Does CC subscription increase or decrease motivation for innovation by Adobe?

[l_d_allan]

With perpetual licenses "in the good old days" last year, this hobby'ist felt it was up to Adobe management and developers to put in enough compelling innovation to entice me to upgrade. If it was the stale "same old same old" ProcessVersion and foo-foo capabilities that didn't appeal to me, I'd be inclined to skip an upgrade, like I did with CS6.

But now, once we've subscribed, it seems a case can be made that Adobe management might be inclined to "rest on its laurels", and have less incentive to commit many millions of development $.¢¢ for compelling innovation.

But another case can be made that with a steadier revenue stream, Adobe can better afford the huge costs and risks of developing compelling innovation.

Or not?

Of course, Adobe still wants to attract brand new customers. It still has to "punch it out" with hungry competitors.

And to me, PS is very much vulnerable to "disruptive innovation" from good-enough competition at significantly lower prices, which rapidly improves.

[Peter Stacey]

Geeks innovate with software, because that's what geeks do.

Adobe has plenty of geeks.

Therefore Adobe will continue to innovate.

I probably could have written it differently, but the meaning would be the same. I don't see the developers being too interested on a daily basis with the revenue model as a motivator for their work. They'll continue to do their work irrespective of the revenue model and that will include continued innovation.

[Wayne Fox]

Certainly a good question, and tough to answer.  It seems to me one of Adobe's recent challenges is innovating on what has become an extremely mature and robust product line.  PS is just one piece of that.  They may find it difficult to add features to the point of cranking out a new version very 18 months.  Also challenging is the entire process of managing versions and the upgrade cycle because so many users are just happy with what they already have. So they have chosen to disrupt the traditional software model they have had in the past (whether good or bad is discussed in plenty of other places) in an attempt to let them perhaps innovate in a different way?

From the things shown here at Photoshop world, it's obvious they are trying hard to innovate in ways to benefit a broad spectrum of their user base (and I don't believe photographers are the majority), and right now they seem to focused on leveraging cloud computing/workflows as well as empowering mobile devices.  They demonstrated performing a few operations on an iPhone which the phone itself doesn't have the power to do by using a client server based model.  They also demonstrated LR 5's new smart preview technology  on an iPad where the entire basic panel was available, and because it's cloud based, those changes were available to the host computer when LR was started and could be applied to the original file.

Not all of the innovation is in areas that benefit most photographers (nothing new there), but certainly some of the ideas will.  Only time will tell, but it seems they feel to stay viable and indeed to grow requires a different path.  They are aggressively looking for input, and the new model means when they find a cool new little thing, they can just code it and release it.  They actually have engineers here doing live coding at the trade show with users ideas ... certainly trying to find out what users want.

For me, 9.95 is a no brainer even if nothing major comes down the line - I'm really happy with what I do and my LR/PS workflow.  The fact that I won't have to buy an upgrade just because on OS upgrade killed my program is great, and it's a lot cheaper than upgrading two programs as well as paying for a dropbox account ...

Blizzard has 7 million people paying $15 a month just to play world of warcraft and it's been going for 5 or 6 years now (and they have sold each of those users 4 upgrades at $50-60 each in the process as well).  LR/PS for $9.95 or even $19.95 certainly seems a better value than that ...

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Certainly a good question, and tough to answer.  It seems to me one of Adobe's recent challenges is innovating on what has become an extremely mature and robust product line.  PS is just one piece of that.  They may find it difficult to add features to the point of cranking out a new version very 18 months.

Hi Wayne,

That's the answer to the OP's question. It's becoming harder and harder to add (meaningful) features to a mature product, yet the revenue stream and profitability is required to continue or even increase. So the subscription model is there to secure the revenue stream, not the pace of innovation.

What's also slightly surprising to me is that people are willing to pay the same amount or more than they used to (annualized) for less and less real innovation. And what's worse they need to continue doing that, regardless of  price increases, to avoid getting locked out of their own work-in-progress. Encouraging a company in doing that seems rather unwise.

I'd like to be proven wrong, but the signs are not favourable. The company seems to be very much out of touch with it's stakeholders, the people with various vested interests other than shareholder profit.

Cheers,
Bart

[Rhossydd]

Certainly a good question, and tough to answer.  It seems to me one of Adobe's recent challenges is innovating on what has become an extremely mature and robust product line...  They may find it difficult to add features to the point of cranking out a new version very 18 months.
.....
From the things shown here at Photoshop world, it's obvious they are trying hard to innovate in ways to benefit a broad spectrum of their user base (and I don't believe photographers are the majority), and right now they seem to focused on leveraging cloud computing/workflows as well as empowering mobile devices. 

For me that still makes the latest offer unappealing. There's just not enough new to warrant a subscription for upgrades. There's not been much added since CS4 to PS that's useful to me and the latest LR version looks to have had a major slow down in innovation.
As someone not obsessed by the whole social networking thing, I didn't see anything compelling even being developed.

[Peter Stacey]

For me that still makes the latest offer unappealing. There's just not enough new to warrant a subscription for upgrades.

To me, there's heaps of room to innovate, particularly in the mobile space.

As our mobile devices become more powerful over the next few years, I can definitely see more access to useful development tools as full applications on tablets. Combined with wifi transfer of files, we'll have full capture to editing to publishing suites directly in the field.

Anyway, that's what I hope happens, but there's a lot of work to be done in software development to exploit the power of the hardware that is on its way.

[jrp]

Geeks innovate with software, because that's what geeks do.

Adobe has plenty of geeks.

Therefore Adobe will continue to innovate.

Yes, but geeks cost $, so why would they retain them if it is not going to make any difference to their income, as is the case under the rental model.

[DeanChriss]

... It seems to me one of Adobe's recent challenges is innovating on what has become an extremely mature and robust product line.  PS is just one piece of that.  They may find it difficult to add features to the point of cranking out a new version very 18 months. ...

...  It's becoming harder and harder to add (meaningful) features to a mature product, yet the revenue stream and profitability is required to continue or even increase. So the subscription model is there to secure the revenue stream, not the pace of innovation. ...

I agree with those assessments. I think what's happening with Photoshop and all the CC programs has happened many times with other software products from different manufacturers. Microsoft Office comes to mind. It has changed little in over a decade, and any "newness" comes from the addition of unrelated features like integrated online collaboration and social networking.

I think Adobe is in a the same boat without the huge range of other products Microsoft has to keep it afloat. I expect to see little innovation relating to how one can manipulate pixels. It's not Adobe's fault, there's just not much left to do. While what one can do with an image won't change much, I think they will add lots of unrelated features like online storage and Behance. Nice, perhaps, but it doesn't change what you can do with an image. Leveraging the cloud won't change how you can edit an image either, but it may change where you can do it from. For the most part I see things like the ability to edit images from a cell phone as solutions without problems. I'd frankly be happier without all of these unrelated features mucking things up. I'm sure others feel differently.

But there are reasons to subscribe. Two of them are maintaining OS compatibility and staying compatible with new camera file formats. Subscribing may also be the price of keeping Adobe around so that they are there five or ten years down the road when CS6 gasps its last breath. If that doesn't happen perhaps you need them around to maintain the DNG converter. Whatever the case I don't think many want Adobe to fail even though many are upset about the way they've gone about this transition, and the transition itself.

[madmanchan]

My (perhaps contrarian) view is that there's a ton left to do for photographers, in Ps, ACR, and Lr.  Even without looking at any type of social networking, online collaboration, or mobile efforts.  While I unfortunately can't guarantee anything about product pricing, one thing I can guarantee is that the ACR task list is extremely long ... 

[Vladimirovich]

Geeks innovate with software, because that's what geeks do.
Adobe has plenty of geeks.
Therefore Adobe will continue to innovate.

big corporation can't have "geeks" innovating at will, dude... see google.

[Vladimirovich]

Yes, but geeks cost $, so why would they retain them if it is not going to make any difference to their income, as is the case under the rental model.

it is not about $$$ for a big company, it is about support, testing, compatibility, etc and infection of the corporate organism by more and more laywers and managers

[jrp]

My (perhaps contrarian) view is that there's a ton left to do for photographers, in Ps, ACR, and Lr.  Even without looking at any type of social networking, online collaboration, or mobile efforts.  While I unfortunately can't guarantee anything about product pricing, one thing I can guarantee is that the ACR task list is extremely long ... 

I agree, but my point -- to address the original question -- is that the incentive to make progress on the task list is reduced if it is not going to generate additional revenue, which it won't under the rental model.

[Peter Stacey]

I agree, but my point -- to address the original question -- is that the incentive to make progress on the task list is reduced if it is not going to generate additional revenue, which it won't under the rental model.

But you're assuming that the only reason to be in business is to generate revenue.

Revenue is a necessary result of operation, not the sole reason to exist. Companies exist because the founders/investors want to achieve something.

[Peter Stacey]

big corporation can't have "geeks" innovating at will, dude... see google.

20% time?

But more seriously, I didn't suggest they innovate at will.

[Rhossydd]

To me, there's heaps of room to innovate, particularly in the mobile space.

Well if that's what you want I think you're going to be happy with where they're going.
It just doesn't interest me at all.

[Vladimirovich]

20% time?

http://qz.com/116196/google-engineers-insist-20-time-is-not-dead-its-just-turned-into-120-time/

there was an official word from google, but whom they are kidding - it is not a startup anymore, so it is lesser "geek" fun (albeit more fun than in M$ I 'd assume)... now I 'd assume that select few key technical people do enjoy more freedom than others, but the truth is that the bigger the public company is the lesser "geeky" it is.

[Vladimirovich]

Companies exist because the founders/investors want to achieve something.

they start like this - but big corporations are not about "founders" or "investors" (as gov't - be it elected president/govn's or elected legislature - is not about hoi polloi electorate) - it is about professional class of hired (well, they are mostly being hired by their peers) managers navigating their way to the time when they can cash in options.

[Wayne Fox]

My (perhaps contrarian) view is that there's a ton left to do for photographers, in Ps, ACR, and Lr.  Even without looking at any type of social networking, online collaboration, or mobile efforts.  While I unfortunately can't guarantee anything about product pricing, one thing I can guarantee is that the ACR task list is extremely long ... 

Coming from you that is pretty exciting and encouraging.   

[Rhossydd]

My (perhaps contrarian) view is that there's a ton left to do for photographers, in Ps, ACR, and Lr.

I'll bet I'm not the only one that would like to hear what innovations you think are possible for photographers, but I'd guess you can't discuss this freely.

I'd also hazard a guess that the people that have the vision to really innovate are being ham strung by higher management who think, probably wrongly, that they know better what photographers want/will buy.

[fhammond]

Geeks innovate with software, because that's what geeks do.

Adobe has plenty of geeks.

Therefore Adobe will continue to innovate.

I probably could have written it differently, but the meaning would be the same. I don't see the developers being too interested on a daily basis with the revenue model as a motivator for their work. They'll continue to do their work irrespective of the revenue model and that will include continued innovation.

Let me add something to that. The perpetual software licensing model and how revenue is usually recognized can discourage developers from releasing incremental improvements after a product has shipped to customers. In addition, the "plumbing" for Creative Cloud (and in particular the Creative Cloud application that's installed locally) makes it really easy to deliver updates to the Creative Cloud software installed on your computer.

So my belief is that there's more motivation for innovation with Creative Cloud.