Tim Wilson
3
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
This appears to me to go after the Microsoft Surface space in the computing ecosystem more effectively than iPad can, imo. Not at all a bad thing of course.
There will be a lot of people who are looking for something smaller than a laptop, attracted to looking at Surface as a laptop replacement, go to Staples, Walmart, Best Buy, etc., try one and think, “Uhm, that ain’t either a laptop replacement,” then naturally turn to the similarly priced and sized entry from Apple that is, in fact, a laptop. Smart move.
-
[Bill Davis] “I like companies who value doing over talking about doing. “
Yeah, but that’s a false dichotomy. It’s possible to talk about doing without something without getting in the way of doing it. That’s what pretty much everyone does all the time. “What are you working on?” and “What are your plans?” are conversations you have every day. Other companies do. Apple could.
Apple will do whatever Apple does, but saying that them “not talking” helps them “do” is obviously not the case.
It’s not like Intel’s 10 year roadmap is keeping them from actually hitting the milestones. Quite the contrary. It creates dramatically higher accountability to constituencies including customers, partners and stockholders.
Three groups to whom Apple has shown not the least interest in holding itself accountable.
You’re holding the roadmap wrong, Bill. LOL
-
[Bill Davis] “I like companies who value doing over talking about doing. “
Yeah, but that’s a false dichotomy. It’s possible to talk about doing without something without getting in the way of doing it. That’s what pretty much everyone does all the time. “What are you working on?” and “What are your plans?” are conversations you have every day. Same with companies.
Apple will do whatever Apple does, but saying that them “not talking” helps them “do” is obviously not the case.
It’s not like Intel’s 10 year roadmap is keeping them from actually hitting the milestones. Quite the contrary. It creates dramatically higher accountability to constituencies including customers, partners and stockholders.
Three groups to whom Apple has shown not the least interest in holding itself accountable.
You’re holding the roadmap wrong, Bill. LOL
-
[Andrew Kimery] “My only point was that not every publicly traded company is as secretive as Apple. And as much as people complain being secretive has obviously turned out well for Apple and I think is part of their success.”
Very much agreed on both points.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “We prefer the term “branching discussion” and it’s something done amazingly well in the Debate forum. 😉
“The word “nonlinear” fits in here somewhere. 🙂
-
[James Ewart] “All great Empires come to an end and usually it’s when they start to get complacent.”
Except with Apple, where disregard for customers is the bedrock that the company is built on. Steve was talking about how little he valued opinions from customers from the time he launched Mac. (Among the reasons why, even though the Apple II was built on openness, the first thing he did with Mac was seal it shut.) He loudly and viciously mocked companies who asked their customers for input from the beginning. As late as 2008, he was still bragging that they never asked customers for anything.
Obviously a bit rhetorically exaggerated in practice re: FCP/X, but in principle, pretty much on the money.
“Skating to where the puck is” is the nice way to put it. “You a-holes don’t know what you want or what you need, so we’re going to make you want what we WANT you to want, even if you don’t need it” is the way that Steve probably phrased it in his head.
And more often than not, he was right. Apple customers generally like Apple stuff enough to put up with Apple. So I wouldn’t use the word “silly” to describe the desire for openness from Apple as much as “futile” and “self-defeating.”
The issue with openness for those companies who are inclined to be open has historically been revenue recognition. It goes a little something like this.
- If I announce a feature, I have to ship it in 90 days. Hence all those NAB announcements that say “Shipping in June.” June is in the same quarter as NAB in April.
- If I fail to ship within 90 days, I have to set aside the revenue that that feature is worth. Basically placing it in escrow. I don’t get to “receive” that revenue until I deliver the feature. The transaction isn’t complete.
- Some companies are fine with this. They consider it money in the bank…but it’s not even worth talking about unless there’s enough cashflow to not only keep the company on the rails (likely) AND to keep revenue for the product line on track (not necessarily as likely).
These kinds of calculations, though, are massively time consuming. I can give you an example from Avid. This is what EVERY company making promises used to have to go through, so I’m not revealing any secrets. I’m just offering some specifics.
Just as I was arriving there in 2003, they were contemplating what to do about delivering HDV support. There was no way it was happening by June 2004 (ie, the first quarter after the next NAB, which would have made it okay to announce at NAB 2004), but September seemed likely.
Okay, only deferring revenue for a quarter (ie, 90 days after the first 90 day grace period), so a tolerable risk.
So what happens going into NAB 2004? They wanted to ANNOUNCE upcoming HDV support, but because they couldn’t ship the feature 90 days, they had to defer that revenue, right? But HOW MUCH revenue?
This is where things get crazy. Product managers had to work with salespeople and dealers and customers to answer this question: how many sales are we missing because of THIS FEATURE and ONLY this feature? And how much are we missing by? And for people who are buying a new box of Avid software, what’s the exact amount of money that that feature is worth as a PROMISE to those people?
That is, “I’m buying this BECAUSE of the promised HDV support” — but customers can still get most of the value from the product before then. So what’s the delta for not just the value of HDV in general, but the value of HDV for the next 90 days?
So you take that incremental amount and add, you know, profit and stuff.
It’s real work that sucked down a tremendous amount of internal cycles from very conscientious, committed people, some of which would have been devoted to actual product development…but those people were busy trying to figure this stuff out.
If you recall, btw, the answer was $49. If you didn’t want HDV, you didn’t have to pay the $49. HDV would show up in your next paid upgrade anyway. But if you wanted HDV in the next 180 days, Avid’s calculation was that it would be worth $49 to YOU in September.
So THAT’s what the pitch at NAB was. “Get your box of Avid software now, and get HDV support in September for $49.” That HAD to be part of the pitch, or they couldn’t mention HDV at all. Couldn’t even HINT at it without deferring the revenue based on the hint of a feature that wouldn’t be delivered in that quarter.
See why most people avoid all that? No promises, no penalties.
NOW THEN, things are different for Adobe. They’re getting a steady flow of money from customers, and they get it whenever a feature is delivered.
However, there are STRATEGIC reasons for playing specifics close to the vest, even if there aren’t LEGAL reasons. They still have to compete against other companies , so it’s a delicate balance. Still, you see quite a bit of hinting from Adobe folks here, because there’s no risk of running afoul of the SEC….
….and because they’re by and large not dicks. LOL
This is also why so many companies are going subscription RIGHT NOW. You can thank your friends Senator Sarbanes and Representative Oxley. These risks simply didn’t exist a few years ago. But they exist NOW.
You remember all that trouble Avid got in with the SEC and the Justice Department? It was because of the difference between a “bug fix” release, which you HAVE to give away free (because bugs prevent customers from receiving full value” vs. a “feature upgrade” release, which you CAN’T give away free, unless you had set aside the incremental dollar value of that feature (eg, $49 for HDV).
Well, Avid gave away a release with a feature in it (oops), so they had to recalculate millions of transactions BY HAND, going back to 2008.
(BTW, this is grossly oversimplified because I’m NOT an accountant, and I AM an idiot.)
Which is also why, in the end, Avid’s total revenue numbers were still by and large the same. There just needed to be a recalculation of which money for which features landed in which quarters. Fun fun fun.
The workaround for Avid today? Either subscribe, or pay for a service contract, so we don’t have to go through this again — we can just give you fixes or features as they’re ready, because the revenue is accounted for by promising “receive all upgrades during your contract.”
And the only thing you’re promised when you drop OFF the contract is that you’re going to have to either start over from scratch with a new box, OR pay for the upgrade AND the following year of service. No new features no matter what, and so, no revenue to defer no matter what.
What. The.
Anyway, this is what EVERY company making promises had to go through, pre-subscription.
This is the advantage for Adobe that most people don’t talk about: that product managers don’t have to spend time assigning incremental dollar values to features, and do actual calculus to factor those multiple sets of dollar values against the vectors of a projected trajectory of development effort and product deployment, as well as the financial, and potentially legal, costs related to the difference between hitting the target and missing it.
Instead, product managers can focus on…wait for it….products.
AND THAT’S WHY MOST COMPANIES DON’T ANNOUNCE STUFF IN ADVANCE.
But some can hint at some of it because of the vector between being dicks and not. LOL
Andrew, to your point about Microsoft and Intel: there’s a difference between a roadmap and a promise. Those companies rely on partners whose development cycles are years away. Using Microsoft as an example, their installed customer base is so massive that year- or years-long public beta cycles are critical for vendors showing up in the same place at generally the same time (although lord knows there are still drivers not ready, etc, for each new release). If you as a customer want a specific software feature now, you can have it now, for free, for a year or more, so the risks of deferred features are minimized.
(Older folks here may recall that we debated this for weeks around the first announcement of X. Specifically, whether roadmaps exist at all, whether they’re practical, and why Apple are suck dicks — the latter of which wasn’t much of a debate, since even Apple’s biggest fans admit that they can be…well, you know.)
But this is also why MSFT’s key non-OS software is increasingly going subscription. Not just for maximizing revenue over time, but for minimizing very, very real risks. The risk to Microsoft being delisted has implications for world markets, and is just too big to ignore, even for a company that has built its business model on openness. These risks are new, so the response is new.
But to the original point, saying that openness “can’t” be achieved really is demonstrably nonsense. But this is an overlong, overly complex, but not entirely delusional look at the why of the thing.
As always, I heartily invite corrections. This stuff really is interesting to me, and there’s no telling what I got wrong until you actually tell me. LOL
-
[Richard Herd] “[Walter Soyka] “I think the bigger problem is not so much something tagged wrongly versus something wrongly untagged.”
You can start a novel with that sentence.
“I’ve requested that that be engraved as my epitaph.
-
[Oliver Peters] “it doesn’t make a good selling point for FCP X.”
and
[Oliver Peters] “you’ll see that Adobe is making similar points in favor of their tools. Both are good moments – maybe even watershed moments, but neither is going to change the industry very much.”
I’m always amused by “The Cold Mountain moment.” I can’t think of anything that did more to cement Avid’s place in feature editing for the next 10 years than reading about the workflow on Cold Mountain.
On the contrary, I think the Cold Mountain Moment was a turning point for people who were already using FCP, an affirmation that they were on the right track, and that their faith in Apple wasn’t misplaced.
[Insert trenchant observation of your choice here.]
For THAT, the value of the Cold Mountain moment was incalculable.
As you note, Oliver, this doesn’t entirely apply to indie film. Although it does more than many people think. We can argue about the long-term costs, but for a project of finite duration, renting is cheaper, and for most of the past decade, even for purchase, the difference in cost between FCP and Media Composer wasn’t worth talking about.
It really REALLY doesn’t apply to the overwhelming majority of the early push into FCP from Media 100 guys who’d come to the end of that road, and would go on a murderous rampage culminating in self-immolation on the steps of One Infinite Loop, begging for mercy in the next life before they’d consider Avid.
None of which has anything to do with the notion that, whether one agrees it’s ready or not today, X will continue to get better and better for feature editing. There’s simply no question, at least not in the COW. There’s just not.
But it also has nothing to do with whether or not X is suitable, now or ever, to the way I want or need to work. Forget Cold Mountain. I need it to work on my molehill.
So “The Focus Moment” and Light Iron might tell someone everything they need to know about why NOT to use X…even as it will surely provide affirmation to people who already use it.
-
[Mark Raudonis] “Of course when FCP-X came out we totally bailed on FCP and moved to Avid… but that’s another story for another time and place.”
The time was 2012, and the place was right here at Creative COW. 🙂
“‘Real World’ Editing: From Avid to FCP and Back Again,” by Mark Raudonis
The “another time, another place” discussion might begin with the question: How do you feel about the decision a couple of years later? 🙂
-
[Dwayne Shrader] “And then it got stupid…”
I respectfully disagree. HS has standards for what “humane” MEANS, and certifications, schedules, relief facilities, feeding — which of these SHOULDN’T be included in what “humane” means? For a kid, you’d need all this PLUS a tutor.
Heck, for a major location shoot, in order to get a permit, you have to show where port-a-potties were going to go, and proof that you have a contract with someone to pump them out.
If you’re in this business for any length of time, you’re gonna have to deal with some kind of shit or another. LOL
And that’s even not counting when monkeys throw their own at you.
[Dwayne Shrader] “Oh, and then there was the biggie… insurance. You may be required additional insurance on top of what you already carry.”
To find out why, I encourage you to Google “chimpanzee tears off face” and “chimpanzee attack face transplant.” I encourage you NOT to look at the pictures.
