Aindreas Gallagher
Forum Replies Created
-
yeah. i do it as a yearly onetime payment. It’s simpler – it just means you need to think about it for a few weeks beforehand, bung the money and then forget about it for the next 11 months.
If I had the option I strongly suspect I’d do two years in one go. Then it’s even less to think about. As a tenant it’s basically a slightly more reliable lease term.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
I just wanted to make sure anyone reading the thread would have no clue where I stood on CC.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
Did I adore walking into the rental tools room? You wipe only a single tear sure.
No one pops balloons when you walk into Shanatanyu rent your tools town.What they mostly seem to do is ask you for the rent. Adobe’s only concern now is asking for their rental money.
Google looks for advertising, adobe opted for tenants.
They looked to co-opt customers into tenants because they realised they were broadly sociopathic as a corporate group and they felt the social wound opening.https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Oliver Peters] “Render out the work and you are done.
“never. You have taken a set of decisions that might go to full javascript and any number of other things that exist between the entry and exit point. It’s not a chemical emulsion. Ok maybe it’s not a cable package analogy but we all know we do everything inside a software architecture that sits at the mid-point. That is now, with adobe, a rental space. To call it problematic is an understatement. We are renting the room we walk into where we can perform singular creative actions that validate people paying us.
Adobe have decided they own that room. And we owe them rent for the use of the room. To call it problematic beggars the actual use of the word problematic.
the fact that adobe decided they could make that social decision for millions of creatives is deeply problematic.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Tim Wilson] “I rolled down a dirt road, pulled up to a house with a bowed roof, no front door, a car up on blocks, in a neighborhood tightly packed with similar houses and, classist bastard that I was, I thought, no way, this can’t be right. “
That’s a nice lazy sentence Tim.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Bill Davis] “Your focus on what has historically worked is completely correct, but flawed IMO,”
Bill, with the best will in the world, given your relative brain with industry understanding, and his brain with industry understanding, that sentence will not end well.
Even without him replying Bill – it still didn’t end well.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Charlie Austin] “No, it doesn’t. (typed while working in Premiere) You’re starting to sound suspiciously like a fanboy Aindreas. :-)”
I’m a proper fan of premiere. Not the subscription I was bundled into. I genuinely don’t understand how you can feel X gets within 100 yards of premiere as it currently stands. You work in short form like me. Premiere is industrial strength short form. Just on keyframing alone Charlie. nevermind the configurability of the interface. The keyframing apparatus in X is quasimodo material. No one should ever have to live like that. And I have to figure you’re keyframing push pulls and text transforms half the living day. Why should anyone have to live like that?
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
Bill, this might be the time to do our long agreed switch where I argue X and you argue Premiere. The bookies odds are actually pretty sweet right now.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Tim Wilson] “(Cell phones and cable bills aren’t anywhere near this industry’s product lineup, so I don’t think I’m being reasonable to exclude them.)”
Sorry – below turned into a screed a little – but – I do kind of wonder about that. We all know in our bones there are no market functioning competitors to PS and AE and ID and ILL. Nor are there likely to be ones cohesive enough that we can all wander off anytime soon, given the facilities would have wanted to have made the same decisions? And how likely is that realistically?
I think there is a cable risk with adobe if I’m being honest. It’s already sixty channels in the package with maybe 6-8 each discipline generally touches on any regular basis. I think it’s a bit ESPN or SKY Sports in a padded cable package in a way – adobe know they have 4-5 mortal locks that allow them to set master suite prices for the subscription.
[Tim Wilson] “Not cameras, not storage, not I/O, not standards converters, not switchers,”
The thing is – none of those are a subscription scenario. Some, say cameras, have been rental in the past, but it’s a chunk of metal electronics and glass you make use of and then pop back. People don’t subscribe to cameras or storage. Photoshop isn’t a camera, neither is after effects or premiere. They are software creation tools used daily by millions in a million different use cases, and out of those three, the only one with valid competition is premiere. And Adobe know, because they were good enough to build it for us, that the taste of avid or X to the classical FCP editor is bllleeeuuugghhh.
I think walter is really smart, and he thinks they won’t go to town on the subscription. But, leaving the hand wringing aside, you’d wonder about human nature in corporations. They’re still not making anything like what they should be making from CC. They’re not in this for the good for their health. I’ve lost track, but I’m pretty sure CC PS+LR bundle discount city isn’t getting the profit where it should be. Something’s got to give sooner or later. I think the board still view subscription increase as radioactive – and I’m not sure when they will feel clear ground. But subscriptions without valid core competition increase in price – I’d almost say that’s human nature gravity. We can walk away – but where exactly are we walking to in the context of PS or AE? Ultimately they can set any price they think can be borne. Getting people to maybe buy from their stock photos instead of shutterstock etc isn’t going to really move the billion dollar needle.
Not like a sweet 10% subscription increase. Or two. Sooner or later they’re going to begin staring at that subscription price and letting their minds go. They’re not amazon. Sooner or later they need to start making the profit numbers they pitched investors three years ago. The subscriber uptake is fine, but the cash value is not?
Unless I’m totally wrong about all of that. My days of reading every adobe investor report are a bit behind me…
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Scott Witthaus] “Many of feel X is a superior product.”
er, you’ve got to be joking me mate. Not to go football teams, but premiere kicks its ass into next week..
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics