-
The New Adobe
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I finish jobs that other people have started … I can’t currently … I am dependent on my current … We are extremely booked at the moment, … once I can get the new hardware integrated and installed. … It is a brand new system to learn, and I will expect real life hurdles … so I feel like I am in a confident enough situation …”
In other words: momentum.
And you completely understand that older software is useful and why people use it – 5 years on – after it’s been discontinued.
Franz.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I think this is oxymoron. Get away with what?”
Get away with lock-in. By that I mean forcing customers to pay rent or not be able to open their native files. No software company of Adobe’s size or market clout has ever attempted this before. I think it sets a terrible precedent for the entire software industry; which is why I continue to speak out against it and encourage others to as well.
How would you feel if you had to rent every piece of software on your PC? What if the cost of using your personal computer eventually added up to the cost of your cable or cell phone bill? It’s a rhetorical question but that’s the direction things will head if everyone follows Adobe.
[Jeremy Garchow] “If corporate greed was to make as much money as possible, how would doubling your subscriber base NOT make Wall Street happy?”
Wall Street is happy now, but this is short term. Adobe is still bleeding money and if the model doesn’t pan out, Wall Street will bail. They’re already starting to catch on. I’ve always said this is a long game — we won’t know the score until 2016.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I just looked up all of the other companies and nearly all of them offer some form of software as a service.”
Yes, but they also offer perpetual options. Why not subscription-only? I say it’s because they know customers would hate it.
[Jeremy Garchow] “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.”
Or maybe they know there are many viable alternatives to their Office Suite (many free) and don’t want to lose customers?
[Jeremy Garchow] “Maybe I need to re-read the tweet and shut up. :)”
Oh no, this is fun! 🙂
_______________________
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] “I believe that you mean the “Hospital Cafeteria Or Not” forum.”
Dear me. Things change around here too fast to keep up.
David
https://AllinOneFilms.com -
[David Lawrence] “Or maybe they know there are many viable alternatives to their Office Suite (many free) and don’t want to lose customers?”
Yup, that and the fact that different customers have different needs… an individual user, or a 10 to 15 person accounting firm is going to have different needs than an enterprise with a 100,000+ person workforce. That’s why you have the option to rent 365, or ‘buy’ 2013. 🙂
Shawn
-
if adobe stated they had 12 million you can be pretty sure tha they were paying clients. if they counted hacks it could probably tripe the legit users.
i cant understand why revrbing money from both camps is better than just receiving fron cc. i fail to see your logic.
ricardo marty
-
[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.”
Sure.
I can point to other “influential directors” who are done with film, too.
[TImothy Auld] “Economics aside I don’t know how anyone could argue that point.”
Economics aside, Adobe has done some great work on CC in the last few years, haven’t they?
Sorry, but you have to argue the economics.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “In other words: momentum.
And you completely understand that older software is useful and why people use it – 5 years on – after it’s been discontinued.”
Only because I HAVE to, not really because I want to.
I have wanted something different and better than FCS3 for a very long time. I only use FCS3 because someone else hasn’t moved on. When I start a new project, it is not with FCS3.
5 years from now, will I be able to use this current release of CC to get work done?
-
[David Cherniack] “Undoubtedly the best product manager the Adobe video apps have ever had.”
you’d thump the table for that. look at what we all got. i took a swipe at him on the other place over the tweet and I rather regret it. hard not to think he is a lot responsible for willing a top flight edit system in the FCP mold into being for the people who were begging him for it. some gift. when you watch him on stuff, he seems to bleed the product.
reading now back between the lines I think he may have been addressing a specific situation with that tweet – that arose for people on the adobe panel. basically I think he might have been speaking in defence of other participants on the panel. calling someone a shill is a pretty low blow.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[David Lawrence] “Get away with lock-in. By that I mean forcing customers to pay rent or not be able to open their native files. No software company of Adobe’s size or market clout has ever attempted this before. I think it sets a terrible precedent for the entire software industry; which is why I continue to speak out against it and encourage others to as well.”
That’s cool. I’m on the fence.
If it’s cheap enough for me to start and stop, why should I care if I have the latest version or not when I am not using the software? If I am using it, why shouldn’t I pay for it?
I just think that asking for a lower price, or a better deal is more feasible. I will, again, bring up the deal Adobe made with photographers.
[David Lawrence] “How would you feel if you had to rent every piece of software on your PC? What if the cost of using your personal computer eventually added up to the cost of your cable or cell phone bill? It’s a rhetorical question but that’s the direction things will head if everyone follows Adobe.”
I don’t think it will eventually cost significantly more than that, unfortunately, as it already does. If you add up everything that is purchased and divide it buy 12 mo/it’s way more than a cable bill.
[David Lawrence] “Wall Street is happy now, but this is short term. Adobe is still bleeding money and if the model doesn’t pan out, Wall Street will bail. They’re already starting to catch on. I’ve always said this is a long game — we won’t know the score until 2016.”
[David Lawrence] “Yes, but they also offer perpetual options. Why not subscription-only? I say it’s because they know customers would hate it.”
[David Lawrence] “Or maybe they know there are many viable alternatives to their Office Suite (many free) and don’t want to lose customers?”
I guess I just don’t see it that way. This is the precursor to all software being a service, cloud computing, and thin clients. In my mind, this is a fairly unstoppable force. I think I will be best served if we get the best deal possible. Right now, CC isn’t that great of a deal, in my opinion. Some want an off ramp, fine, I want lower prices. I need to stay current. If there ever become a time when I don’t, then I am happy to not pay for the software.
This will probably bother you, but we just signed up for Office365. It allows us access to Office on many more machines/devices than buying it outright. Also, the price is right.
-
[Ricardo Marty] “i fail to see your logic.”
The logic is, a subscription off ramp isn’t going to sign up 12 million more customers.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up