-
OTish: Adobe Release
-
EDIT: Sorry David, thought you were referring to Apple and FCPX re business models. Adobe certainly blew up my plans when they went rental only. Was getting into Premiere CS6, and then that. Kablooey! No need to reiterate how that affected things. Refuse to hand over my projects to a pay or no play. the Adobe workflow was still there, I just couldn’t be. Forcing me toward FCPX, and so far, I’m liking it. YMMV. Even using Media 100 again, as you may have noticed. Tracks and all. Unlike most here I also have no need for AE, so that certainly colors my opinion.
Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17″ 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “I almost don’t care that the current AE rev would be half a building site for a year. I’ll just keep on using cc14.”
I could ironically point out that in the past with CS, you might have skipped buying this upgrade, but I won’t rub it in. 😉 The LCS in Pr does look awesome, btw.
_______________________
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] “I could ironically point out that in the past with CS, you might have skipped buying this upgrade, but I won’t rub it in. ;)”
ha. yes rather – but lets be honest with each other – nothing like what they’re doing now could ever conceivably happen inside an annual shrink wrap sell to new and upgrading customers. Half of AE in this build has an under construction sign on it. It’s there – it works, but half of it is in flux. Nevermind metal. I mean they really have removed multiprocessing as a preference option – audio preview is half gone to lunch and they’re still working out the function of the ram preview they’ve released. In terms of the multiprocessing they’ve simply stated that the scale of work underway will render it superfluous once they finish the house rebuild. The level of communication they’re engaged in on this release is crazy – they’ve outlined stuff they determine is really gone, (that weird brainstorm thing no one alive ever used) and stuff that is temporarily gone while they tear up and rebuild AE.
It’s impossible to avoid the fact that the engineering team is operating in ways that are far far far more interesting under club subscription membership. If that AE rev was a sell there would be an insane uproar – what do you mean multiprocessing is gone in this years release?? But the entire nature of the relationship is basically changed under CC. I could be coming over all pollyanna – but at least I’m getting crazy new engineering behaviour and balls out decision making for my membership buck. At this point I’m viewing the six hundred annual payment as going to the engineers christmas bar bill.
Also I do feel Jeremy Garchow is being super duper full on churlish about everything he sees with it.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[David Lawrence] “I could ironically point out that in the past with CS, you might have skipped buying this upgrade, but I won’t rub it in. 😉 The LCS in Pr does look awesome, btw.”
With that in mind though, if Adobe did this under the CS model (release AE 13.5 as a paid upgrade from AE 13.2) how well do you think that would’ve played with users? Personally I think it would’ve gone over like a lead balloon. If enough users skipped the upgrade (while lambasting Adobe for being greedy by charging to go from 13.2 to 13.5) then doesn’t that curb Adobe from undertaking product improvements of this type because it doesn’t make financial sense?
If users, in general, vote with their wallets that they want new features more than they want advanced retooling under the hood then can people really be mad at Adobe for focusing on features that ‘demo well’ vs features that don’t? There’s only so many coders and so much time between product cycles so you can’t do it all.
I know Jeremy seems burned out on the ‘we are making AE faster’ promise, but from what Walter says it seems like this is the first time the AE team has actually taken the steps to dig into the core of AE to modernize it so it can become significantly faster. Coincidence or is this a path to a better, faster AE that wouldn’t have seen the light of day under the CS model for financial reasons?
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “It’s impossible to avoid the fact that the engineering team is operating in ways that are far far far more interesting under club subscription membership. If that AE rev was a sell there would be an insane uproar – what do you mean multiprocessing is gone in this years release?? But the entire nature of the relationship is basically changed under CC. I could be coming over all pollyanna – but at least I’m getting crazy new engineering behaviour and balls out decision making for my membership buck. At this point I’m viewing the six hundred annual payment as going to the engineers christmas bar bill.”
Agreed! But…
[Andrew Kimery] “With that in mind though, if Adobe did this under the CS model (release AE 13.5 as a paid upgrade from AE 13.2) how well do you think that would’ve played with users? “
I don’t think they would have made this release under the CS model. I do think they would be working on it, though.
Transparency is interesting and cool, but I think Jeremy’s point still holds. They’re still doing yearly releases that are full version installs. They’re still marketing these yearly releases with banner features.
I’m sure you’ll see mid to late-year updates that make the under-the-hood changes in AE pay off. But I don’t think any of this has anything to do with a forced rental licensing model.
_______________________
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] “I don’t think they would have made this release under the CS model. I do think they would be working on it, though.
“I think this is where our divergence happens. How much can they really work on it while still working on features that are compelling enough to get users to pay the upgrade price?
Out of curiosity (and this is to every one, not just you David) how often do companies gut an app and rebuild it? Apple did it with FCP7 to FCP X, but they have a side business selling hardware to help make ends meet. Adobe did it with Premiere to PPro but at the time Premiere wasn’t exactly setting the world on fire (some might have called it a mercy killing). Has Smoke ever gone through a big reboot?
What I’m wondering is, is there even something like an SOP for, to use Aindreas’ words, replace wings while inflight? Or is each situation so unique that companies always have to find their own way?
-
[Andrew Kimery] “Has Smoke ever gone through a big reboot?”
Sure. Smoke for Mac (now the only version of Smoke) is a huge rewrite. Add to that Lightworks, Resolve, and now Fusion. EditShare (Lightworks) and BMD (Resolve, Fusion) had nothing to lose. BMD took the bold step of killing off DaVinci 2K, which was the established leading product before the acquisition.
But it’s rare. Most take the route Avid has to progressively upgrade and swap out modules under-the-hood.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “But it’s rare. Most take the route Avid has to progressively upgrade and swap out modules under-the-hood.”
It’s definitely more rare in in the case of large, complex applications that have a huge user base (Microsoft Office anyone?). But with smaller developers, big reboots are the norm. Rogue Amoeba for example, just relaunched their excellent Audio Hijack application:
https://rogueamoeba.com/audiohijack/
Version 3 is a complete ground-up rebuild. It’s a totally different piece of software that the previous version.
Of course, Adobe is much more like Microsoft and Rogue Amoeba, but that doesn’t change that fact that marketing and licensing decisions and engineering timelines are entirely different animals.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
super agree lots of stuff gets re-tooled. in early days 3DS max was madness in terms of crazy new stuff getting lumped in. I think though, that the impetus and rationale with AE feels different. Resolve are looking to produce transformative perceptions, and eat new territory – Smoke’s increasingly mangled versions on OSX feel like a difficult emotional time that autodesk are drawing to a close…
AE is the only one I can think of where they laid out you’re going to get plaster dust for quite a long time because there is a ton of stuff that is overdue. They asked if it would be ok, they have a few million subscribers, and there is a weirdly notable absence of uproar over the experimental in process state of AE.
Adobe’s current major market statement is that they’re excitingly doing extensive disruptive building refurbishment in a piece of core mograph software used by millions. That’s what adobe are doing at the moment. They’re communicating shortcomings during building disruption. That is their statement on AE.
That all feels quite unusual for high value market software. I quite like it? As in – it’s subscription implications money where their mouth is. They are risking real things.They did actually just shut down multi-processing and a bunch of stuff? They’re being straight up about their perception of the relationship. It’s hard to make an ad out of:
“Join the creative cloud – we may in near future scenarios tear sections apart for good reasons and advise you to retain previous versions for continued work practises!”that’s hard to make a creative suite ad out of.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Also I do feel Jeremy Garchow is being super duper full on churlish about everything he sees with it”
Well, Andy “Lambast the Rentiers of Adobe” Gallagher, Jeremy “The Churlish Beauty” Garchow is mostly arguing about one feature of one app(the number one requested feature, mind you) that has been talked about since 2011 under the new rules of “release it when it’s ready”. I also think the yearly release is weird as I was convinced Adobe was stepping away from that development model due to the inherent limitations and new found freedoms contingent on accounting for the revenue stream that uh ‘releases’ companies from those ‘inherent limitations’ imposed by one Sarbanes and one Oxley. Obviously, I am wrong. Release it when it’s not ready and about once a year is obviously the path forward. Apple has perfected it at this point. It’s going pretty well for them?
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up