I think we all have individual priorities in how we approach anything. Humans ... as far as I can tell ... RARELY do anything for "x" reason, it seems to always be a mish-mash. And frequently, not the ones we think we're doing "x" because of, but ... influenced by other things. And I've noted that we as a group (humans) have even more difficulty sorting out motivations in others.
After two of my three children were diagnosed as "on the Spectrum" ... one as Aspergers, the other "straight" Autism, and we began studying the stuff ... it soon became clear where this came from, even though we'd had no clue before. My father, myself, two of my three children. The eldest is 31, and a Lutheran pastor in the middle of North Dakota, the youngest 15, 6'2" tall and maybe 135 pounds (tall and SKINNY like my dad), plays soccer and is a straight-A student in regular high-school classes without assistance besides being an awesome cook and student of languages and history and science and ... of course ... computer games. A sweet and loving young man.
Not anyone NOT experienced in "spectrum" stuff would see me as say, Asperters ... I "seem" mostly normal, yet people ALWAYS get my motivations wrong. I'm pretty straight about what I see and feel ... and folks always seem to "detect" something ... off? ... in the way I come across and as they assume that basically no one actually says exactly what they mean to begin with, take the slightly "off" way I come across (sensed or felt, not really "seen") to their back-brain, they INSIST that my motivations on anything are something vastly different than what they are. Frustrating as Hades to deal with. But it's given me a good view of "normals" and how they think and perceive and rationalize through things.
And ... "normals" ... miss far more than they realize they do, in ANY communication. So my strong suggestion to those in this thread ... be aware you are probably operating on a lot of false assumptions, and further ... you probably don't have a clue which ones are false and which are even sort of mostly accurate. Just ... to the wise. Take "data" from what you see, put it in a nice matrix of boxes in your brain, and WAIT until you have vastly MORE data about something before charging in with your mind totally assured.
Is Adobe a good or evil or just mean-spirited company? What an odd thing to waste one's time on. Adobe is a group of people working on vastly different projects that mostly all are digitally based such as software to allow users to do something. Many of them are techy geeks who have NO life past writing the coolest code they can create, some are the dull but necessary clerical types that keep things flowing inside any human organization, some are "evangelists" to teach and tell about their stuff, and some take the info from everyone else and try and crystal-ball how to stay afloat if not improve their finances and take care of everybody they've got to pay salaries for.
In other words, like about any other group of people. The motivations that any particular person on any particular decision-train of that organization will be different than the motivations of everyone else on that decision-train. That's pure human nature. Over time, individual decision groups will float between being more similar with each other and less similar. People will agree on an action because of vastly different reasoning processes, and disagree on other actions even though the reasoning process there is nearly identical. That's being human.
Those in this thread who feel that Adobe's gone rogue because they chose a subscription model seem to insist on a view of both Adobe and those of us who have (for whatever varied reasons) accepted the new model enough to buy Adobe CC products. A very narrow view ... Adobe MUST be happy with dumping "a huge" part of it's user base so they must already know that in their wicked hearts, over the next couple years, they'll what ... triple the prices? ... to recoup all the money they "lost" by going to that model. It's simple economic fact and ANYONE who's not drinking kool-aid knows it.
Wrong, probably, on several counts. I work with several companies who have ALWAYS used a subscription basis for their software. And they don't have anywhere NEAR the user-base Adobe's got, they don't have a totally unique or nearly-so product, so why did they do so? Very simple: the cost of sales is way down with that model AND they don't have to maintain and spend time dealing with trying to get "shelf-space" and all that sort of thing. They can focus far more on product and service to their clients.
Are you so sure this wasn't a large factor in Adobe's decision?
And are you so sure that Adobe hasn't been able to achieve the same cost controls with this model the companies I deal with have been able to? Just asking, of course.
And even if they didn't achieve the total cost-control relative to their old model ... subscription-servicing of clients does allow for a smoother chain of progressions through product updates, not because Adobe says so, but because it seems every other company out there finds it so ... and if Adobe really wants to just focus on product and service to their user-base, why do they need the hassle of old-fashioned single-unit sales? I can see a motivation for simplicity of operation even in such a large organization. And I think at least some of the people involved in the decision to go subscription were influenced by that reasoning.
So to me, insisting that Adobe can ONLY have chosen this path because of the single motive of intending to screw their users financially in the near-future is absolutely contrary to probable human behavior. Could someone on their decision-group have that motive? Naturally. MUST all of them share that simple and single motive? Absurd. In fact, very, very unlikely.
Now ... is there a rational reason that those who question Adobe to the point of refusing to "go" to the Cloud could feel that way? Naturally. Cynicism and suspicion of other humans is often the wiser choice. Which is why I liked the Reagan administration's approach to dealing with treaties, and actually, not just to the Soviets by any means: "Trust, but verify!" So ... maintaining a healthy skepticism about Adobe or any other group over a period of time to get a better feel for their intent is not a bad thing. Nor unwise, either.
For me, and for this time ... I have access to far more programs now than I have chosed to use before, and the explanation I've seen some display over how those of us on the CC app-line are somehow paying far more than we would have before is absurd. I was paying nearly this much in years past, for TWO programs, Lr & Photoshop. Now, I've got what, seven? And don't use Illustrator and a couple other of the "big" ones yet. I added it up a few months back, in some discussion. I'd have been paying a bit over USD $1500/yr for the software I'm now using or will be adopting in the next couple months on the old pay-per-version model. Would NEVER have chosen to buy that much software, some for projects that would be nice to have but realisitcally we could make other things do sort of somehow.
I've got a couple photog friends who initially were mad as Hades about the CC model ... participated on the PPA boards and other places SCREAMING about how they were telling Adobe to shove it. But after seeing a few of us "bite" the apple, and um ... keep biting more ... they've re-aligned their thinking. And are using up CC apps like candy.
So I don't think the over-time drop of user-base is going to be anywhere near what the most savage Adobe-cynics are insisting will happen. And that will come against a drop in Adobe cost-structure and re-alignment of assets to servicing a sustained user-base.
Does this prove to me that Adobe HAS to have in mind they'll screw the users over with vastly higher fees? Of course not. Skeptics are welcome to sit outside and moan, of course, and I'll give them maybe a 10% chance of being sort of near correct as an outside possibility.
But looking over the high number of variables, the nature of humans, the history of subscription models, the Adobe user-base and the competition ... and their IS competition out there, aplenty for most 'apps', I don't think that the skeptic's assumptions of the REQUIRED Adobe thinking and plans make a lot of sense.
YMMV, of course. We all are humans, after all ... and therefore totally unique.
Neil
1857
Replies
AdChoices