Atomization of Services

[32BT]

Atomization of Services

Yes, you read that right: a-t-o-m-i-z-e, not automate. As in, breaking down services into ever smaller micro-events, which can then be purchased via micropayments. It is the trend in on-line services, pretty much started when "personalisation" became in swung years ago, and probably reached its apex when Steve Jobs convinced the music industry and the world at large that we should now be able to purchase individual songs and compose and combine our own albums.

Because we do not all like the same songs,

or need the same software.

What part of that trend does Adobe not get?

Instead of creating a few core-apps that are free to use, and a whole lot of satellite functionality at microprices, possibly on a per-use basis, so that you only pay a fair price for what you actually want or use, instead of microservicing, they decide that we all fit an entire suite based on subscription.

Oh, wait. They actually enabled individual app subscriptions? Gosh, what a revolution. They are truly caught up in a corporate centric thinking that is detrimental to their future survival. 50 years of marketing 101 have taught us this: Do what is in the best interest of the client, and you automatically do what is in the best interest of the shareholders.

[Peter McLennan]

This is a really good point. Thanks for clarifying it.

While Adobe's CC suite undoubtedly offers considerable creative power in a wide variety of disciplines, not all of us need or want to pay for the entire suite.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Do what is in the best interest of the client...

Do we (photographers) know who the client is and what is his "best interest"? It is worth noting that photographers comprise less than 10% of the Photoshop user base.

[Peter McLennan]

... It is worth noting that photographers comprise less than 10% of the Photoshop user base.

So what?  Are photographers the only ones complaining?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So what?  Are photographers the only ones complaining?

Well, this is photographers' forum... I do not know about others. Besides, I posed a question.

[Peter McLennan]

Do we (photographers) know who the client is and what is his "best interest"? It is worth noting that photographers comprise less than 10% of the Photoshop user base.

OK, agreed.  I didn't answer the question.

I certainly don't know "who the client is", but I do know that many of Photoshop's customers are photographers.  Many photographers are here and many photographers here (and elsewhere) consider that Adobe's CC strategy isn't in their best interest.

[johnvr]

You forget to mention one other of Steve Jobs' core beliefs, namely that people want to own their music and not rent it. That's why iTunes is what it is.

As a matter of fact, if Adobe adopted the App Store model, all the arguments it gives us for its strategy would be addressed. Which makes it clear that they're not telling us the full story.

[32BT]

The internet age demands microservicing.

It is the most optimal way to adapt your product to the individual wishes of every (type of) client.

It is even in the interest of the producer, because they can stop bloating a mature product, and have marketing scream how unbelievably new and innovative the next major version is, even though the only additions are some minor, irrelevant plugins. (Which usually seemed to be targeted at photographers the last couple of years, oddly enough).

It would also much better separate functionality between applications or modules. Animation comes to mind. Or the scientific analyzing modules.

And if properly implemented, you could allow third-party plugins to be serviced similarly. You essentially create a core app that connects to a module-app-store which also allows third-party modules. Whether you purchase or subscribe to those modules is up for debate, but it is easily decided who's interest is served, because the cost-of-ownership should go down for the customer as the individual customer should only have to purchase actual use.

Just as a glaringly obvious example from the past, that we repeatedly have run into on these forums:

A RAW converter needs to support new camera's every now and then.
- Why do I pay for a product that supports a kazillion cameras that I don't even own?
- Why do I have to repurchase the latest major version as I purchase a new camera?
(If it is soooooo much trouble to support each new camera because of a lack of support from the camera manufacturers, why not allow third-party import modules so that the open-source community can contribute.)


From the corporate perspective the idea behind microservices is this: the price of the services goes down, but the number of servings goes up significantly because your audience / potential customers is the entire world. Not just photographers, or graphics industry or whatever. Now even your mom is going to use 1 or 2 modules.

Buy an entire photoshop just to remove red-eye? Not likely.

Download a free core-app, and purchase a red-eye reduction module? Very likely. Oh, there are also modules for face-recognition and direct instatwitterbook uploads? Great says mom, sign me up 2 more modules.

etc...

[JRSmit]

This is another formulation of the SOA architecture, service oriented architecture, in its true sense. Which by the way never made it completely bar a possible exception. simply because all solutions come from a monolithic concept and it is very costy to alter that into a SOA as the business case is still negative.