Adobe, Firefly Video, disappointment

I'm disappointed by Adobe yet again. Recently, they've faced backlash for their questionable subscription tactics, charging for cancellations, removing perpetual licenses for software, frequently changing pricing structures, and making certain essential features only accessible through higher-tier plans.

If you have a plan that includes all apps and Firefly is an Adobe application, wouldn’t it make sense that you have access to it? Unfortunately, no. Adobe demands extra money to use this particular app, allowing only two video generations in their “beta.”

So, you pay Adobe a subscription fee to access all their apps, but then to use one of those apps, Adobe asks for even more money. And if you decide to cancel your plan, guess what? Adobe requests even more money.

I understand that video generations are costlier than image generations. Smaller companies like Pika, Luma, and Halulio, which aren't massive billion-dollar corporations, can offer a genuine beta experience with a certain number of free videos per day at a slower processing rate versus a paid tier. Yet Adobe, for some reason, cannot achieve the same thing for its community. Instead, they ask for more money at every turn.

AI started as an open-source technology meant for everyone to be creative. These smaller companies that allow their community to actually test their products for free (with limitations) clearly have a better grasp of AI's history compared to a capitalist company like Adobe, which constantly demands more money from its community. 

I'm truly disappointed by Adobe once more. I've been looking forward to trying their video generation, but any avid AI user knows two generations are never enough to "try it." I'm sorry, but you must have people on your team who haven't been using AI for years. If you did, they would understand that each AI generator is not the same. If you're used to prompting in Midjourney, that same prompt may not produce similar results in DALL-E. If you're used to prompting in Pika, that same prompt may not yield something similar in Luma. The technology might be the same, but the data can be vastly different, meaning the languages will also differ. Two videos are not enough to "talk" with your video model, to grasp the prompt style, motion, camera movement, weird aspect ratios, starting key frame, ending key frame, etc. It takes time to understand a new AI tool's unique features and quirks. You need to experiment with different prompts and settings to get a feel for how it works. Experienced AI users often compare multiple tools to find the best one for their needs, and with only two videos, it's challenging to make an informed comparison. The creative process involves a lot of trial and error- testing different ideas, refining prompts, and iterating on results are crucial steps that require more than just two attempts. Providing meaningful feedback to Adobe would require a more substantial experience with the tool. Users can't provide accurate feedback on its strengths and weaknesses based on only two generations.

While Adobe has been a leader in creative software, their current approach with Firefly feels more like a money grab than an effort to foster creativity and innovation. It's disappointing to see a company with such vast resources and influence prioritize profits over providing genuine value to its community. As an avid AI user, I believe that true innovation comes from accessibility and user feedback, not from creating unnecessary financial barriers. I hope Adobe reconsiders its strategy and aligns more closely with the spirit of the AI community, where creativity and accessibility go hand in hand.