Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Swapping Out Software?

<< < (3/6) > >>

40hz:
The cloud is simply a bad idea. Period. Ahem... Snowden... surveillance... etc.
-Renegade (July 18, 2013, 12:11 PM)
--- End quote ---

Agree that how it's implemented is usually bad. But Adobe's cloud is mainly a way to distribute their software and have a subscription based sales model. You only need to connect to the web about every 30-60 days to get an authorization token. The apps themselves get downloaded and run on your local machine. It works pretty much the way Steam does - except it's not quite as obnoxious about the web connection as Steam sometime is.

Oh yeah, your data and files goes wherever you want to save them. It might be nice however to maybe store your workspace prefs up in a cloud somewhere if you need to to move among different machines much. Sorta like having a roving profile in a Windows domain. That can be handy. And it's hardly a big privacy issue (at least to me) having somebody know what fonts, tools and color pallets you want open by default - even if I would still prefer it be kept on my own server.

But I still think Adobe got it mostly right the way they did it - even if I personally don't like it..

Don't get me wrong. I'm a shrinkwrap bigot. And I'm nothing near being sold on cloud anything. I just handed a client over to another provider because I think they're making a big mistake (in this particular case) on insisting on going over to a fully cloud-based solution. But it's their call. And much as I hate to lose a client, I'll still refuse to sell somebody a broken solution.

wraith808:
Now, pricing your product out of reach of hobbyists/amateurs is one thing, but pricing it into the cloud for pros... yeah... not really "feeling" that here.
-Renegade (July 18, 2013, 12:11 PM)
--- End quote ---

This.  My wife is a photographer, and considering how much she spends on cameras, we didn't really blink at the price of CSS.  It's just the cost of doing business, and as you say, the best in many ways at what it does.

But when I told her about the cloud business, she said that she guesses that the last one was it for her.  This might change, but not having her photos in her control totally from beginning to end was what she was skeptical about.

With all of the theft of images and filters and other stuff that I don't really understand in the photography business, and how protective they are as a breed over their business and practices, I just don't see this ending well.

40hz:
But when I told her about the cloud business, she said that she guesses that the last one was it for her.  This might change, but not having her photos in her control totally from beginning to end was what she was skeptical about.
-wraith808 (July 18, 2013, 12:36 PM)
--- End quote ---

Again (last I looked) what the online connection does for Adobe is (a) distribute their software and (b)issue a subscription authorization token to use it. It's not persistent. The apps will even work for a reasonable grace period if you can't connect, or you're just out of subscription. They'll even provide special "long term" tokens for photographers and other types who are heading off to the Himalayas for a year where they won't have any web access at all. It doesn't lock any of your data or files. And using whatever online storage comes with the subscription is optional.

The biggest objection I've been hearing is that CSS is now a subscription as opposed to a shrink-wrapped product. But it was mostly casual users I was hearing that from.

Interestingly, most graphics pros I talked to didn't seem overly concerned about that. Probably because a good number of them are already subscribing to other services like Typekit. The biggest concern was the worry that regular automatic software updates might impact their workflow. Many said they sometimes preferred to use older versions of some programs, or elected to stay behind the curve when new updates came out.

wraith808:
Interestingly, most graphics pros I talked to didn't seem overly concerned about that. Probably because a good number of them are already subscribing to other services like Typekit. The biggest concern was the worry about regular automatic software updates might impact their preferred workflow. Many said they sometimes preferred older versions of some programs, or elected to stay behind the curve when new updates came out.
-40hz (July 18, 2013, 01:06 PM)
--- End quote ---

She was concerned about this too.  Sometimes the actions and other stuff (don't know the technical term) have to be updated between versions/don't work.  She didn't know the online storage was optional- and indeed when I looked at the announcements when they first said it, it didn't seem that way to me, either. 

In terms of the tokens, she's also had (and by extension myself) a big problem with registration.  We've upgraded her laptop, I've completely rebuilt her computer, and we've had to reinstall the OS.  The ones that we've been able to predict haven't been so bad.  But the unpredictable ones have really sucked as far as getting her software that she can use again.  I just don't trust their activation system.

Vurbal:
^ I think a good deal of Adobe's motivation in what they're currently doing is to reduce the number of CSS customers (i.e casual users and non-pros) they have and focus on the hardcore graphics professionals. A market where they're firmly entrenched for many reasons both good and bad - but mostly good.

When selling complex products that require support, the last thing you want is to have every kid on the block using it badly. You can be profitable (sometimes even more profitable) with lower sales figures. Because sales don't automatically map out to better margins. Sometimes small, very fat, and happy is where it's at for a tech company.

Besides, non-professionals don't buy into those high margin support packages and add-ons that the pros do. No do they sign up for those expensive training sessions and workshops. You're lucky if they buy a book. And even luckier if they do more than give it a quick skim when they do buy one. Amateurs much prefer to tie up the support lines for ages when they need help. ("I don't know about any of that! Just tell me what I need to click on to do this...what? The tools menu? Where's that?)

Supporting unqualified users can seriously hurt the bottom line. Autocad realized that ages ago. So did the producers of most of the other heavy-duty CAD, 3D modeling, and animation packages. Many almost seem to go out of their way to try and steer the 'average joe' away from their flagship products.

No. This isn't an oversight, or hubris, or something stupid on Adobe's part. It's a very sharp and calculated business decision. I call it a "velvet rope" approach: qualified, target segment customers only, please?
 (see attachment in previous post)You say you do this for a living?
Because your name's not on my list.


Time will tell if Adobe called it right with this one. FWIW, when it comes to CSS, I think they did. 8)



-40hz (July 18, 2013, 11:52 AM)
--- End quote ---
That's an interesting theory but it has nothing to do with Adobe's decision, and on top of that it would be a sign that their executives are completely incompetent. If the problem was that hobbyists cost too much to support because they make too much use of Adobe's services and don't pay for the extras they would either limit the basic support to make people pay extra for what they're getting now or simply raise the price of the software. What you're describing is like treating a sprained wrist by amputating your arm at the shoulder.

But I don't have to guess at Adobe's motivations because they telegraphed them clearly just a day after they announced Creative Cloud (in 2011 IIRC). That was the day they announced that starting with the next Creative Suite upgrade versions would no longer be available for anything more than 1 version back. They didn't make a big public announcement about that. It just got a quick and quiet press release on the Adobe website.

The reason for Creative Cloud is that Adobe wanted a way to force their smaller customers, many of whom were only upgrading every other version, to buy every version instead. That year they also announced they were transitioning to an annual upgrade cycle.

The fact that all those things point to the same conclusion is not a coincidence. Creative Cloud is not about shedding customers or trimming support costs. It's about forcing their customers to give them money on a fixed schedule whether it makes sense for them or not. To quote The Princess Bride, anyone who tells you anything else is selling something.

Adobe's actions amount to nothing less than looking their customers in the eye (not all of them but apparently a significant number in their eyes) and saying, "We've heard your requests and you can stick them up your ass. You'll get what we want to sell you when we want in the way we want and that's the way it is." There's a word for companies who do that. That word is footnote. Today they're pissing off their small customers tomorrow they'll be pissing off some of their bigger customers and before too long they won't have any customers to worry about.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page