-
OTish: Adobe Release
-
[Walter Soyka] “How does that reconcile with the yearly CS releases Adobe’s business was dependent on? There just wouldn’t be an Ae CS9 this year?”
Maybe not. Or maybe it would come mid-year? How did it work before with CS? Weren’t there some years where some applications in the suite got more attention than others?
[Walter Soyka] “It’s funny, but we never called it “forced license sales” when that was the only option.
Perpetual license sales are transactional. Subscription-only makes the vendor completely dependent on creating long-term relationships with their customers to realize any significant value.”
Yes, I agree when the subscription model allows the customer a fair exit. Avid’s subscription model creates fair incentives in both directions. There are other service agreement type models as well. But with CC Adobe holds all the cards. Stop paying and the software stops working. No other choice. I respect your opinion but to me, this is the most consumer-hostile move I’ve ever seen from a major software vendor.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[David Lawrence] “Adobe is a big enough company that they can give us both what we want, if they want to.”
You mean something like Avid’s ‘maintenance fee’ (or whatever they are calling it) approach?
I gave Avid my $300 late last year so I could upgrade to 8 and to be honest I feel more anxiety about my Avid plan than I do about CC. With CC I can start/stop it w/o penalty, but with Avid if I don’t renew the maintenance fee then I have to pay full retail if I need the latest version of MC ($1300 IIRC). On two occasions I’ve already let my CC membership lapse (it was only like a month each time before I fired it up again) but with Avid I’m probably going to pay keep paying the fee whether I think I’ll need Avid or not. I don’t want to get ‘penalized’ $1000 by guessing wrong about my software needs for the coming year.
I understand the pros/cons to each approach and I think they both have room for improvement. Well, check that, as a consumer I wish they were both structured differently but I don’t know if the improvements would actually be financially sound business decisions.
-
[David Lawrence] “Development and sales/licensing are two different things.”
I think this is where we differ. I see these as one big ball of yarn, and it seems very evident to me that development has changed a lot since Adobe went subscription-only. I’m sincerely surprised that anyone would argue to the contrary.
To support your point, though, I have thought of one other mature application in our space that’s undergone serious deep re-architecture work in the last few years: Flame. Of course, the economics of their sales model is a bit different than most perpetually-licensed products.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Andrew Kimery] “but with Avid I’m probably going to pay keep paying the fee whether I think I’ll need Avid or not. I don’t want to get ‘penalized’ $1000 by guessing wrong about my software needs for the coming year.”
If Avid isn’t full-time for you, then you could simply go subscription with Avid as well. Activate per job as needed on a month-by-month basis.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “If Avid isn’t full-time for you, then you could simply go subscription with Avid as well. Activate per job as needed on a month-by-month basis.”
Unfortunately I have no way of knowing, and typically my gigs area measured in months, so at $75/mo I’d most likely hit the ‘I shoulda just paid the $300’ point. I think Avid did a pretty good job with setting the price points so you’d feel stupid by not just paying them the $300 annually. 😉
I don’t know how long it’s been going on but I did notice that Avid is having a sale until the end of June. Their annual subscription price is now $30/mo instead of the regular $50/mo.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “I don’t know how long it’s been going on but I did notice that Avid is having a sale until the end of June. Their annual subscription price is now $30/mo instead of the regular $50/mo.”
I haven’t checked lately, but when I calculated the annual rate of subscription originally, it took 6 years before the perpetual+annual maintenance became a better deal. Remember that the subscription includes the Symphony option.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “I haven’t checked lately, but when I calculated the annual rate of subscription originally, it took 6 years before the perpetual+annual maintenance became a better deal. Remember that the subscription includes the Symphony option.
“Was the calculation starting from a clean slate (i.e. the person doesn’t have an existing version of MC) and include all the ‘add-ons’ to the perpetual license? I know the subscription includes all the bells and whistles (well, what bells and whistles are left) but I’ve personally never need Symphony. I’m either offline editing w/MC or I’ll finish in Resolve (or even Color before that). Having Symphony would be nice, but it’s never worked out to be cost effective for me.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “Was the calculation starting from a clean slate (i.e. the person doesn’t have an existing version of MC) and include all the ‘add-ons’ to the perpetual license?”
Yes. If you bought MC perpetual and maintained it for 6 years you would pay approximately $2800 + the Symphony option, 1 time for $750. A total of $3550. If you subscribe for 6 years at the annual rate, it’s $3600. The only reason I tossed in Symphony as part of the equation was because you get that in the subscription model.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
First, why am I responding to a post at 5:50AM in the morning. There’s got to be a name for this sickness…
[Walter Soyka] “Ae’s 21 years old. It could have used a new architecture a decade ago. Why do you think it didn’t get that re-design sooner?”
My guess (truly) but probably an informed one is this: Ten years ago given the choice, users were choosing new features over speed and UI. The importance of UI was just beginning to come to the forefront too (look at UI’s of any program back then). Secondly, Adobe probably didn’t want to mess with AE because it was driving a much larger fraction of the overall video revenue back in the day. Premiere Pro was out there but didn’t have the reputation and capabilities that it does today.
[David Lawrence] “Now that they’re free of the CS model, what are the perverse incentives forcing them to do yearly full install releases, complete with big marketing features?””
David, just because we aren’t bound by a specific release schedule doesn’t mean we don’t want to market it and actively promote it in the best way possible. Today’s societies are media saturated and everyone is selling all of the time. As any for profit business, Adobe wants to position and present its products in the very best light possible. If you’re selling your services to a prospective client, you don’t bring out a 4×3 video you did 20 years ago, do you? Similarly, Adobe creates a good product and simultaneously spreads the message of why it will appeal to you.
To reiterate, major video apps have gotten as many as 4 updates in a year, two or more of those as major, feature bearing releases. Premiere Pro has had 4+ releases per year for the past few years. many hundreds of features large and small – more substantive IMO than any other similar application out there. Some will disagree and that’s okay – but I am personally very proud of our track record three releases into the Creative Cloud subscription model.
Dennis – Adobe Guy
-
On a maybe related note, I just saw this interesting article on Ars about a new feature in Photoshop.
“Adobe has announced “Photoshop Design Space,” a new interface for Photoshop geared toward professional app and Web designers. The company calls the new interface “a companion experience” to the normal Photoshop UI, which is a streamlined interface consisting of the most-needed tools for app and Web design. The most interesting thing, though? Adobe designed this new interface in HTML5, and it’s open source.”
This don’t solve the ‘could they/couldn’t they easily do this in CS’ debate, and this UI venture might not ultimately go anywhere memorable, but I do think it is another example of Adobe continuing to move their products forward (even the very mature, feature-filled ones). Many people voiced concern that Adobe would immediately hit ‘cruise control’ once they went subscription only but that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up