It's not Creative Suite anymore... news from Adobe

[Gabe Strong]

Originally Posted by Kevin Monahan

Hi Gabe,
I see this complaint about the future of Creative Cloud lately; that innovation will slow down, etc. From where I sit, this is not the case at all. In fact, innovation is ramping up. We must continue to innovate to please our current customers, and to provide incentive for others to join the Creative Cloud.

Thanks,
Kevin

Kevin,

Thanks for the comment. Please understand, this is not an attack on you in any way.
(Just for the record, I'm a customer of yours and bought your FCP book back in the day!)
As a matter of fact, I am sure you are right......for now. The part I am worried about is in
two, or four, or 'fill in blank here' years from now. When Adobe has a large, steady base of
customers that are on the cloud system. I have seen subscription based services in many
walks of life. Cable subscriptions and cell phone subscriptions. Even my electric bill. On
all of these, my costs have steadily went up over the past couple years, with no increase in
the services offered. One of the reasons for this may be the near monopoly
status of these groups. You cannot get over the air TV because of the mountainous
area I live. So you either pay for cable or don't get TV. Cell phone companies have
been consolidating and buying each other to form one company, and renting each others
towers. So costs have went up.....but as for service we have 3G service. Why pay to
give more service when you have a group of subscribers with almost no other options?

I am sure that you mean what you say and truly believe Adobe will continue to push
out innovation. And they probably will for a time. I am also sure, that if a decision is made
that 'this is really about as good as it gets and we are going to do mainly bug fixes
from now on' that decision will not come from you but someone else in the company,
that would be more concerned with the bottom line. If they have a bunch of subscribers,
with almost no options, they won't need to spend money on innovation, they will
have a captive audience. I wish you the best with this new subscription model.
Unfortunately, this is where I get off the train. I like Adobe products. A lot. But I
absolutely abhore the subscription model.

[Bryan McCullough]

Originally Posted by Kevin Monahan

Under the former EULA, you can install the software on two computers, but were are only supposed to run one at a time.

Under the new EULA (which will be released with the software), you will be able to install it on two computers and run applications on both computers concurrently. Further, if you have more machines, you can install the software on them, and then activate and deactivate them as you like.

See the FAQ here: Adobe Creative Cloud ? FAQ

From the Getting Started section:
Yes, you can use Creative Cloud desktop applications on two computers at once, regardless of operating system, for the individual associated with the Creative Cloud membership. See the product license agreements page for more information.

Kevin, thanks for that info. Welcome news!

Originally Posted by Kevin Monahan

Hi Gabe,
I see this complaint about the future of Creative Cloud lately; that innovation will slow down, etc. From where I sit, this is not the case at all. In fact, innovation is ramping up. We must continue to innovate to please our current customers, and to provide incentive for others to join the Creative Cloud.

Thanks,
Kevin

I also think the innovation will need to be ramped up. Essentially Adobe now will have to convince me every month to stick with them, versus yearly(ish) now. Now, obviously I'm not going to be jumping from editing system to editing system every other month, but if I ever feel like someone else is worth moving to it will be much easier to do at the end of a month versus trying to amortize a yearly upgrade cost.

[Chris Medico]

I personally hope this single minded license model fails for Adobe. I don't use their products directly and I'm totally pissed about it.

I have feet in the commercial world and in the indie film world. Adobe has just totally alienated and pissed off the entire low budget indie world that has come to heavily rely on AfterEffects to increase the production valve of their films. Every effects person I know that works on indie stuff is totally turned off on Adobe right now.

These people can't afford to pay a monthly subscription when much of their work is so modestly reimbursed. Adobe is taking a tool away from people that use it for passion and not for profit. They may not loose use of it today but as the market moves forward they are stuck in the past.

Luckily the paint vendors didn't start charging a monthly subscription for use of their products while Van Gogh or Rembrandt were creating their art.

[Mark Wilson]

Originally Posted by Tim Kolb

Supporting mature software applications previously sold isn't a business...it's a cost of doing business when you sell the application, not the maintenance.

I'm looking forward to each application being able to settle in on release schedules that make sense for them instead of all of them trying to hit the same synchronous target date with vastly different additions/revisions...which does result in compromises being made in the state of readiness of some apps over others, etc.

Tim, I appreciate your optimism and gentleness in your approach to Adobe, but I think they are treating you (us) quite roughly!

As a former software marketing executive, I can assure you your first point is quite wrong. Upgrading the existing user base is far far easier, cheaper, and more reliable than selling new seats (ofen having to convert people from competing products.) It is highly lucrative, that is why all software companies have done it for the last 30 years! It's not just for the end users benefit.

Your second point rings true to me. Keeping all these applications in lock-step must be a nightmare. But there are many possible ways for Adobe to manage its offerings to solve this. For example, they could transition back to individual products instead of suites - that would also smooth out the revenue flow.

In my opinion, they are treating the existing user base with a great deal of contempt, and are imagining (hoping) a new, higher paying, user base will emerge. Silly thing is - they could have had both!


Regards

Mark Wilson
B.Sc. MBA

[Andrew Smith]

I don't mind bending over backwards to support Adobe as a company that produces the great creative software that I use. I just draw the line at bending over forwards, that's all.

Currently planning to stick with CS6 for the foreseeable future.

Andrew

[Rob Morse]

Originally Posted by Andrew Smith

I Currently planning to stick with CS6 for the foreseeable future.

Andrew

Sounds good but what happens if your computer craps out and you can't reactivate on a new computer?
I wasn't worried about it at first, because I own the CS6 master collection, but obviously there will not be an upgrade path for me...other than CC that is. I also wonder if the updates will come automatically or when I decide. That could be problematic if I'm in the middle of a project. I love the suite and I'm hoping it works out. All my old software will be useless as well if they don't allow you to reactivate it. I own Avid Media Composer, and can always move to Edius, but I can't live without After Effects and Photoshop.

[Tim Kolb]

Originally Posted by Mark Wilson

Tim,

As a former software marketing executive, I can assure you your first point is quite wrong. Upgrading the existing user base is far far easier, cheaper, and more reliable than selling new seats (ofen having to convert people from competing products.) It is highly lucrative, that is why all software companies have done it for the last 30 years! It's not just for the end users benefit.

What I was talking about is supporting software that isn't upgraded.

More mature products get upgraded much less often...some of the loudest voices in the protest noise are those users who object to the subscription because it will cost more than buying every other upgrade...or sometimes every third release... Those users are in the ecosystem, but as larger and larger numbers of them go to infrequent upgrades, it's less lucrative...and frankly less predictable.

That's what I mean by "maintenance"...not the selling of upgrades...

[Brian Drysdale]

Very often users don't need the very latest upgrade, the codecs they use may only be changed every two or three years (or perhaps longer). Do most users need the latest version of Photoshop, when they only use 10% of it's capabilities? I could quite happily use Word 2003 because Word 2007 (which I've got) doesn't really offer any further functions that I'd use.

Perhaps VFX is the area that seems to need the very latest versions. A maturing product range isn't something that manufacturers like to see and bundling together fast moving with the slower moving technology makes business sense.

[Tim Kolb]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

A maturing product range isn't something that manufacturers like to see and bundling together fast moving with the slower moving technology makes business sense.

Unfortunately once a software company has made the perfect software for some people, their sales drop...if they make the perfect software for everyone, they're out of business...

[Trevor Dennis]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

Very often users don't need the very latest upgrade, the codecs they use may only be changed every two or three years (or perhaps longer). Do most users need the latest version of Photoshop, when they only use 10% of it's capabilities? I could quite happily use Word 2003 because Word 2007 (which I've got) doesn't really offer any further functions that I'd use.

Perhaps VFX is the area that seems to need the very latest versions. A maturing product range isn't something that manufacturers like to see and bundling together fast moving with the slower moving technology makes business sense.

Brian, a point I have made in other forums, is that some of the features in recent Photoshop upgrades have saved me many hours of processing time. The RAW processing engine in Photoshop CS5 was good, but I'd feel crippled without ACR7. Same thing with the Content Aware features. Heck, some of those don't so much save time, as make it possible to do things you simply couldn't do in earlier versions. The cost of a single app subscription could easily be earned in a single day. In fact, the cost of a full range subscription ($600) shouldn't be too hard to recoup. On that basis, I am sure my Photoshop upgrades have easily paid for themselves over the years.

I have been creeping up, one additional Adobe product at a time over the last three years, and was actually feeling irritated that a full Creative Suite would make more sense for me, I'd be starting from scratch again, and would lose the upgrade discounts on my existing products. With CC costing me the same in NZ as it does in America (I have been paying up to 50% more up to now), I will be in a win win position, and am very happy. Roll on June 17th.

I absolutely accept most of the negative comments made in this thread, and if some of the long term fears are realised down the road, I'll 'reluctantly' look at other options.

[Jim Michael]

Originally Posted by Tim Kolb

Unfortunately once a software company has made the perfect software for some people, their sales drop...if they make the perfect software for everyone, they're out of business...

Well, it's more like a feedback loop. New software provides new capabilities and the new capabilities generate the need for additional functionality. Also, hardware capability increases over time, making previously impractical algorithms possible. At least that's how it should work.

Adobe has been feeding their investors this monetization plan for some time but I think they're about to have a J.C. Penney moment.

[Tim Kolb]

Originally Posted by Jim Michael

Adobe has been feeding their investors this monetization plan for some time but I think they're about to have a J.C. Penney moment.

Only time will tell if it was the right decision or not. Who'd have guessed that FCPX would have recovered any credibility at all in a couple short years?

[Jim Michael]

FCPX may have gained some cred, but Apple has shown it's interest is in being a consumer products company now and can't be depended on to maintain a sensible software migration strategy. Buying a bunch of licenses for a media organization should probably get a manager fired.

[John Wiley]

One thing I'm not quite clear on with the Cloud:

If I sign up to a yearly plan, what happens at the end of the 12 months? Do I need to resign for another 12 months to keep the price at $50? Or can I keep paying the $50 on a month-to-month basis like what happens at the end of my 12 month internet or phone plan?

[Eric Lagerlof]

Part of my video work is directing/engineering video for conferences. And in these varied conferences, I've seen a lot of 'subscription based income' models being put forward in not only software but other more fluid or service based industries. Microsoft is doing the same thing with their 'Office' suite. And Tim Kolb and others make a good point; what do you do when you start running out of 'wiz-bang' features that seem to add mostly useless bloat?

Like it or not, I have a hunch you'll see more of it in other areas, (not necessarily production related) as well. Methinks we've been living under the "May you live in interesting times" curse and this is one more manfestation of it. But for me, the jury is still out on whether this will be a good thing or not.