Andrew Kimery
Forum Replies Created
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “Have never and don’t ever plan to need video i/o for Resolve other than to and from my disk. For me Resolve is no where near to being a usable NLE.”
Um, okay. So you color grade using what you see on your computer monitor and never need any baseband video input. Not everyone works that way. Regardless of what YOUR personal needs are it doesn’t change the fact that Resolve won’t work with non-BMD I/O hardware and, to my broader point, that hardware companies can offer software for peanuts if they want where as software companies have to find ways to sufficiently monetize their software in order to keep the lights on.
-
If you want some fun with weasel words Bill, check out Comcast trying to explain how awesome it’s new 300gig data caps are.
-Andrew
-
[Bill Davis] “OK – THIS made me laugh. And after a couple of days of quite a bit of generally enjoyable head down physical labor, it felt really good to laugh. Thanks.”
My pleasure. Yeah, it wasn’t that great of an experience at the time, but it’s pretty funny in hindsight.
[Bill Davis] “Sure. But what troubles me is that while it can certainly “breath new life” into something – it seems to me that in these days of amazing leaps in technology – an old box with “new life” is going to be increasingly hard to justify when the distance between last years tech and this years tech keeps growing.
“That kinda goes along with what I’m saying, doesn’t it? If things are changing so fast wouldn’t being able to install improved components as they come out be a good thing as opposed to buying a ‘disposable’ computer every couple of years? Sure, there are major architecture changes that wouldn’t be backwards compatible but those types of changes are much less frequent than things like an increase in CPU or GPU speed.
I’m kinda eyeballing new machines right now and if I go with a Mac I’d like to get the number of ports and GPUs reserved for the MP line, but there’s no way I’m paying top dollar for tech that’s already at least two years old. The MP used to have a pretty predictable upgrade cycle (like all the Macs) but now… is it going to be 2yrs between MP updates? 3? 5? I know there potential hints of a new MP in some code in El Cap, but it’s still anyone’s guess as to when it will actually happen. If the machines were more upgradeable I’d be less weary of them.
In the past couple of years I’ve upgraded my Macs with things like SSDs, new GPUs, eSATA/USB 3 cards, etc., and that’s kept them useful for day in/day out editing for me. The stock versions of the Macs would at best be really slow and at worst unusable. It was either upgrade or buy new machines and I obviously chose to upgrade (in part knowing that the longer I wait to buy, the more I’ll get for my money). Talk to the 2010 me (or especially the 2001 me) and I would have said 2-3yrs is the max life of an editing machine and once you hit 5yrs you might as well take it in the backyard and shoot it. And this was certainly true in the 90’s but these days we aren’t seeing the same type of massive year over year gains that translate into night and day differences in real world usage.
I think a lot of the relatively recent real world speed increases have come from things like switching to SSDs (HDDs have been a longtime bottle neck) and having more apps taking advantage of GPUs. Once those changes have been made then I think it’s back to more iterative changes (faster SSDs, faster GPUs, etc.,). Oddly enough one of the weak links in the old Mac Pros is turning out to be the power supply. Modern GPUs pull more juice than what the MP was designed to handle so people are having to hookup external power supplies if they want to run some of the more power hungry GPUs.
With all that beings said, i’m sure to some degree I’m overestimating my needs, but I’ve developed a hope for the best, plan for the worst mindset over the years so I’m more comfortable having something I don’t need than needing something I don’t have.
-Andrew
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “Then I guess I should have been more specific: Anyone that didn’t have a Mac before. Ever. And would have otherwise not considered getting one.”
I never owned a Mac before. Ever. Until I bought one specifically so I could use FCP 3. Now the fact that FCP Legend is gone and FCP X isn’t doing much in my neck of the woods and all my other primary software tools are cross-platform means buying another Mac for work is much harder to justify for me. In chatting with other editors I’ve found many of them thinking the same thing. FCP Legend was the ‘killer app’ for the Mac for them, and me, so w/o it sticking with Apple for work machines isn’t the obvious choice like it was in the past.
And how do I require BMD hardware to use the software? I use both Resolve and Fusion and have no BMD hardware whatsoever.”AFAIK BMD video I/O devices are the only ones that work with Resolve (never looked into Fusion).
[Bill Davis] “I don’t have time to respond point by point due to my life being in boxes as I’m moving. “
Moving, always fun. Remember to lift with your knees and have some cold beers ready for the end of the day.
[Bill Davis] “I am amused by the number of “weasel words” (old copywriters term for fuzzy terms like “approximately” and “in our opinion”) used to be purposefully vague.”
Love me some linguistics. Got in a fight w/a GF once because she asked if I *could* ever cheat on her as opposed to if I *would* ever cheat on her. Being technically correct didn’t seem to help me in that situation.
Of course only insiders know what really went down, but the educated guesses don’t seem that off especially considering the regulations I linked to, Apple citing accounting regulations, and Avid saying that the software updates it provide to customers free of charge were accounted for incorrectly. These days unless you have given Avid money in the past 12 months (either via subscription or annual support contract) you aren’t getting a thing from them, not even bug fixes, and that’s a far cry from a company that routinely provided free bug fixes going back 2-3 versions.
[John Rofrano] “…and BTW, after owning and building Windows computers for 30+ years, my 2010 Mac Pro is built way more solid than anything that PC manufactures sell you”
I agree with you about the build quality, but I’m not really a fan of the lack of user upgradeability (especially with the nMPs still costing top dollar even though they haven’t changed in two years). With so many apps leveraging the GPU these days just swapping out an old GFX card (or cards) can breathe new life into a machine.
-
Sorry for the slow response, but got pretty busy at work this week.
[Bill Davis] “If any company says they MUST do something because of the threat of a fine – that nobody actually ever pays – they are being irrational – and so there must be another valid reason they choose to behave the way they do.”
Your opinion about Adobe is pretty clear but you haven’t said much about Avid or Apple. If these accounting regulations don’t matter then why did Avid withhold filings from the SEC, get delisted from NASDAQ, sit back as their stock tanked and possibly open themselves up to a class action lawsuit from the segment of the investor class that invested in Avid? Why not just keep doing business as usual? Or if they want to switch gears (dumping the old upgrade model in favor of a subscription option and an annual support contract option) then why not just switch gears like Adobe did with CC?
Why voluntarily go through all this headache?
https://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Avid+Tech+(AVID)+Unlikely+to+Regain+Compliance+with+SEC+Filing+Requirements%3B+Names+New+Audit+Firm/9034033.html“As previously reported, the Company is in the process of restating its financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 and for its quarterly periods ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, June 30, 2012 and 2011, and March 31, 2012 and 2011. The restatement relates to the Company’s accounting treatment of certain upgrades, enhancements and compatibility extensions (collectively “Software Updates”) it previously made available to certain of its customers at no-charge. The Company has determined that such Software Updates should have been accounted for as implied post-contract customer support (“PCS”) under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). As a result of the pending restatement of prior financial results, the Company is not current in its periodic report filing requirements with the SEC.
.
.
.
Company has made significant progress toward completion of the restatement, including evaluating transactions over an eight-and-a-half year period, encompassing a review of approximately 5 million transaction lines and 700 software releases.
.
.
.
The Company cannot at this time estimate the full impact of the adjustments of revenue and costs, and the related impact on income taxes, on any previously issued financial statements for any individual reporting period, although it may be significant. “With regards to Apple, I’m trying to think of the end game for charing iPod users for iOS updates (but not iPhone users), for charging to enable 802.11n wifi on Macs with 802.11n radios (initially disabled because the spec wasn’t ratified before the Macs went on sale), and for requiring Mac users at one point to buy FaceTime for 99 cents from the Mac App store. One the surface it seems rather arbitrary and not like Apple, but if you look at it through though the prism of this discussion you might notice a pattern (and a lack of subscriptions).
I stumbled across this article from 2007 about Apple and charging for the wifi upgrade. It says many of the things Tim has already said in multiple threads, but it’s still worth reading.
https://www.cnet.com/news/apples-802-11n-accounting-conundrum/“‘During the past several months Apple has shipped some Macs with the hardware to support 802.11n, but the draft of the 802.11n specification was not complete enough to create the required software,” Apple spokeswoman Lynn Fox said in an e-mail to CNET News.com. “Now that the draft specification is complete, we are ready to distribute the software to make the 802.11n hardware in these Macs come to life.”‘
But because the company has already recognized all the revenue from the sales of those computers, it has to now charge customers at least a nominal fee in order to establish the value of its software upgrade and satisfy an obscure accounting regulation known as SOP 97-2, said Fox.
Apple didn’t have to do it this way, say accounting experts. But the company most likely faced difficult choices in relation to the upgrade: It could have held off on shipping the new Macs until the upgrade software was ready. It could have skipped the 802.11n capabilities altogether. Or it could have deferred revenue from the new Macs until the software was ready–all unlikely and unpalatable options.
.
.
.
That means a company in this situation would have to defer all the revenue associated with the product until it can establish the value of the Wi-Fi upgrade, or until it delivers the complete set of software, said Brett Trueman, a professor of accounting with the Anderson Business School at the University of California at Los Angeles. So, Apple would have had to defer all the revenue for Macs sold with the 802.11n chips from September until it delivers the upgrade in February, and that’s not a realistic option.
.
.
.
There’s absolutely nothing in the GAAP requirements that says Apple must charge its customers for that software upgrade. The only requirement imposed by GAAP is that Apple must account for the separate value of the 802.11n capability, said MIT’s LaFond.”That last part goes back to the point that of course no one forced Adobe to go subscription only, but the laws are different if you sell a subscription vs sell a production.
Just for a bonus, he’s a bit I found about why software companies are always vague about upcoming features/roadmaps.
https://blog.bi101.com/revenue-recognition/roadmaps-and-revenue-recognition-for-software-companies“Although sales may like roadmaps, accounting does not. According to GAAP rules on revenue recognition for software companies, producing a roadmap can be viewed as a commitment to provide the customer all of the services and enhancements listed. If the contract is construed in such a way that the roadmap appears to be a commitment to provide future services, all revenue has to be deferred until the enhancements have been delivered.”
Besides not really talking about Avid or Apple you also haven’t really spoke to other related things I’ve brought up like the rise of subscription, ad supported and/or freemuim business models across many different types of software. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the business models for selling/monetizing IP (software, music, movies, TV shows, etc.,) have really diversified over the last 5-10 years. The landscape is shifting and it many cases it’s being driven by consumer behavior. Look at music sales for example. A decade ago it was all about the iTMS, and subscription streaming services like Rhapsody were pin-head sized blips on the radar. Now downloadable music sales have leveled off and the big growth sector is streaming music services.
With regards to companies longing to get your CC #, I agree and it’s why Apple routinely trumpets that it has hundreds of millions of active iTunes users with credit cards on file. That certainly makes it an attractive looking business partner since getting customers to open up their wallets can be a big sticking point.
Since the broader economic/political discussion seems unavoidable, I generally agree with what you have said Bill though sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
-Andrew
EDIT: Fixed some spelling errors. Sure there are more.
-
No problem. It’s what the COW is for.
-
[David Lawrence] “As I pointed out in another thread, all Adobe has to do is apply the Acrobat DC model to the rest of their creative applications. Or they could do what Avid is doing, or maybe get creative and invent something new. Choice would not be rocket science *if* they wanted to offer it.”
Or not, (see linked thread for my previous response).
All companies fail to offer choices that would suit all potential customers. I’d be happier with Apple if they offered more choices on a number of fronts, but they don’t so I shop elsewhere. C’est la vie.
-
[Bill Davis] “Are you telling me that not a single executive has done wrong in the whole decade? “
No, what I’m telling you is we are having two separate discussions. I’m discussing how SOX impacts how publicly companies in the US do business (specifically, Adobe, Avid and Apple). You are speculating on the politics behind the law.
Who wants a car analogy? Everyone? Great! I’m saying a speed limit of X influences the speed people drive because they don’t want to violate the law and get a ticket. You are saying the set speed limit is only set at X because government lackeys want to help line the pockets of their private industry masters. I’m not agreeing with you or disagreeing with you, I’m just not having that discussion.
-
[Tim Wilson] “Avid’s “buyout” solution is the only one that will actually work, which is, at whatever point you’ve decided that you’re ready to stop subscribing and would like to buy, you can buy at full price. Full stop. No discounts.”
To expand on this, once you pay full price for a perpetual license (which includes a one year service contract valued at $299) you have to keep paying for the $299 service contract each year if you want any (and I mean ANY) new code from Avid. If you don’t renew the $299 service contract then you have to pay full price again ($1299). Given Avid’s history of releasing bug fixes for old versions of MC I was very surprised to see that perpetual license owners no longer get bug fixes unless they have an active annual support contract.
So, for example, you might be eligible to get MC 9.0.0 when it comes out, but if you let your support lapse and then 9.0.1 comes out with a lot of bug fixes you are stuck with 9.0.0. The only way to get access to 9.0.1 is to pay the full $1299 again or to go the subscription route.
[Bill Davis] “I know this is becoming the conventional wisdom, but I really think it’s deeply flawed thinking.”
Can you expand with specifics on why you think SOX having an impact on software monetization practices by publicly traded companies is deeply flawed thinking?
Apple cited having to comply with certain accounting practices (presumably SOX) when it charged for things like iOS updates to iPod users and FaceTime and 802.11n upgrades to Mac users.
Adobe employees have publicly commented on how going to a subscription model has changed how they can do business (in part because of SOX).
Avid had some accounting problems that need to be fixed (presumably to comply with SOX) and it took so long that they got delisted from NASDAQ until they finally started filing paper work with the SEC again.
Whether or not the regulations were created in back rooms filled with conspirators puffing on cigars is a separate issue than whether or not the regulations are applicable to the situation(s) being discussed.
[David Lawrence] “Does anyone honestly believe that if Adobe wanted to sell software, they would be allowed or couldn’t work out a loophole to make it possible? “
That’s never been up for debate, David. Adobe can choose to sell software or choose to offer it as a subscription or choose to buy up all the Hostess IP and include Twinkies and Ho-Hos with every new subscription. But… for publicly traded companies in the US the rules are different if a product is being sold vs a subscription being sold, and that’s where SOX comes in.
Could Adobe do the same thing Avid is doing? Yes, though I think it would be significantly more difficult for Adobe to pull it off because they offer so many more programs than what Avid is offering. Could Adobe offer an ‘off ramp’? I’m not an accounting expert so I don’t know, but just from what I’ve read it doesn’t seem like that’s feasible (Avid doesn’t offer an ‘off ramp’ from it’s subscription service either). Could Adobe offer different bundles (kinda like the different CS bundles)? I don’t see why not and it’s a suggestion I’ve officially submitted to Adobe.
To be honest, when Avid announced its new business model last year I talked with a number of editors that wondered why can’t Avid just make it as simple as Adobe? It also doesn’t help that Avid lost SciptSync, downgraded to Boris Lite, etc.,. I think that added to the confusion as well. As Apple has proven, there is something to be said for not giving people options (even if people ask for them).
I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that NONE of the big three, publicly traded companies that sell NLE software offer a ‘traditional’ upgrade path anymore. It’s currently either subscription, pay once and get free upgrades for life (so far), or buy an annual support contract. The days of paying full price on the onset and then paying a reduced price (via an upgrade discount) on the new version every year or two seems to be dead.
-
[Craig Alan] “Until your new Mac requires a new OS that does not support FCP legacy. “
Keep an old Mac ‘frozen in time’ until it breaks and can no longer be repaired. Personally, I prefer Walter Soyka opinion on this problem, push for more open project formats so it’s easier to take a project from one NLE to another.
[Bret Williams] “Not being able to open old projects just because you didn’t pay the bil”
If you can’t save or export what are you going to do with it? You could download a free, 30-day trial.
[Craig Alan] “Or maybe just allow end users to buy the current version of the software for an additional fee. Kinda of like buying the car you have been leasing.”
Tim has mentioned before how this option isn’t very viable due to unintended consequences from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
-Andrew