Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Adobe Announces native Dragon support in Premiere Pro

That would be great, except… I don't rent software. Adobe CS ended at 6. Let us know when it's back-ported.
 
Palmer Woodrow said:
That would be great, except… I don't rent software. Adobe CS ended at 6. Let us know when it's back-ported.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but I think you're also missing a few very important points.
As a public company, withing the CS business model, by US law Adobe was forbidden from releasing free updates that included any new features (not even a single on-screen button). All new features had to wait until a new entire Creative Suite release was ready, and that new release could not be offered as a free update. This means that you ended up waiting for much needed features for a very long and unnecessary time. Take that and add the cost of each upgrade (typically with Adobe Creative Suite about 50% of full retail price), and then compare it with the new Creative Cloud model, and it becomes very clear that with the new subscription model everybody wins. Adobe is now able to (and does) release new updates with new features very often (so far about once a month), and are able to respond to the professional users needs almost in real-time. If you calculate the actual annual cost of CC membership and compare it to the annual cost of keeping your Creative Suite up to date, then Creative Cloud is actually cheaper. With all the added benefits of the other CC services as well as the constant free upgrades of everything, I really do think that it's a no brainer, and that we all need to get over our "I don't rent software" feelings, and get with the program.

The world is changing. Adobe found a brilliant way to improve its ability to serve its users, and do it in a way that actually saves the user money, as well as stabilizes the cash-flow which in turn enables better, faster software development, and business model that bypasses the legal limitation in bringing those developments into users' hands more rapidly. You may say you don't rent software, but if you want the best package for the best value on the market today, you might want to subscribe to the Creative Cloud services. After all, I'm sure you have other subscriptions, such as your internet service, your telephone service, etc.

It's a paradigm shift - for sure, but it's not necessarily a bad one. You may want to apply pressure on Adobe to go back to their old model, but be careful what you wish for, because going back to the old model would not actually serve us - the users. I have every CS version since CS3. a lot of money went into that. CC is a much better model. It's nice to own software, but when the facts do not line up with principals and theory, then the theory and principals need to be reconsidered. That's exactly what RED has been doing and we all love them for it. Adobe is now doing it for the software world, and I for one think they should be encouraged.

Cheers,
 
Is this software functioning right now on public release of CC? Dragon and .Cine?
 
"For the highest resolution, RED Dragon 6K is also natively supported, with full RED color science built in. And if a high-powered system isn’t available, improved capabilities for relinking from proxy media back to full resolution, combined with brand new editable sequence settings, make this kind of work much easier."

Nice! Adobe CC is just plain great.
- Christian from BB FIlm
 
Dave Blackham said:
Its a great release and looks like good feature additions, but only if we could use the software. Due to the new licensing issues and deployment we have been forced to abandon a large number of Creative Suite seats.
Click to expand...

Yep!!! I saw this coming a fair way off and still say Adobe should rethink this strategy with regard to Dragon and licensing issues before it is widely DUMPED BY PROFESSIONALS! If the CC pipeline is so wonderful then it should be able to stand on its own and Adobe should sell (NOT RENT!) a new CS or a Dragon patch for CS6 parallel with CC.
 
Mark T Workman said:
Yep!!! I saw this coming a fair way off and still say Adobe should rethink this strategy with regard to Dragon and licensing issues before it is widely DUMPED BY PROFESSIONALS! If the CC pipeline is so wonderful then it should be able to stand on its own and Adobe should sell (NOT RENT!) a new CS or a Dragon patch for CS6 parallel with CC.
Click to expand...

Count me in on that.
I removed 4 master suites and made the switch to Smoke and FCPX. It will take a long time until I will have a look at Adobe products again...
 
I wonder if Adobe could offer a licensing plan where you pay $800 which includes 2 years of ongoing updates - at the end of that time you can either pay for another 2 years, go to monthly subscription or just keep the software in its current state - upgrades locked out. Probably more hassle to administrate than Adobe cares to take on, but it would provide an option for those folks who are constrained from software rental by policy or proclivity.

Cheers - #19
 
Stephan Meier said:
Count me in on that.
I removed 4 master suites and made the switch to Smoke and FCPX. It will take a long time until I will have a look at Adobe products again...
Click to expand...

That's great, except Autodesk just announced their move to the subscription model as well. I don't mean the support subscription. The difference with Adobe being, it's up to the user, if they want to buy or "rent". You will have an option to "rent" more software seats for just a particular project, when needed. Not a terrible idea. Currently both options are available. The question is for how long, before Autodesk goes full Adobe?
 
Yuval Shrem said:
I see your point, but I think you're also missing a few very important points.
As a public company, withing the CS business model, by US law Adobe was forbidden from releasing free updates that included any new features (not even a single on-screen button). All new features had to wait until a new entire Creative Suite release was ready, and that new release could not be offered as a free update. This means that you ended up waiting for much needed features for a very long and unnecessary time. Take that and add the cost of each upgrade (typically with Adobe Creative Suite about 50% of full retail price), and then compare it with the new Creative Cloud model, and it becomes very clear that with the new subscription model everybody wins. Adobe is now able to (and does) release new updates with new features very often (so far about once a month), and are able to respond to the professional users needs almost in real-time. If you calculate the actual annual cost of CC membership and compare it to the annual cost of keeping your Creative Suite up to date, then Creative Cloud is actually cheaper. With all the added benefits of the other CC services as well as the constant free upgrades of everything, I really do think that it's a no brainer, and that we all need to get over our "I don't rent software" feelings, and get with the program.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, but this legal reasoning makes zero sense. Blackmagic Design releases new versions of DaVinci Resolve with new features for free every year. I'm not talking about the Lite version. I'm talking about the full version that costs $1,000. I bought it at v8 and got v9 for free and now v10 is going to also be free. There's also plenty of apps on the Mac App store that provide free updates with new features within the same version. FCPX is a prime example of this. It's very different compared to the day it was first released, yet we've only needed to pay for it once.
 
Mike Halper said:
I'm not a lawyer, but this legal reasoning makes zero sense. Blackmagic Design releases new versions of DaVinci Resolve with new features for free every year. I'm not talking about the Lite version. I'm talking about the full version that costs $1,000. I bought it at v8 and got v9 for free and now v10 is going to also be free. There's also plenty of apps on the Mac App store that provide free updates with new features within the same version. FCPX is a prime example of this. It's very different compared to the day it was first released, yet we've only needed to pay for it once.
Click to expand...

It does make zero sense. I believe Yuval is referring to a short-lived interpretation of the Sarbanes-Oxley act. Apple had a particular interpretation of that law that caused them to charge for minor software updates that activated hardware that they shipped a certain period in the past. Such as an Airport update that enabled 802.11n on devices that already had the radio, but in a disabled state.

"Because of the Act, the company believes that if it sells a product, then later adds a feature to that product, it can be held liable for improper accounting if it recognizes revenue from the product at the time of sale, given that it hasn't finished delivering the product at that point"

No one does this anymore, though. It seems to have been a short-lived hyper-conservative approach to accounting driven by lawyers grasping to not violate the then-new Sarbanes-Oxley act.

-n
 
I guess I could understand that Apple did it to enable new hardware features that were previously unadvertised. However, with software, change is expected and new features are inevitable. To hide behind that Act and say you can't upgrade the software more frequently because of it is a flat out lie to the consumer. It would be better if Adobe just told the truth and said the whole reason was to increase the bottom line and spread the revenue out throughout the year instead of have a huge chunk come in all at once when a new version was released each year. That makes more sense since there's really no other reason they couldn't have released updates more frequently. If no other company was releasing free software updates that add new features I'd say I believe them, but since there's plenty of examples to the contrary they shouldn't use it as an excuse. Just be honest and say it was about the money.
 
Mike Halper said:
I guess I could understand that Apple did it to enable new hardware features that were previously unadvertised. However, with software, change is expected and new features are inevitable. To hide behind that Act and say you can't upgrade the software more frequently because of it is a flat out lie to the consumer. It would be better if Adobe just told the truth and said the whole reason was to increase the bottom line and spread the revenue out throughout the year instead of have a huge chunk come in all at once when a new version was released each year. That makes more sense since there's really no other reason they couldn't have released updates more frequently. If no other company was releasing free software updates that add new features I'd say I believe them, but since there's plenty of examples to the contrary they shouldn't use it as an excuse. Just be honest and say it was about the money.
Click to expand...

I don't think Adobe has ever said that. Indeed, my copies of Photoshop and Lightroom get updated all the time with new features, new camera support etc. I think Yuval was trying to connect some dots, and he drew a line that is not there.

-n
 
Neil Cronin said:
I don't think Adobe has ever said that. Indeed, my copies of Photoshop and Lightroom get updated all the time with new features, new camera support etc. I think Yuval was trying to connect some dots, and he drew a line that is not there.

-n
Click to expand...

Ah, okay, I stand corrected on blaming Adobe. I do totally understand their reasons for doing it financially.
 
Mike Halper said:
Ah, okay, I stand corrected on blaming Adobe. I do totally understand their reasons for doing it financially.
Click to expand...

Microsoft sort of spearheaded this model of software rental about a decade ago, and I think they are probably on to something for their bottom line. They are just now actually rolling something usable out with Office365 or whatever it's called. It's an interesting model, and it is certainly mutually beneficial to a large subset of their customers. If you are a small dentist office, or a small web development shop, it's probably way way easier to just pay $20/mo for each app (or whatever it is) compared to plunking down several hundreds of dollars for a dvd with an installer for each desk. Looking at software fees this way, they probably seem to be less money than the cost of toilet paper for the office.

So that scenario is good for both the vendor and the user.

But my usage of Photoshop is going to force me to leave them behind. I don't use Photoshop every day (probably weeks go by between my usage of it). But when I need it, I need it. If I have to sign up and pay a month's fee just to tweak one image, I'm not going to do that. Especially if the software product itself has changed significantly since the last time I used it, meaning I have to spend a couple hours to figure out how to do what I need to do.

Once my copy of Photoshop no longer runs on whatever hardware I have, I'm going to find an alternative. In the meantime, I'll just use this older version for as long as I can.

If I was using Photoshop every day for 8 hours, I'd probably just sign up. But I don't use Photoshop that way, so I won't. Office still ships as "purchased" binaries, but who knows for how long.

I think both Microsoft and Adobe are leaving behind a certain kind of customer that relies on their software, but does not use it every month. It's definitely their prerogative to do so, it just kind of sucks for those customers. Especially in the case of Photoshop (and maybe Premiere too?), since there is no obvious replacement for that. I have very little faith that a replacement for Photoshop will appear before CS6 stops working on "current" hardware, and that's sad.

-n
 
It's not the rental model itself that's the main problem. At least not for me. It's that the software stops working as soon as you stop paying. It calls home to mama, and if you aint paid, it stops working. My antivirus software does not work this way. If I stop paying my subscription, it keeps right on working forever, protecting right up to the last virus definitions I downloaded. But with Adobe's rental scheme, you either pay the man - every month - or you have a bunch of projects that are a waste of disk space because you can't access them again without paying.

Now if Adobe had adopted the antivirus model, and if I stopped paying, my subscription software still worked right up to the latest updates I had from them, I'd be much more likely to sign on. That's the model they should have offered those of us who had paid for the software already. You know... the customer base that put them where they are. The model they have adopted is just an immoral money grab.

Of course they'll make money at the introduction of the rental model. They're going to have a bunch of new customers and a more steady monthly income. But in a year or two, when there aren't any more of those large cash infusions from outright sales anymore and it's all rental, we'll see how good they think the rental model is. But by then, most of us will have moved on.
 
Neil Cronin said:
...Once my copy of Photoshop no longer runs on whatever hardware I have, I'm going to find an alternative. In the meantime, I'll just use this older version for as long as I can...
Click to expand...

Depending on what you're using Photoshop for, GIMP could be a replacement -

http://www.gimp.org/


My question in regards to moving to Adobe's rental model is this -

If Premiere Pro CS6 runs fine and does all I need it to do, as it currently does, and I sign up for Adobe's CC service for a year or more, but they only update it with improvements I don't need or even use, then what have I paid for over that time?

And if I then decide spending money on new features I don't use is no longer worth my while, how can I keep using the program that I've already paid for and that was actually useful to me?

Here in Australia we have for years paid much more for Adobe software than what the exact same downloadable software was available for in the US. It even got to the point where Adobe, along with Apple and Microsoft, were brought before a governmental inquiry to explain their pricing. Their answer was, in a nutshell, we charge as much as we can get away with and if people don't like it they can go use another product.

I'm seeing that same approach being taken here with Adobe's move from providing a product to providing a 'service'. It's their way or the highway. They have a product people want to use, with few or no alternative products to compete with, and they're going to use that to their full advantage. So in some ways this is nothing new, but I just think they've gone too far.

I don't want to give money to Adobe in the hope that over time it will prove to have been worthwhile. Why should I be forced to gamble on their ability to improve their products in ways that I'll find useful or relevant? I've paid their rip-off prices for years and would have continued to do so in order to keep editing R3D's with the latest colour science, but these extra conditions placed on top of the actual pricing are just too much.

While I continue to be impressed by the way the Adobe representatives engage with their customers here on the Reduser forums, and am glad they have such a good relationship with RED, it's all countered by that other side to the company that I just find contemptible.

As a long time customer, I'm offended by the arrogance and dismissiveness I've seen Adobe showing towards the people who have helped them reach the position they're in.

It's not just about the money. Subscribing to the CC service could even be cheaper for me than what I've been paying in the past. It's also about using the software and paying for it how I want to, and not being forced into using it and paying for it in a way I would otherwise choose not to (and have in the past chosen not to when the subscription service was optional).

It may be that after exploring the alternatives I find I have no choice but to subscribe to Adobe's service. I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face, but if there's another company out there that's willing to offer a suitable product and simply let me buy it, they'll be the ones getting my business.

Hell, I'd even buy a DragonColor patch for CS6 from Adobe if they'd sell me one. That's essentially what I did when upgrading in order to get RedGamma3/REDColor3 in Premiere Pro. Why isn't that an alternative? It'd keep me using the Adobe products and at least leave the door open to moving over to their subscription service in the future. Wouldn't that be better than effectively telling me I'm no longer the kind of customer they're interested in and showing me the door?
 
I bought in....

After signing the online petition and twitter battles I finally caved...

Great experience so far, they have done significant updates twice now...some pretty big.


As far as the sabines oxley law....that was cited by adobe....users are not just making that up. Whether or not you are breaking the law by providing free updates really comes to how you doing the accounting....I could see this simplifying it....

I was actually corrected on this by a former AE developer at adobe, who said they had to meet with accounting with each new tool ect to see that it wasn't too substantial and could come under the sabines oxely reporting violation....

I don't understand it....if someone wants to be anal about accounting...I am sure it has some validity. But really the law was designed after Enron to keep crooked corps from deceiving their shareholders by reporting false earnings. It forces companies to compartmentalize and quantize earnings and expenses.....so your Enron's Tyco's ect cant shift billion dollar losses into the next quarter ect ect.

I doubt Adobe would get prosecuted for giving free updates...


GIMP is restricted to 8 bit AFAIK
 
Mark T Workman said:
Yep!!! I saw this coming a fair way off and still say Adobe should rethink this strategy with regard to Dragon and licensing issues before it is widely DUMPED BY PROFESSIONALS! If the CC pipeline is so wonderful then it should be able to stand on its own and Adobe should sell (NOT RENT!) a new CS or a Dragon patch for CS6 parallel with CC.
Click to expand...

I would imagine the sort of customer who isn't willing to spend $30 a month is probably a customer who doesn't make Adobe a lot of money anyway so they won't shed a tear to see them leave.

I'm still a little perplexed as to who these video professionals are who are buying a $50k camera but can't afford $50 a month for an entire production suite's worth of software. Like how low is someone's day rate that $2 per day is going to even show up in their accounting?

Maybe I just have a distorted view of the market after paying that for individual VFX plugins. But I feel like if you compare Adobe's pricing to the rest of the post production market they're the best bargain in town. NukeX BTW now costs nearly $9,000 and maintenance is more than twice that of Creative Cloud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top