Adobe shows off new Creative Cloud features with across the board updates

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 127
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,214moderator
    The Adobe keynote where they show some of the new features is here:


    [VIDEO]


    [VIDEO]


    [VIDEO]


    They show some things they can do with the cloud syncing like saving application presets, brushes etc and being able to install those on a new machine e.g if you had a laptop and desktop, you can sync settings between them. They have a color palette tool so you could be sitting with your phone, see a document in a magazine or object and want to use the colors. They show using the app to extract the palette, it syncs the color palette to the cloud and you can refresh it in the desktop app to start working with it.

    They demo using the $25,000 font library of 700 fonts to install desktop fonts. That's quite good for syncing desktop/laptop because they can pull the same fonts from the cloud and use compatible ones on the web. Another feature is document version control in cloud hosted files as well as previews. So if you made a layout in Indesign, if it's synced to the cloud, it can be shown to someone on a mobile phone or tablet. Those features are helpful if you are at a job interview and take a tablet as it's a quick way to show off a recent portfolio and collaborative hosting has obvious uses. There's a demo of live mobile device testing for responsive website design. They mention the possibilities of having cloud compute for mobile too and that's been seen in some mobile apps. They also said about the possibilities of crowd-sourced data for improving the software. Naturally they'll get a better understanding of what people are doing and can see where the most improvement is needed.

    The license is for two machines so for a student, they can even get an install from a version their parent pays for and uses. Or two really hard up people could split the fee e.g student roommates. They'd just be sharing the storage and things too.

    They have a video here of an artist who uses Photoshop to make some cool artwork. It's nothing to do with the cloud but interesting video:


    [VIDEO]
  • Reply 82 of 127
    rcfarcfa Posts: 762member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



    The Adobe keynote where they show some of the new features [...] They show some things they can do with the cloud syncing like saving application presets, brushes etc and being able to install those on a new machine [...etc...]


     


    All of the above could be done with an optional cloud service or by adding support for iCloud to regular products. No reason/excuse for their new licensing scheme.


     



    They also said about the possibilities of crowd-sourced data for improving the software. Naturally they'll get a better understanding of what people are doing and can see where the most improvement is needed.


     


    In other words: more spying on what people are doing. Like I don't spend enough efforts to block out Google, Fassbook and others from spying on me, now I invite the spies directly on my computer and let them analyze my work. What's next? With AI they crowd-source design trends, and indirectly steal people's creative ideas?


     


    Given that Adobe won't listen to feedback real users send to their bug reporting channels, I really don't need them to "listen" to some behind the back gathered user statistics. 


     


     


    Anyone who doesn't like Adobe's policy should make their voice heard here:


     


    http://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model

  • Reply 83 of 127
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,214moderator
    rcfa wrote: »
    All of the above could be done with an optional cloud service or by adding support for iCloud to regular products.

    They explain in the videos how they differ from other cloud services. iCloud or other services like it wouldn't work well as Adobe couldn't guarantee their reliability and cross-platform support and couldn't do things like loading layered file previews in a browser. The services could be optional just like vehicle insurance can be optional but it makes certain things feasible and cost-effective when everyone supports it.
    rcfa wrote: »
    In other words: more spying on what people are doing. Like I don't spend enough efforts to block out Google, Fassbook and others from spying on me, now I invite the spies directly on my computer and let them analyze my work. What's next? With AI they crowd-source design trends, and indirectly steal people's creative ideas?

    The part they mentioned crowdsourcing on was their cloud processing but they will probably track most popular fonts used and their Behance community can track certain things that people choose to make public. I don't know how they'd be able to leverage any data about design trends in a negative way. For example, would providing more Sans-Serif typefaces if they found people used them more be considered a privacy invasion? This website is probably tracking you in a more harmful way than Adobe could.

    At the end of the day, Adobe is a business and like all businesses, they make decisions about their future and where they want to be. If those decisions aren't popular, other businesses will compete and people will vote with their wallets.

    The following site says they currently have an install base of 8.4 million CS Suites and 4.4 million point products:

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57583370-92/how-greedy-is-adobes-creative-cloud-subscription-not-very/

    They have said they are on track to get 1.25 million subscriptions by the end of the year and aim to get 4 million by 2015. As noted here, this is less money than they currently make:

    http://www.zdnet.com/adobe-says-q2-on-track-analysts-eye-creative-cloud-projections-7000014943/

    "In FY10 management indicated the addressable market included 6.7m Creative Pros, 10.6m @Work Creatives, and 22m Education. We note $40/month long term value on 4 million ending subs in 2015 implies a ~$2bn annual recurring revenue stream."

    Right now they make $3b in revenue from CS apps ($4b total) so the transition has some risk. They can easily turn back on one-off payments but this setup has advantages. There are some other subscription numbers in the following document:

    http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/investor-relations/PDFs/Q113_Earnings_Script_FINAL_Draft_FOR_RELEASE.pdf

    They'll likely have a new set of projections at the end of q2 and that should give a better idea about the uptake.
  • Reply 84 of 127
    jabohnjabohn Posts: 525member


    Those guys are smiling so much in that video, not because the new features are so cool, but because they see the money truck backing up at Adobe headquarters.

  • Reply 85 of 127
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,214moderator
    jabohn wrote: »
    Those guys are smiling so much in that video, not because the new features are so cool, but because they see the money truck backing up at Adobe headquarters.

    The money truck isn't new though. They already make $4b per year. Also, I keep reading that they will indefinitely sell CS 6. They haven't stopped selling the old products:

    http://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/cs6._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_creativesuite6.html?start=10

    They're just not updating it. After a few years, the CS 6 Suite will get a bit old and the cloud apps will look a lot more appealing. In the interim, I suspect they'll let the market decide what's best. By continuing to offer the CS 6 Suite, that will lessen the risk in moving to the new model.
  • Reply 86 of 127
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nagromme View Post



    Ill be buying some PS alternative. We'll see how much I can use it, and how soon I can get away from Adobe entirely. It's not easy: Adobe has a real stranglehold on us.



    But this I know: whatever files I create in a non-Photoshop app I can still access even after I close my business. Adobe wants to control my personal archive of my own creative work--forever. UNACCEPTABLE.


     


    If this is really as intolerable however it shakes out in the end as you currently suggest, especially for people who use 1-2 apps, some of the alternative options will likely pick up a lot of investment dollars. In my experience things like GIMP/Pixelmator are fine if you can work within their feature sets and don't work on massive files. Adobe's software can handle some immense file sizes. Brushes still lag if you try to use 2k+ pixel brushes, but there are better ways to do really coarse stuff even on a massive document. Some of the real media brushes are fairly math intensive due to really being a combination of many brushes under the hood with additional calculations. Personally I wish they would work more on the stability of core tools rather than keep adding features. Looking at specifically photoshop, even version 3 was really quite functional. Many of the feature updates after that were more quality of life rather than what it could actually do. I do think the brush updates were necessary. The old brushes had too many unusable features when it came to pressure sensitivity and quirks with how it would sample long flowing strokes.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post




    Apple buying Adobe would be amazing. They are two very successful companies and their business model and organization might be difficult to unify though.



    No it would not, and I'm perfectly willing to explain the reasoning here. Adobe is in so many industries some of which rely on niche feature sets. The problems with Apple taking them over are two-fold. One is that Apple is all about streamlining as much as possible, which seems great until they break something you require that lacks a suitable replacement. The second problem is that it wouldn't be a big enough deal for Apple. Adobe's revenue stream is tiny compared to what Apple brings in, so they would not be compelled to keep things more up to date than Adobe. If anything it would be a negative step. Pixelmator would make more sense, but there isn't any room to bring down pricing. Anyway one company just eating its larger constituents doesn't help anyone in the end. The employees aren't better off. It generally doesn't help the shareholders in the longer term. It doesn't help the customer base. It just makes a nice meme.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    The money truck isn't new though. They already make $4b per year. Also, I keep reading that they will indefinitely sell CS 6. They haven't stopped selling the old products:



    http://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/cs6._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_creativesuite6.html?start=10



    They're just not updating it. After a few years, the CS 6 Suite will get a bit old and the cloud apps will look a lot more appealing. In the interim, I suspect they'll let the market decide what's best. By continuing to offer the CS 6 Suite, that will lessen the risk in moving to the new model.


    I suspect things will shake out, but they are thinking several years out here. I think you alluded to this in one of these threads, but it may be partly a desire to eventually fold some of these apps together.

  • Reply 87 of 127
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,214moderator
    hmm wrote: »
    I suspect things will shake out, but they are thinking several years out here. I think you alluded to this in one of these threads, but it may be partly a desire to eventually fold some of these apps together.

    I think code maintenance is a big part of it too - they mentioned that their engineers prefer the new setup. If you imagine they are adding features and bug fixes constantly through the year, how do they package those into a standalone release? At some point, they'd have to take a snapshot, remove the cloud features and package it up. But then they have to update that branched code separately. Then they have to do that the following year. The easiest route is really just to leave CS 6 as it is, keep selling it and move onto a new code base. It makes more sense from a support point of view too because they don't have to deal with people contacting them about still being on CS 2 and it not working with their new OS, all they have to say is 'update to the latest version'.
  • Reply 88 of 127
    idaveidave Posts: 1,283member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    I think code maintenance is a big part of it too - they mentioned that their engineers prefer the new setup. If you imagine they are adding features and bug fixes constantly through the year, how do they package those into a standalone release? At some point, they'd have to take a snapshot, remove the cloud features and package it up. But then they have to update that branched code separately. Then they have to do that the following year. The easiest route is really just to leave CS 6 as it is, keep selling it and move onto a new code base. It makes more sense from a support point of view too because they don't have to deal with people contacting them about still being on CS 2 and it not working with their new OS, all they have to say is 'update to the latest version'.




    Thanks, that's one of the most reasonable explanations I've heard. Makes me a little less frustrated with Adobe.


     


    I still hate the fact that I'll probably be stuck with Dreamweaver CS6 forever. But I don't use it enough to justify paying Adobe $20 per month.

  • Reply 89 of 127
    danielswdanielsw Posts: 905member


    Damn skippy I'm arrogant. And I'm more than a little impatient with people like you who somehow expect the world to be "fair." Get a clue. It isn't. Adobe has been trying this new system out, and apparently it's working well enough for them to be making this paradigm shift. So you poor fence sitting dilettantes get left in the dust. Boo hoo. Time for you to make a choice, maybe. Put up with (eventually) outdated Adobe products, or jump in the deep end and go into business for yourself and get your production up so that you CAN afford CC.

  • Reply 90 of 127
    rcfarcfa Posts: 762member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



    I think code maintenance is a big part of it too - they mentioned that their engineers prefer the new setup. If you imagine they are adding features and bug fixes constantly through the year, how do they package those into a standalone release? At some point, they'd have to take a snapshot, remove the cloud features and package it up. But then they have to update that branched code separately. Then they have to do that the following year. The easiest route is really just to leave CS 6 as it is, keep selling it and move onto a new code base. It makes more sense from a support point of view too because they don't have to deal with people contacting them about still being on CS 2 and it not working with their new OS, all they have to say is 'update to the latest version'.


     


    Actually, that's a totally bogus reasoning. There is no need to remove any cloud features. If a person doesn't have a cloud subscription, these features simply don't work because the authentication to the cloud services will fail. Apple dosn't have two versions of iTunes either, one for those who subscribed to iTunes Match and one for those who didn't. Similarly, you can use OS X without using iCloud, although Apple tries to suck you into using it when you set up your computer the first time, but you can skip it, and use no syncing or sync with Google Contacts, Outlook, etc.


    If Adobe isn't completely incompetent, they can ship exactly the same code for retail packaging and cloud subscribers.


     


    This is all about how to extract annual revenue streams knowing that there will be fewer and fewer new and compelling features in these software packages, and that people will upgrade ever less often if not forced into a subscription scheme.


     


    For a long time, the massive speed of innovation at the hardware and OS level did enough to force people to constantly upgrade. Now with reasonably stable OS APIs, CPU and 64-bit transitions completed, and hardware being fast enough for all but the most demanding projects, the forced upgrade cycle is broken, but the sense of entitlement of making money without actual true innovation, that is there.


     


    So users will have to bleed such that share holders won't pay the price for a maturing technology.


     


     


    Anyone who doesn't like Adobe's policy should make their voice heard here:


     


    http://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model

  • Reply 91 of 127
    rcfarcfa Posts: 762member

    Quote:


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post




    Apple buying Adobe would be amazing. They are two very successful companies and their business model and organization might be difficult to unify though.



    No it would not, and I'm perfectly willing to explain the reasoning here. Adobe is in so many industries some of which rely on niche feature sets. The problems with Apple taking them over are two-fold. One is that Apple is all about streamlining as much as possible, which seems great until they break something you require that lacks a suitable replacement. The second problem is that it wouldn't be a big enough deal for Apple. Adobe's revenue stream is tiny compared to what Apple brings in, so they would not be compelled to keep things more up to date than Adobe. If anything it would be a negative step. Pixelmator would make more sense, but there isn't any room to bring down pricing. Anyway one company just eating its larger constituents doesn't help anyone in the end. The employees aren't better off. It generally doesn't help the shareholders in the longer term. It doesn't help the customer base. It just makes a nice meme.


     



     


    That Apple may not want to do that for a variety of reasons is one thing, but the reasons you mention are hardly it, because they would have applied to the purchase of the Final Cut software, Shake, Logic, etc. all of which were acquired by Apple.


     


    Apple has an interest in controlling software that is strategic to its platform. Apple could simply discontinue the PC versions of these software products, just as they discontinued the PC versions of Logic, and never published a PC version of FinalCut, or killed PC versions of shake.


     


    That would bring in essentially the entire graphics design community to the Mac, and the Mac sales' future value, along with making the software more consistent with the OS, and integrated with Apple's own cloud services holds considerable value.


     


    In addition, the Adobe patent portfolio may be rather helpful in Apple's current and future IP litigation, so just as Kodak's patents were worth buying, so Adobe's patents have a clear value for Apple.

  • Reply 92 of 127
    rcfarcfa Posts: 762member

    Quote:


    I am an existing customer, but read the fine print, 30/mo is an introductory rate for the first year which is $360 for the year, it goes up to $50 following that which is $600 per year. I need Photoshop, InDesign, and Acrobat. Updates used to be about every 18 months, so $400 for an upgrade was $267 a year, and I didn't have to upgrade when I felt that CS4 wasn't worth it, so $400 for CS3 lasted me over 3 years. In the long run this costs a lot more.



     


    More importantly: what does make people think that once Adobe has you all by the balls as subscribers, these subscription rates will not massively increase in the future? How does $60, $75 or $99 per month sound? Grudgingly accepted that? Let's go to the next challenge: $119, $125, $149...


     


    Just think of it as the same game the oil companies play with gas prices. They'll always have a reason for the next hike: new features, inflation, compliance with some new laws regarding cloud services, etc.


     


    Just like government taxes tend to go up, so these sort of taxes by corporations go up, except in that case, you have no vote to vote them out of office.

  • Reply 93 of 127
    rcfarcfa Posts: 762member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by polymnia View Post



    Sure, you are stuck paying $50/month into perpetuity to use the 'camera' in your metaphor. But the part you leave out is that it is a Nikon D4x right now. And in a year it is the Nikon D5. Not to mention every lens Nikon makes is included in the deal. Oh, yeah, also every lens Nikon is going to make is included.



    I mean, sure, I could find $25000 to buy a fully equipped SLR system, but I'd prefer to subscribe to the $50/month option than buy all that equipment that will become obsolete over time.



    You do have to keep paying $50/month to use this kit, but its a small price to pay if that is your business.


     


    The key difference, when you buy something, YOU make the decision on when to spend the money. You can make do without the latest gear, in a pinch, and upgrade and splurge when the money train has arrived.


     


    Particularly in times of rising economic uncertainty, being able to control the timing of expenses can be crucial to economical survival, if that weren't the case, then everyone who doesn't rack up his credit card debt and "only pay small monthly installments" were an idiot.


     


    Adobe's move takes exactly that control away from you. It's only $50 some say. Maybe, but even $50 is a lot if you don't have it and need it. Further, you don't just use Adobe's products. If this business model becomes the new normal, you're enslaved by recurring monthly payments, and if you can't make them all various pieces of business critical infrastructure just self-destruct, and you end up in a "you can't afford what you can't afford not to afford" situation.


     


    Who wants to live under a dangling sword of destruction?


     


    Nobody went out of business for using a piece of software that was a release or two out of date. But people go out of business not having the tool at all.


     


     


    Anyone who doesn't like Adobe's policy should make their voice heard here:


     


    http://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model

  • Reply 94 of 127
    rcfarcfa Posts: 762member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Kurt Heumiller View Post




    And it also is problematic for larger companies because the rates are based on the number of full time employees. So if only 30% of your staff need it but Adobe's enterprise solution requires to pay for licenses for janitors and security guards... it's not a great deal.



     


    Easy solution: make them all part time employees, and in the process save on health care costs, too... image

  • Reply 95 of 127
    rcfarcfa Posts: 762member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by garbage View Post


    If you actually are an existing customer, instead of a pirate like most of the whiners, the price is 29.99/mo. And you don't have to buy the Master Suite, you can also buy a license for a single app such as photoshop for 19.99.



     


    If you're a first time user a drug dealer will give you everything for free, and really cheap the next time.


     


    Don't you realize this is "introductory pricing" that's exactly designed to hook the stupid with a low price, which then massively increases in the following years?


     


     


    Anyone who doesn't like Adobe's policy should make their voice heard here:


     


    http://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model

  • Reply 96 of 127
    rcfarcfa Posts: 762member


    Given the level of cluelessness I wonder how many of the pro-Adobe entries are written by paid bloggers who spread 


    It's unfortunately in the mean time a common practice to pay people to post on "important" forums positive comments on controversial corporate actions in an effort to shape the debate on the matter.


     


     


    Anyone who doesn't like Adobe's policy should make their voice heard here:


     


    http://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model

  • Reply 97 of 127
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,214moderator
    rcfa wrote:
    More importantly: what does make people think that once Adobe has you all by the balls as subscribers, these subscription rates will not massively increase in the future? How does $60, $75 or $99 per month sound? Grudgingly accepted that? Let's go to the next challenge: $119, $125, $149...

    Or $3,000, $4,000, $10,0000 for the CS Suite. At what point do you stop buying? If you can happily stop buying upgrades then stick with CS 6.

    It's up to Adobe how to run their company. If you don't like how they are doing it then complain at all the other companies like Quark that aren't offering competitive products. It's not Adobe's fault that they make better creative tools than anyone else.

    Adobe's offering what a lot of customers want. There are students saying they could never afford to get the software before but the low subscription fees are easy to manage. There was someone who was retired and on a fixed income and could never save up the amount to buy a standalone suite but can pay a small monthly fee no problem. Contrary to what you are saying, the low income demographic seems to prefer this model as it removes the huge entry barrier.
    rcfa wrote:
    The key difference, when you buy something, YOU make the decision on when to spend the money. You can make do without the latest gear, in a pinch, and upgrade and splurge when the money train has arrived.

    Particularly in times of rising economic uncertainty, being able to control the timing of expenses can be crucial to economical survival

    There's been similar issues with the standalone suite - Adobe backtracked on those issues:

    http://forums.adobe.com/message/4146587
    http://connect.ncircle.com/t5/Sync-Blog/Adobe-Users-Forced-To-Pay-For-Security-Updates/ba-p/2935

    Adobe was going to expire support for the old suite so people felt the need to upgrade within weeks (note, they mention things being 'tight'). People had the option not to pay it but for people who felt the need to, it was a hefty upgrade fee and far worse than paying an expected subscription.

    When you sign up to a new mobile phone, you don't always anticipate financial trouble either but people don't exclusively buy prepay phones. While you can't use the Adobe software outside of the subscription, you can save files in formats that can be used in other apps.
    rcfa wrote:
    Given the level of cluelessness I wonder how many of the pro-Adobe entries are written by paid bloggers who spread
    It's unfortunately in the mean time a common practice to pay people to post on "important" forums positive comments on controversial corporate actions in an effort to shape the debate on the matter.

    There's been a lot of pro-Pixelmator posts, how many of those people are paid? Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they are paid-off.

    This type of payment method is in use quite a lot with accountancy software:

    http://quickbooks.intuit.com/proplus/

    Businesses (large and small) all over the world depend on these to track yearly accounts - they have nearly 4 million subscribers. They also have a subscription iPad app:

    http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/14/quickbooks-online-for-ipad-isnt-a-boring-accounting-app-its-a-simple-crm/

    You could similarly suggest that when things get tight, you can't record your accounts but people do it all the same because the reality is that even as much as $50 in a month doesn't make or break a business model. If you have a tight month, stick it on a credit card and pay it later.

    Nobody is suggesting paying for things is pleasant but regular income is necessary for a sustainable business. Why do you think Warren Buffet got into the insurance business? Your preferred business model puts companies out of business. Look at Avid's finances:

    http://ir.avid.com/results.cfm

    Revenues of $127m in Q3 2012 vs $165m in Q3 2011. Net loss of $17.4m vs $7.6m. Imagine that continues and the company goes bankrupt in a few years. Where does that leave the customers? They can keep using the software and never update anything but eventually, they have to switch to something else and businesses will. Or Avid can do what Blackberry does and Adobe is now doing and maintain a loyal subscriber base that likes their products and is happy to support them.

    If it doesn't work out for Adobe, they'll make a change and offer a new perpetual license option. The uptake of the Creative Cloud has been faster than they expected and they have more positive reviews about it than any of their other products. If it starts to become a problem, that's when they can make adjustments to their business plan, not when it's doing better than expected.
  • Reply 98 of 127
    rcfarcfa Posts: 762member


    Yes, Adobe could theoretically charge even more for the sale of its products, but there are psychological barriers to how much the market will bear, and they are higher in TCO when charged in installments. Also, Adobe's products are quite overpriced already, and going to a subscription allows them to hide that fact.


    Whenever people talk affordable monthly payments, rather than about the net present value (NPV) of these cumulative payments over time, we already know these people got fooled and don't know how to do math.


     


    Adobe's tools are good, but they are only "the best" because they are "the only" game in town. The problem is not that others can't make tools, the problem is that Adobe bought up a lot of the competition such as to be the only game in town. Further, any sort of competition has to fight the network effects. Just like it's very hard for anyone to compete with MS Word/MS Office. Not because the MS products are that great, but because everyone is using them, and therefore you have to use them, too, if you need to be able to exchange files. It's a self-feeding vicious cycle. Unless a company the size of Apple or Google or MS wants to get into that market, throw their brand, credibility and financial power behind a competing product, any competition, regardless how good, will remain a niche player for many years to come. That's the problem with many high-tech problems: that they are partially by nature, and partially by design, not interchangeable and create a lock-in. That lock in becomes problematic when the company in question starts to exploit it in a way that removes choices from users.


     


    Nobody in their right mind complains when a subscription model is AN OPTION, the complaints are legitimate if it's the ONLY OPTION. There are situations when renting is better than buying, and vice versa. That should be left to the user to decide what works better for them.


    Many independent contractors, hobbyists, artists, etc. have feast-famine cycles, and that's when subscriptions of all sorts start to be problematic. For a business it can be convenient, because a business without relevant cash flow ceases to exist, and it may have tax advantages to have the subscription as a recurring expense. But not everyone using that software is or should be a business in that sense. 


    I'm glad you mention the cell phone example: yes, not everyone buys an unlocked phone at full price or uses pre-pay plans, but they do exist, people do have that option. If they choose to go for the "subsidized" phone and accordingly excessive monthly plan and huge international roaming fees, that's their choice, either because they have been duped by lack of math skills, or because they decided it's better for their circumstances. The point is that this CHOICE has been taken away as far as Adobe's products go.


     


    Yes, you're also right that a company needs income streams to be sustainable. But a company also has to be able to adapt. Just because a company needs to grow during a cycle of rapid innovation doesn't mean it has to retain that inflated size when things slow down. As long as meaningful innovation happens, people will buy the products and upgrades, and if meaningful innovations stop, yes, then sales will fall, revenue go down, and it's time for the company to shrink in size. It's a way to increase economic inefficiency to simply force people to finance a company that's too big for its own good by entering a forced subscription scheme because the company isn't innovating anymore at a rate where product upgrades finance operations.


     


    It's also improper to use the tie-in to leverage one product for another. Just as it wasn't proper for MS to use their desktop OS dominance to push their browser through bundling, so it's not proper to use the graphics tools dominance to push some cloud service by bundling the two. It creates an unfair competitive advantage by lowering the cost of the cloud service to those who want to use it, by forcing people to share the cost in it, who don't want to use it; a luxury a competitor likely doesn't have.


     


     


    Anyone who doesn't like Adobe's policy should make their voice heard here:


     


    http://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model

  • Reply 99 of 127
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,214moderator
    rcfa wrote: »
    Nobody in their right mind complains when a subscription model is AN OPTION, the complaints are legitimate if it's the ONLY OPTION. The point is that this CHOICE has been taken away as far as Adobe's products go.

    They've said they will sell CS 6 indefinitely so you do have a choice. After a few years when it's outdated, it will seem like a poor value choice but it's still a choice just like buying an older prepay phone vs a new contract phone.
    rcfa wrote: »
    As long as meaningful innovation happens, people will buy the products and upgrades, and if meaningful innovations stop, yes, then sales will fall, revenue go down, and it's time for the company to shrink in size.

    On some level I agree with that but some software developments can take years of research. If the company upsized and downsized based on feature releases, where does the cashflow come from to do the research? Some of the research might be worthwhile even if it doesn't make it into a feature release for another decade.
    rcfa wrote: »
    It's also improper to use the tie-in to leverage one product for another. Just as it wasn't proper for MS to use their desktop OS dominance to push their browser through bundling, so it's not proper to use the graphics tools dominance to push some cloud service by bundling the two. It creates an unfair competitive advantage by lowering the cost of the cloud service to those who want to use it, by forcing people to share the cost in it, who don't want to use it; a luxury a competitor likely doesn't have.

    That's the case with any OS though. PC manufacturers bundle Windows, which gives Microsoft a competitive advantage over Linux. Adobe doesn't have a lot of customers (12.8 million) so it's not really what you can call an unfair advantage when there are 350m PCs sold per year. There's plenty of opportunity for competition but it tends to happen in separate areas. Adobe's strength is having a whole suite of apps together.

    For the most part, their software is some of the most dependable professional software you can get. I don't think it's like Office in the sense they are a monopoly. I think they've earned their place with creative professionals. They mentioned how much code they changed from one CS release to another and it was in the millions. A lot of software companies don't have the resources to make, maintain and test software that complex. That's why I'd say there's so little competition, not because they are anti-competitive.
  • Reply 100 of 127
    rcfarcfa Posts: 762member


    CS6 is a choice now. But we all know how crappy Adobe's code is (well, at least those of us who care to pay attention), so chances are CS6 will be broken with one of the next major OS updates, like just about every version of CS before. That means by the time one or two major OS updates are out, it's not an option anymore.


     


    And since Apple doesn't allow the installation of an older OS on a newer computer because they don't back-port drivers, running an older OS that's compatible, isn't an option either.


     


    As for Adobe changing a lot of code: that may be the case, but that's the result of their lousing coding practices:


     


    e.g. resource names are not centrally defined and then used by reference in all the code that uses them, instead they are inlined in various places. How do I know? Because Adobe software won't run on a case sensitive file system, which is only a problem if you refer to a file in one place with one case, and in another place by a different case. Otherwise a case sensitive file system is transparent to the software.


     


    e.g. instead of having a platform independent code for image processing, and a platform specific and platform conformant GUI, they schlepp around their own OS by creating a complicated cross-platform layer, and their own GUI libraries that do just about everything differently than the native OS. That's a lot of coding work that in the end makes their software worse.


     


    e.g. they refused to get off Carbon for more than a decade, and if Apple hadn't refused to do a 64-bit Carbon port, they'd still be using it. Heck, the way they code, I'd think they are more likely to develop under big effort their own 64-bit Carbon library for their own Mac implementation of their own cross-platform UI framework before they adopt Cocoa.


     


    There were of course other companies just as bad: Microsoft (but they started to change a bit earlier) and Macromedia (which was conveniently bought up by Adobe, a match made in hell, which reduced competition to near zero in this market)


     


    BTW: just because Adobe has fewer users than Microsoft doesn't mean they don't have a near monopoly, all it means is that market is smaller. It also means that probably a lot of their software was pirated, which is likely due to the exorbitant pricing they have on their software. While companies like Mathematica, Apple, M$, etc. all come down in software pricing, the company that stuck to the high price strategy of decades ago was Adobe


     


     


    Anyone who doesn't like Adobe's policy should make their voice heard here:


     


    http://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model

Sign In or Register to comment.