot the suite up.”
Yeah, but all that time that you weren’t using the software, they don’t get paid.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “If I’m being honest I’m almost mind boggled that people can’t or won’t see the variety of downsides to the proposition – particularly some of the potential downsides that won’t really shake out for a few years.”
I know, the world is half empty.
-
[Herb Sevush] “Which is why some DPs choose to buy a perpetual camera license.”
But how much time do you expect to get out of a camera these days? A couple of years? Maybe 3?
How perpetual are we talking here?
[Herb Sevush] “The answer to your final question will become obvious in a few years, which is why making that decision now makes me nervous.”
I’m sure of the software offered obvious advantages (like a multi-cam that exceeded your expectations) it would be worth the cost and frayed nerves.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Logic and intuition.
Think about all that needs to go in to producing a boxed set. And then about all the licensing that needs to go with that boxed set, the time constraint, the print, the “manual”, the shipping.
“please. no one is talking about discs here. Its all download all the time now regardless – adobe have ended physical boxed copies of the suites anyway. that point holds no water, and how does your logic and intuition say that it was crippling their ability to advance the software? what does that actually mean? where is the logic?
[Aindreas Gallagher] “I don’t want to sound heavy handed here – but you do realise that asking me to buy something, selling me wares – ie an upgrade, is a different incentive structure for the seller than having me continuously on a rental subscription. You do get that one of them is a stronger incentivising motive for the seller right?”
Is it? What’s the basis of that?
Seriously? OK. In one case – they are trying to convince you to buy something – they want to sell it you. In the other they have you on a contracted rental subscription – you know a feature of contract subscription? its called churn rate – because the entry barrier is gone, you get more casual entry to the market, and because as a business you are now managing subscriptions, not selling a product to consumers, churn rate represents loss of subscribers – as long as the new entrants are greater than those exiting – its fine.
Subscription based models develop very differently to consumer sales markets over time, and they tend to see securing customer lock-in as the best way to reduce churn. securing subscriber lock in will become a focused goal of adobe’s over time. Its a key goal with a subscriber base.
what I am tying to explain is that all of that stuff is familiar to anyone from telcos, cable etc. I’m not wild at the notion. One of the key goals, in the long run, regardless of industry, is to pen your subscriber base. You want them not to leave. You seem to think the only way to do this is to produce superlative products all the time. That is not what the history of large subscriber based company behaviour would indicate to this point. At all.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “please. no one is talking about discs here. Its all download all the time now regardless – adobe have ended physical boxed copies of the suites anyway. that point holds no water, and how does your logic and intuition say that it was crippling their ability to advance the software? what does that actually mean? where is the logic?”
I did not say it was crippling, I said it was changing the way software has been packaged and released.
What I mean is that if you move to a system where there are no big “versions”, like what FCPX is doing in having a platform and releasing major feature point release updates, then you can release things in a different manner than what has been a traditional release cycle. Chris Kenny on this forum has some good insight on this new method of software release.
If you sign up for the Cloud, and the Cloud doesn’t work for you, you leave. Adobe loses you as a customer, and doesn’t take your money. If this keep happening over and over, Adobe does not make money and they go out of business. Don’t you think the impetus is to keep making products that people want to pay for, or do you think that once they get you “locked in” you have no choice but to serve your new Cloud master?
Whether you want to admit it or not, if you use any brand of proprietary media creation software, you’re are beholden to that software no matter how the license agreement is setup, or how the cost structure is setup.
Choose wisely.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “what I am tying to explain is that all of that stuff is familiar to anyone from telcos, cable etc. I’m not wild at the notion. One of the key goals, in the long run, regardless of industry, is to pen your subscriber base. You want them not to leave. You seem to think the only way to do this is to produce superlative products all the time. That is not what the history of large subscriber based company behaviour would indicate to this point. At all.”
I agree with you that Adobe doesn’t want you to leave. They want to monazite their existing user base and they want to attract as many new customers as possible with the products that are selling. It’s a business.
Also, they are not a telco or a cable company. Adobe is large, but they aren’t beaming 550 channels into everyone’s living room and having to support that infrastructure.
Is the Cloud my cheapest option? No, pirating software is my cheapest option, but that is ridiculous. I don’t want to work for free and I don’t expect anyone else to work for free.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “what I am tying to explain is that all of that stuff is familiar to anyone from telcos, cable etc. I’m not wild at the notion. One of the key goals, in the long run, regardless of industry, is to pen your subscriber base. You want them not to leave. You seem to think the only way to do this is to produce superlative products all the time. That is not what the history of large subscriber based company behaviour would indicate to this point. At all.”
This. ^
Still waiting for examples of customer lock-in leading to more innovation and lower prices. 😉
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “Still waiting for examples of customer lock-in leading to more innovation and lower prices. ;)”
Why? What will that prove?
With the Cloud, you’re “locked in” for one month at a time for $50.
I actually agree with Aindreas about Dreamweaver and the apps that I don’t need, but my guess is that overall, the pendulum is swinging the other way where the Flash artist will use other video apps in the suite.
If you look at the sheer amount of permutations of Adobe software, it’s no wonder they wanted to simplify the process.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Why? What will that prove?”
I’m just building on Aindreas’s examples and playing devil’s advocate to the idea that a subscription-based based model will result in better products. All evidence points to just the opposite.
[Jeremy Garchow] “With the Cloud, you’re “locked in” for one month at a time for $50. “
$50 now, who knows how much next year — for as long as you want to open your files. Which basically means forever. Remember, it’s not just the video applications, it’s the entire Creative Suite including Photoshop. I know people still using Photoshop CS5 and earlier. Lots of people skip upgrades.
Of course, this may all be moot, assuming an option for perpetual licensing is still offered.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “I’m just building on Aindreas’s examples and playing devil’s advocate to the idea that a subscription-based based model will result in better products. All evidence points to just the opposite.”
What evidence? I missed it if it was linked.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “What evidence? I missed it if it was linked.”
No links, I was talking in general. Aindreas mentioned telcos, and cable companies. I’d add ISPs and health insurance companies. Captured markets tend to have bad service and higher prices. Here’s just one example:
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up