News on Premiere Next at Adobe Max

Report · May 06, 2013

Join us today at our #AdobeMAX keynote, live at 9:30 a.m. PT with CEO Shantanu Narayen and SVP @DWadhwani: http://adobe.ly/AdobeNext

Report · May 06, 2013

I know marketing talk and rationalization when I see it.

They have effectively doubled the money they take from me. Money not art is the motivation for this move. As someone using their stuff for many years, I upgraded the Production Bundle for about $350 dollars every year. Now, once their "come and get it" promotional prices expires, I will be paying $600 a year.

Report · May 06, 2013

Jim, this exactly confirms my point. It sounds like what was broken was the product update cycle, not the users buying preference. Edge customers value quick updates over traditional software ownership, but they are a very different customer than the Premiere customer. A feature for them is a major unwelcome disruption to us; thus failure to understand the customer in this market. And besides, this wasn't purely about updates, it was about conforming CS, or whatever its now called, into a bigger business model. Nice idea on paper, but I wonder how many focus groups with professional editors they conducted to see how this would be received?

Report · May 07, 2013

Jim Simon wrote:
"With the traditional perpetual model, product updates had to happen on a certain cycle. If the Photoshop team wanted to push out a new feature or update, it had to stay on the same cadence as the updates for other apps in the suite. The product life cycle was roughly 18 months, which meant that it would take at least that long for new features to make their way to the final product...."

This is one of Adobe's justifications for going to CC, but it doesn't have any real merit. As has been stated several times, in both a perpetual license and CC case: the software resides on your computer. The software is a series of binaries, libraries, and other settings files and whatnot. Updates to either a perpetual license install or a CC install would entail precisely the same thing: alerting the end user to and update and allowing them to download it. Small bug fix patches or feature additions would be handled the same way from the end user's perspective.

Adobe's doing the hand-waving thing here, trying to convince people that CC will allow them quicker code updates. As it turns out, there's nothing but internal politics preventing them from doing the same thing with their perpetual license software.

jas

Report · May 07, 2013

This is one of Adobe's justifications for going to CC, but it doesn't have any real merit. As has been stated several times, in both a perpetual license and CC case: the software resides on your computer. The software is a series of binaries, libraries, and other settings files and whatnot. Updates to either a perpetual license install or a CC install would entail precisely the same thing: alerting the end user to and update and allowing them to download it. Small bug fix patches or feature additions would be handled the same way from the end user's perspective.

There was a response from an Adobe employee on another forum in which he explained that, for accounting reasons, Adobe is not allowed to give away updates with new functionality to users on a perpetual license without a paid upgrade, while the cloud subscription allows them to roll out updates every month if they want because users are being billed again. I'm not sure to what extent this is the real reason, or a justification, since I'm sure beancounters could find a way around this if they wanted.

As others have mentioned, it may be that the cloud makes it harder for people to pirate the software which, given the number of dodgy copies I see installed (from friends who 'need' photoshop, through to production companies with dozens of installations), may be justified. I don't see why Adobe shouldn't protect their software as best they can, but it seems to be a really good deal for new users, but a crumby one for those of us who have been buying licences for years.

Report · May 07, 2013

matkeane wrote:
There was a response from an Adobe employee on another forum in which he explained that, for accounting reasons, Adobe is not allowed to give away updates with new functionality to users on a perpetual license without a paid upgrade

Internal politics, as noted above. And, if they wanted to charge for updates, they certainly had (and have) every right to do so. People could make the choice to update for the money or not, but they could continue to use the software regardless.

From a business model perspective, this move is pure genius assuming Adobe can keep their customer base. Investors, share holders, etc like steady flows of income, and this will certainly provide that. In reality, it's the only reason they're doing it. It's folly to think otherwise.

jas

Report · May 07, 2013

Jason Van Patten wrote:
matkeane wrote:
There was a response from an Adobe employee on another forum in which he explained that, for accounting reasons, Adobe is not allowed to give away updates with new functionality to users on a perpetual license without a paid upgrade
Internal politics, as noted above. And, if they wanted to charge for updates, they certainly had (and have) every right to do so. People could make the choice to update for the money or not, but they could continue to use the software regardless.
From a business model perspective, this move is pure genius assuming Adobe can keep their customer base. Investors, share holders, etc like steady flows of income, and this will certainly provide that. In reality, it's the only reason they're doing it. It's folly to think otherwise.
jas

In the biography "Titan", the author repeated noted how the actions of Rockefeller probably helped to drive innovation in the oil business, as well as improvements transportation, finance, public safety, and so on. Furthermore, it kept prices lower than they otherwise might've been, at least temporarily, because of Rockefellers desire to bankrupt the competition. But the problem with a monopoly like this is that it only was beneficial to Rockefeller and his shareholders. It would squeeze his suppliers, and stifle -- even eliminate (assinate?) competition.

I'm trying to see how this Adobe monopoly is any different? Adobe has done a good job of creating innovative, leading-edge products. They have been rewarded with a substantial market share. They have now reached a critical mass where they no longer need to be responsive to customer needs... and can subsequently attempt to dictate.

It is going to be difficult for many people switch because there might not be any other game in town... Adobe has created a monopoly.

And this uncompetitive action is going to generate massive amounts of cash, which is only going to fuel and cement their position.

I sure hope the FTC is watching this.

Report · May 07, 2013

Monopoly? Hmm. Well. Yes, perhaps. But not really. Not by Microsoft standards.

There are lots of choices for editing images and video. They might not be as good a choice, of course.

Yet.

I get what Adobe is trying to do, both on the financial and the creative side. The financial side has been well covered in this thread. The creative side? Hardly at all. They believe that tying us all together creatively is a good thing, but not everyone who uses the software wants to share their work with anyone other than their clients. They believe that getting the updates out as fast as possible is a good thing but some users are scared to death of the idea that their software might change in the middle of a major project.

Personally, I have two completely different reasons for using Adobe products. The corporate video side of me can't show anyone anything outside of my client base. In all these years on this forum nobody here has ever seen even part of one of the videos I get paid for (not counting tutorials). The hobbyist side of me wants to share everything. The corporate side might need to go back and edit an old project, the hobbyist hardly ever even considers that option.

My hobbyist side got all excited watching all the sharing going on in the videos from Max that I watched until late last night. The corporate side kept thinking about all the people who just need to get the wedding into the hands of the bride and groom so he can get on to the next wedding, or the trainer who just needs to add the presentation slides to the sales training video.

I already use my smart phone to control my camera. The idea of being able to take pictures of colorful things to help create a color palette, and having access to all those fonts, and all the new features when they are ready instead of every 18 months, really appeals to me. (Assuming they get it done on an Android. The iPhone sucks.) But I totally understand where the naysayers are coming from. This must sound like Adobe is completely deserting them.

Didn't I hear that FCP X desert the professionals who had invested so much time and energy into that program? Does this feel like that? I wonder.

Adobe is taking a rather sharp turn and not everyone on the bus wants to travel in that direction. I do. But am I in the overwhelming majority or is this a case of New Coke where they have to go back and rethink the whole thing later?

I am an Adobe user. Not a shill (they don't give me free software anymore) and certainly not an apologist. I just happen to be in their target market, as are many others. Only time will tell if their target market includes the majority of users and will bring in more users and more money, or if they missed the target and will be sorry. All the new, cool, creative things in the world won't do Adobe any good if they can't afford to produce them because their income, while steady, has dwindled.

Only time will tell.

As for me, I am excited and can't wait to see all the new features. Especially the features related to my new Photography hobby. For those who will suffer, I have no words of comfort other than to say I hope it works out for you. I hope you find a way to stick with Adobe, or that you find Lightworks to be more intuitive than I did.

I don't think hiring a lawyer is a viable option for anyone. I don't think this is going to be as bad as many of you predict. I don't think there will be a mass exodus from Adobe to other, lesser products. I do think this could be a wild ride and unfortunately, some people won't be wearing seatbelts and will get thrown from the bus, Or thrown under it.

Steven Gotz

http://www.stevengotz.com

http://www.behance.net/stevengotz

http://stevengotz.prosite.com/

artofzootography.com

Report · May 07, 2013

I think "internal politics" is important here. I have worked inside and for enough large organizations to observe that high-level decision making is often more political/emotional than rational and that's the circumstance that has me the most worried about the whole CC business.

Once upon a time Adobe was a company whose principal business was to make software. It has slowly morphed into a company that's now also in the data services / data storage / network services business. One thing that is for sure is that the new businesses has required, and will require, new processes, procedures, personnel, management etc. -- huge and expensive changes for any organization to undertake. My gut suggests that Adobe ran the numbers and and did the research and found that it can't really make money with the "Cloud" (and it's not really a Cloud mind, its big datacenters, new engineers, and everything that goes with administering them) unless it herds customers in the direction of subscriptions.

Adobe's decision suggests that they were not willing to let the Cloud and the old model compete, which in turn suggests the business case for the Cloud may not have been what it should have been. My fear is that the Cloud tail will start wagging the software development dog with poor results all around for everyone concerned.

Adobe could help itself by laying out its internal business case for the shift apart from the oh-brave-new-world-for-creatives marketing hyperbole.

Report · May 07, 2013

I have a piece of software on my computer "Adobe Application Manager" that rountinley prompts me to update software. The updates may not amount to "new functionality" in accounting terms, but this has been working well for awhile. I suspect a rationalization/justification. We'll have to see what kind of explaination Adobe offer its shareholders.

Report · May 07, 2013

Jason Van Patten schrieb:
As it turns out, there's nothing but internal politics preventing them from doing the same thing with their perpetual license software.

Yes it is a political move to force people to their renting software model (cloud), to earn even more money without giving the customer one byte of code to own when subscription fee is stopped being paid.

Thank you Adobe for the CREATIVE PRISON! What do you think how creative I may be in PRISON? But since this announcement Adobe lost a lot more. Adobe lost it's face and showed it's greedy money hungry loyalty to the shareholders. I always loved being an Adobe customer and I advertised their software if it were my own, I discussed and promoted Adobe software against co-workers on different software systems.

I remember times where I got ask from a Flame operator how I did this piece of animation without a Flame? Well, I proudly said: After Effects can do this!

I remeber times I told Avid & Final Cut users how great Dynamic Link is...

I always said that Adobe is doing it better and cheaper and that the combination of Photshop, Premiere, After Effects, Illustrator, Encore, Media Encoder (CS Production Premium) is the swiss army knife for film and video production!

I believed in Adobe that it's one of the software companies who take care of the user and you really could trust in.

But if you now put me in CREATIVE PRISON I'm not able to talk so well about you again!

Report · May 07, 2013

Felix Dames wrote:
Jason Van Patten schrieb:
As it turns out, there's nothing but internal politics preventing them from doing the same thing with their perpetual license software.
Yes it is a political move to force people to their renting software model (cloud), to earn even more money without giving the customer one byte of code to own when subscription fee is stopped being paid.

Adobe is not legally allowed to update perpetual license software with new features. This does not apply to patches, bug fixes, etc.

This is a very old issue (10 years?) and well documented around the forums. Last year with the release of the Creative Cloud, there was a lot of information about this. It's a US Gov't act that prevents them from doing this (Sarbanes Oxley). So yes, they had to wait until a reasonable number of improvements were available before releasing a NEW version, and charging for that version.

At any rate, read up on it. I'm surprised at the number of "long time" Adobe customers that don't know about this. It is a bizarre set of circumstances, but one that is out of Adobe's hands entirely.

There's an awful lot of information on the Creative Cloud FAQ page and related pages as to how this all works, so it still amazes me how much paranoia exists.

I know that you want to think that Adobe is going to get everyone in the door and then jack it up to $70 or $80 a month, but if you just look at the costs of upgrading (as well as the total costs of all the individual software apps) over the last 12-15 years, you'll see that pricing has been less and less each time. I remember buying Premiere Pro, After Effects and Photoshop when it was a total cost of over $1,800. Now for much less than that, you get stuff like Audition, Illustrator, Acrobat Pro, Encore, Adobe Media Encoder, etc.

I used to pay a ton of money to buy Sorenson Squeeze, the only legitimate reasonably-priced encoder at the time. It was a few hundred bucks every upgrade. Now I don't even use it.

I used to pay $9/month for online storage, now I use Creative Cloud storage.

I always paid for the video suite (Production Premium) and then pay separately for Acrobat and Dreamweaver, now they're included.

I never owned Lightroom before, but now after getting it included in my Creative Cloud, I've seen what a really great tool it is for photo management and light editing/corrections.

I'm sorry a bunch of you don't like the route - I'm not kidding, I'm truly sorry if these changes somehow DON'T benefit you - but over a half million people have already been on the Creative Cloud for the past year, and it is because of the astounding adoption rate of the Creative Cloud that Adobe is going this route. The people have spoken. Your voices aren't necessarily irrelevant, but Adobe is doing what is best for the majority of their customers.

I get the concerns with not owning software (my primary concern a year ago). However, I know that I'm saving money because I can just look at my QuickBooks file for the last 10 years and see that my costs are going to be lower (and I didn't upgrade for EVERY single update, either). I also know that - as mentioned above - I now have access to things I didn't have before.

Adobe knows that there are some things (like ownership) that are being sacrificed in this route, which is a big part of the reason they're keeping prices low and throwing 100 different features and apps into the mix to counter our sacrifices.

That is the way I see it as a current user who doesn't have a ton of money to waste on bad decisions. No one has to feel the way I do, but if you can't get past your preconcieved notions for a moment and think of the benefits, I believe you'll realize as I do that the pros outweigh the cons.

Report · May 07, 2013

Christian Jolly wrote:
Adobe is not legally allowed to update perpetual license software with new features. This does not apply to patches, bug fixes, etc.

So again, how come we've had a plethora of new features added to FCPX with no extra cost?

Report · May 07, 2013

Christian Jolly wrote:
I'm sorry a bunch of you don't like the route - I'm not kidding, I'm truly sorry if these changes somehow DON'T benefit you - but over a half million people have already been on the Creative Cloud for the past year, and it is because of the astounding adoption rate of the Creative Cloud that Adobe is going this route. The people have spoken. Your voices aren't necessarily irrelevant, but Adobe is doing what is best for the majority of their customers.
Adobe knows that there are some things (like ownership) that are being sacrificed in this route, which is a big part of the reason they're keeping prices low and throwing 100 different features and apps into the mix to counter our sacrifices.
That is the way I see it as a current user who doesn't have a ton of money to waste on bad decisions. No one has to feel the way I do, but if you can't get past your preconcieved notions for a moment and think of the benefits, I believe you'll realize as I do that the pros outweigh the cons.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

A few ponts to consider... from the numbers I've seen, it looks like maybe 25% of Adobe's customers have adopted the CC model... not a majority. The numbers that have been published suggest there are nearly 1.5 million users who have not opted for the CC route.

But at the end of the day, this is not about Adobe doing what is best for it's customers; it is about Adobe doing what is best for it's executives. I have not heard one customer-centric reason to FORCE the switch. I have not heard one customer-centric reason that would suggest that CC and CS cannot co-exist, as they do now.

We all view this through our own "selfish" lense. Paying a recurring expense FOREVER makes sense for some customers, but not for everyone. There is no technical or customer-centric reason for doing this. It's just monopolistic, and wrong.

Report · May 07, 2013

Kopy-Rite wrote:
Christian Jolly wrote:
I'm sorry a bunch of you don't like the route - I'm not kidding, I'm truly sorry if these changes somehow DON'T benefit you - but over a half million people have already been on the Creative Cloud for the past year, and it is because of the astounding adoption rate of the Creative Cloud that Adobe is going this route. The people have spoken. Your voices aren't necessarily irrelevant, but Adobe is doing what is best for the majority of their customers.
Adobe knows that there are some things (like ownership) that are being sacrificed in this route, which is a big part of the reason they're keeping prices low and throwing 100 different features and apps into the mix to counter our sacrifices.
That is the way I see it as a current user who doesn't have a ton of money to waste on bad decisions. No one has to feel the way I do, but if you can't get past your preconcieved notions for a moment and think of the benefits, I believe you'll realize as I do that the pros outweigh the cons.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
A few ponts to consider... from the numbers I've seen, it looks like maybe 25% of Adobe's customers have adopted the CC model... not a majority. The numbers that have been published suggest there are nearly 1.5 million users who have not opted for the CC route.
But at the end of the day, this is not about Adobe doing what is best for it's customers; it is about Adobe doing what is best for it's executives. I have not heard one customer-centric reason to FORCE the switch. I have not heard one customer-centric reason that would suggest that CC and CS cannot co-exist, as they do now.
We all view this through our own "selfish" lense. Paying a recurring expense FOREVER makes sense for some customers, but not for everyone. There is no technical or customer-centric reason for doing this. It's just monopolistic, and wrong.

I have not seen those numbers (the 25%, 1.5 million users). Can you provide a link?

I did try searching for that info on Google, but nothing turned up.

If I'm playing with the numbers, I'd take a guess that Adobe can never hope to get more than 50% to 70% of it's customers over to the Creative Cloud, because it does not make sense to the business of a number of people. For example, my wife and my father both work for the US federal gov't (different agencies), and my father-in-law is retired from yet another US gov't agency (yet a different one). They are all Adobe customers, as they have copies of Adobe Acrobat licensed to their individual terminals. At the very least, each office would be a customer, and there are 1,000's of US gov't offices. So whether we're talking about 50,000 individual users or just a couple 1,000, that's a good chunk of people who do not need Photoshop, Adobe cloud storage, Illustrator or After Effects. However, they do need flexible licensing options, so even the individual subscription model works just fine for them - just not the whole Creative Cloud shebang.

Likewise, there have got to be I would imagine maybe another 5,000 or 10,000 photo hobbyists - people who aren't true professionals, but do like to use the best tool they can use for their hobby. So they want Photoshop, but really don't need jack else that Creative Cloud offers. So they'll at best be month-to-month subscribers at $20/month. But if that works fine, because most photo hobbyists do their work in batches. They sit down for a few nights after work in a given month and line up all their photo stuff. So they don't need to bother with annual subscriptions or suites of packages at all.

Again, just guessing here, but if there are currently 2 million Adobe customers, I'd guess that easily 50% or fewer are even owners of the whole suite (whether Design, Web, Production or Master versions). So I'd think that if anything, the lower cost of entry (not $800 and up, all upfront), will draw even more users into Adobe. Probably more than enough to offset whatever illegal acquisition may continue, and probably enough to offset the folks who fly off to Avid or Apple or Grass Valley under the (misguided) assumption that somehow the way that you license software is integral to how well you treat your customers or how well your software actually works (please, just check out the Avid forums, those places are lousy with complaints of broken features, lacking features, overpriced updates, etc).

I don't intend to come across as harsh, I'm just trying to be REALISTIC in pointing out these things, hopefully clarifying things in a different way than maybe some of you might have considered.

Report · May 07, 2013

Christian Jolly wrote:
A few ponts to consider... from the numbers I've seen, it looks like maybe 25% of Adobe's customers have adopted the CC model... not a majority. The numbers that have been published suggest there are nearly 1.5 million users who have not opted for the CC route.
I have not seen those numbers (the 25%, 1.5 million users). Can you provide a link?

I don't recall exactly where I saw it. Maybe I misintrepreted THIS?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2013/05/06/adobe-halts-new-software-releases-in-big-shift-to-t...

Adobe says it has amassed some 500,000 paying Creative Cloud customers, with 1.5 million more non-paid users. But the company acknowledged that it won’t be easy or quick for many customers to move to the cloud. “There are going to be some customers who aren’t ready for this,” says Scott Morris, a senior marketing manager for Creative Cloud.

Regardless of how the numbers are intrepreted, I love this quote: "There are going to be some customers who aren't ready for this," says Scott Morris. What they neglected to add was, "and quite frankly, we don't care!"

Really, customer objections probably don't matter at this point. Adobe, in it's Borg-like way, is going to do what it wants, and we'll need to comply with the collective. Resistance is futile!

Report · May 07, 2013

Kopy-Rite wrote:
Christian Jolly wrote:
A few ponts to consider... from the numbers I've seen, it looks like maybe 25% of Adobe's customers have adopted the CC model... not a majority. The numbers that have been published suggest there are nearly 1.5 million users who have not opted for the CC route.
I have not seen those numbers (the 25%, 1.5 million users). Can you provide a link?
I don't recall exactly where I saw it. Maybe I misintrepreted THIS?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2013/05/06/adobe-halts-new-softw are-releases-in-big-shift-to-...
Adobe says it has amassed some 500,000 paying Creative Cloud customers, with 1.5 million more non-paid users. But the company acknowledged that it won’t be easy or quick for many customers to move to the cloud. “There are going to be some customers who aren’t ready for this,” says Scott Morris, a senior marketing manager for Creative Cloud.
Regardless of how the numbers are intrepreted, I love this quote: "There are going to be some customers who aren't ready for this," says Scott Morris. What they neglected to add was, "and quite frankly, we don't care!"
Really, customer objections probably don't matter at this point. Adobe, in it's Borg-like way, is going to do what it wants, and we'll need to comply with the collective. Resistance is futile!

The 1.5 million in that quote are Creative Cloud users with free accounts. Read more about the free accounts on the pricing page. Essentially, it's 2 GB free storage space, and 30-day trials of any app. The trial begins when you install an app. So you could potentially do a trial of Photoshop this month, Illustrator next month, After Effects the following month, etc...in other words, you don't have to trial everything all in the first 30 days of signing up. If that matters at all (just trying to clarify how it works). The 2 GB storage is available indefinitely.

So yes, you interpreted the numbers a bit wrong, but that's cool. There are a lot of numbers flying around right now.

Report · May 07, 2013

No, it's the US legal system. As a public-traded company Adobe are subject to the Sarbanes-Oxley rules on accounting, which prevent a number of things including giving away new features to perpetual license holders (due to the way revenue is declared against the cost of developing said new feature). A subscription is in effect a new license agreement each month, so it complies with the rules and CC members can get their updates as soon as Adobe think they're ready.

Charging for new features added to perpetual licenses on an ad-hoc basis would be impracticable; the complexities of global billing and supporting all the consequences from users who only want some of the updates would cost far more than Adobe could charge for each patch.

Jason Van Patten wrote:
As it turns out, there's nothing but internal politics preventing them from doing the same thing with their perpetual license software.

Report · May 07, 2013

Dave Merchant wrote:
No, it's the US legal system. As a public-traded company Adobe are subject to the Sarbanes-Oxley rules on accounting, which prevent a number of things including giving away new features to perpetual license holders

.... that being the case, how come we've had a plethora of new features added to FCPX without being charged any extra?

Report · May 07, 2013

ExactImage wrote:
Dave Merchant wrote:
No, it's the US legal system. As a public-traded company Adobe are subject to the Sarbanes-Oxley rules on accounting, which prevent a number of things including giving away new features to perpetual license holders
.... that being the case, how come we've had a plethora of new features added to FCPX without being charged any extra?

The law regulates unadvertised feature improvements. Apple got away with it by saying "we're going to be adding all this extra stuff in the next 12 months."

The real question you should be asking is why Apple sold so many $300 installations of software to users while readily admitting that tons of stuff wouldn't be included for months.

And people somehow think Adobe is the company that is engendering distrust?

The Apple/FCPX comparisons being levied in this thread are very much inaccurate. Apple got in hot water for trying to control the way people actually created - the way they WORKED. Adobe's big shift here is not even close to the same thing, they are simply changing their software licensing...all the software still works the same. If you switch between CS2, CS5 and CC ("CS7"), you'll see that the tools all operate rather similarly...stuff is pretty much in the same spots, the names of the tools haven't changed, etc. That was Apple's sin in FCPX, they changed the names of stuff, threw out a ton of things that were basic features of video editing, and did so quite literally without even asking video editors how they wanted it to work. They were very blatant about it.

Adobe, on the flip side, has arrived at this point with Creative Cloud directly as a result of consulting with large and small firms globally. Adobe Anywhere, for example, was created in-house at a major studio, and tested and refined at other large studios. Premiere Pro features are the result of culling user requests (look at what they're doing with the next generation of Mercury Playback...multiple video cards, and even leveraging non-supported video cards....how many times have people begged for this?).

You think Adobe is making this decisions unilaterally, but to be precise, you really only have your fellow users to blame. You can blame the people such as myself, we who signed up for Creative Cloud and kept funneling compliments to Adobe and promoting it's amazing-ness to the masses in forums, networking groups and so on. But don't think it's just some money grab (really, that's the best conspiracy theory we can come up with?) because while Adobe will probably be profiting from this decision, it will have much more to do with the attractiveness of the deal to new and past users than it will have to do with some slave/master relationship.

Report · May 07, 2013

Dave Merchant wrote:
No, it's the US legal system. As a public-traded company Adobe are subject to the Sarbanes-Oxley rules on accounting, which prevent a number of things including giving away new features to perpetual license holders (due to the way revenue is declared against the cost of developing said new feature).

I love it when people quote SOX for a reason and don't actually understand it.

Incorrect, sir. Try again.

jas

Report · May 06, 2013

And do you remember, when Apple announced FCPX, Adobe rushed to tell FCP7 users it would a great thing to switch to PrPro because Adobe was the company that listened to pro users?

Report · May 06, 2013

And with all the work turning Adobe Premiere Pro into Adobe Premiere Cut Pro (leaving what I consider far more useful new features for later), do you seriously doubt that they listen?

Report · May 06, 2013

Encore is in the list of "also included" to the right of the Creative Tools:

http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/tools-and-services.html

The link takes you to a CS6 Encore page.

Report · May 06, 2013

I encourage everyone to protest this to Adobe. I am highly suspicious of the efforts their PR staff are making to emphasize "customers just love the new subscription model." Very likely the people who have signed up for it do love it…

Very plausibly, however, the people who have elected not to sign up for it are vehemently opposed to it and now extremely angry at being forced into an ongoing non-voluntary transfer of funds from us to Adobe.

Complain to Adobe. Complain to your representatives in Congress, too; they aren't all receiving money from Adobe and at least a few may be willing to talk up the issue.

Present Adobe with a clear choice between actually listening to loyal customers, or having their claims of doing so exposed as blatant lies.

Report · May 06, 2013

Announcement: Creative Cloud Connection

unavailable from 6 A.M. to 5 P.M. PDT on 5/6/13

http://forums.adobe.com/community/creative_cloud

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1205690?tstart=0

I wonder how frequent maintenance outages will be?

Will they always be anticipated?