The New Adobe

[David Lawrence]

[Charlie Austin] “A month of pain would save them a lot of time.”

Or in the case of moving from FCP7 to Premiere Pro, a week.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Ricardo Marty] “its on record that adobe had 8 million cs users and 4 million single product users. so i just took half of the cs userbase.

so indeed adobe gave up 3 or 4 times its costumer base for an unclud service.”

Again, I think we have shown that the numbers can be skewed to include (or not include) certain groups of users.

Of those 8 million “CS Users” how many of those are paid users?

What version of CS? (The Creative Suite is more than a decade old)

When was the last time those 8 million people paid Adobe for software?

Without those numbers, we don’t really know what Adobe stand to gain (or lose) in current and paying customers. They have had perpetual licenses for over 10 years, yet they still haven’t ponied up to Adobe for updates.

This goes back to what I was saying about the need to stay current (or not). Adobe CC caters directly to a working customer base that needs to use the latest features in order to deliver.

Keeping those other x-number of millions of users where they are in the upgrade cycle won’t be much of a loss to Adobe. Said another way, if Adobe offered some sort of off-ramp, or way out, my guess is that most of those users would stay right where they are.

Adobe is not looking to monetize that group. They should be looking to monetize the drastically smaller group that is currently on the fence (like, you know, the photographers), and of course, prepare for future users.

[Charlie Austin]

[Ricardo Marty] “so indeed adobe gave up 3 or 4 times its costumer base for an unclud service.”

Just based on the fact that Adobe haven’t budged, I don’t think that’s true. We can manipulate numbers ’til the cows come home, but the proof is in the pudding. I think it’s a very vocal, but relatively small group that has a problem with all this.

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Charlie Austin] “Honestly, I don’t think it’s the “compelling solution” part that keeps a lot of people on 7. It’s familiarity.”

Exactly.

Franz, If someone is looking to buy his or her first editing system, do you think they are going to pick FCS3?

Are new DPs going to choose to shoot on film?

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Do you really think that Adobe would stand to gain 2 million more customers with a perpetual option?”

Yes, easily.

[Jeremy Garchow] “If so, why haven’t they done it? I am sure Adobe has made, what they think, is a strong business move. If somehow doubling your customer base overnight by tweaking the license agreement was in the cards, I am 92.7% sure they’d act on that. Wouldn’t you?”

I think it’s simple, really. Corporate arrogance and Wall Street greed. Adobe is doing this because management thinks they can get away with it.

Remember, Adobe is currently the seventh largest software company on Planet Earth and the only company on this list that makes general purpose creative software. They are the defacto creative software standard in most industries. They are making a bet that their software is so globally essential, they can get away with forced lock-in. Recurring revenue thru software rental has been the wet dream of the industry for decades. But most consumers hate it. Adobe is the first company willing to bet the company on it. And they’re willing to dump millions of existing customers to reach that goal.

Let me turn the question around –

If a subscription-only model is so beneficial to everyone, why have none of the other companies gone this route yet? Why is even Microsoft is treading lightly here?

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums

[Tim Wilson]

[David Cherniack] “Best to head on over to the hospital cafeterias forum.”

I believe that you mean the “Hospital Cafeteria Or Not” forum.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Franz, If someone is looking to buy his or her first editing system, …”

Jeremy,

You said you “can’t imagine how you could use old “off-ramped” software” … and then you stated that you use software right now that was discontinued in 2009.

As for new filmmakers, I certainly don’t find it hard to believe there’s someone out there right now shooting film for the first time.

Franz.

Edit: here’s a random and anecdotal list from last year – when that software was 4 years out of support.

https://www.indiewire.com/article/sxsw-filmmakers-prove-crowdfunding-might-not-be-the-norm-and-final-cut-pro-is-still-alive?page=1#articleHeaderPanel

[Jeremy Garchow]

[David Lawrence] “Corporate arrogance and Wall Street greed. Adobe is doing this because management thinks they can get away with it.”

I think this is oxymoron. Get away with what?

If corporate greed was to make as much money as possible, how would doubling your subscriber base NOT make Wall Street happy?

I agree with you in that I think Adobe is making what they think is the most profitable move, and wants to squeeze as much juice out of current subscribers as possible (if that is what you mean by get away with it).

[David Lawrence] “Remember, Adobe is currently the seventh largest software company on Planet Earth and the only company on this list that makes general purpose creative software. They are the defacto creative software standard in most industries. They are making a bet that their software is so globally essential, they can get away with forced lock-in. Recurring revenue thru software rental has been the wet dream of the industry for decades. But most consumers hate it. Adobe is the first company willing to bet the company on it.”

Yes. There is no question that Adobe can heft their weight here. It is a big risk to take, and I am sure they are planning on it working, and other companies are watching.

[David Lawrence] “Let me turn the question around –

If a subscription-only model is so beneficial, why have none of the other companies gone this route yet? Why is even Microsoft is treading lightly here?”

I just looked up all of the other companies and nearly all of them offer some form of software as a service.

I can’t answer why Microsoft is treading lightly. It might be because they are, according to that wikipedia, bring in 18 times the money that Adobe does, which probably points to a much larger customer base, and simply can’t turn on a dime the way Adobe did, publicly, over the period of about 2 years.

Perhaps other companies have too much to lose. Adobe, obviously, is willing to risk it.

Maybe I need to re-read the tweet and shut up. 🙂

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “You said you “can’t imagine how you could use old “off-ramped” software” … and then you stated that you use software right now that was discontinued in 2009.”

Yeah, but I won’t be able to for much longer. All new jobs for me, personally as editor, have been started in FCPX.

I finish jobs that other people have started in FCS3. I can’t currently use Resolve for broadcast as I am dependent on my current AJA hardware. Thunderbolt will finally allow me to have much more flexibility in this regard, and really allow us to move on from FCS3.

We are extremely booked at the moment, and the office will be switching to FCPX for most editing once I can get the new hardware integrated and installed. FCS3 will still be installed on the new machines, mostly to update new projects, and for anyone that is having trouble with FCPX migration. It is a brand new system to learn, and I will expect real life hurdles. I am very realistic about this. I have been using FCPX on real jobs almost since it came out (three years), so I feel like I am in a confident enough situation to roll this out to everyone else at the shop.

CC will also be installed.

Jeremy

[Timothy Auld]

With influential directors like Christopher Nolan still shooting on film I’d be willing to bet that new DP’s have at least a passing interest in learning the ins and outs of shooting on film. With the resolution and range that film provides it is, with a proper projection system, the absolute best way to acquire and project images for the purpose of storytelling. Economics aside I don’t know how anyone could argue that point.

Tim