Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: l_d_allan on September 05, 2013, 12:14:03 am
-
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 $.ΒΆΒΆ 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.
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
... 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.
-
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 ... ;)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ... ;)
This is GREAT to hear. Actually, I've been impressed by the innovation in ProcessVersions, going from PV2003 to PV2010 to PV2012. Those have been real, meaningful improvements, particularly for LR and ACR. Perhaps not so much for PS itself.
I'm looking forward to PV2020 (as in 20/20 vision?) in 6 to 7+ years.
-
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.
It may well be easier to deliver updates with a subscription model but developing those updates costs money - big money - and unless they either generate incremental cash-flow that would otherwise not have been realized or prevent customers from leaving for the competition, why would they spend it?
-
My first reaction when CC was announced is unprintable.
My second reaction was that Adobe engineers and developers who are not in the company's top tier of stars had best update their CVs, and that those seeking to join Adobe should look elsewhere -- Adobe's Age of Innovation as the driver of sales is winding down, if not essentially over, and is being replaced by the Age of Marketing.
-
I would also assume that there is a lot left to innovate in terms of real-world usable photography stuff. Not only magic sharpening or denoising etc, but workflow, efficiency, user interface. How to make more photographers able to achieve better results with less time invested. I positive to any innovation that does not include the words "cloud" or "social".
Now, can Adobe deliver those innovations to market? Will the CC model inspire more or less innovation from Adobe? I would be a lot more comfortable if there were at least one more player operating in the same league as Adobe.
-h
-
Both models have problems.
The traditional perpetual license had companies churning software with new gimmicks never bothering to get it working well. It led to bloat and bugs. People that wanted new gimmicks were all over it even when it did not improve their output much.
The rental (annuity) model encourages getting the software right first as most revenue going forward is from existing customers. It is the base for low tech support costs. It stifles innovation for the same reason, customers are just cows to milk.
If you are a pro user you should prefer the latter if the software does what you need. It should just work removing problems you have to deal with. If you are a rare or occasional user you prefer the traditional model where you just buy once what you want to use.
As a customer I would prefer Adobe to rewrite PS capability into a small tight package. Roll that into LR then I would buy it. Accept PS is mature, release those resources to do constructive work in the economy rather that keeping them locked in an attempt to add more bells and whistles. More revenue should come from new products.
-
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.
I don't agree. Adobe's new incentive under the CC model is to keep users subscribed (as opposed to purchasing upgrades). These sound related but they're a bit different. Keeping users subscribed is best done by keeping users happy, which means listening to the users and working on the features that will really make a difference in their day-to-day use of the product (i.e., identifying and fixing common pain points, improving rendering performance, refining existing tools -- not just building brand new tools, polishing things, etc.). This is a rather different view of improving the product, compared to developing whizzy "headline" features that are intended to drive upgrades.
Btw, Thomas elaborates on this distinction in the video interview that Michael recently posted.
As an example, Camera Raw 8.2 (scheduled for release any day now) will have some minor refinements compared to Camera Raw 8.1, all of which originated as feature requests from users in this forum and elsewhere: a feather control to soften the blending for the spot tool, improved low-frequency noise reduction (color blobs), improved auto exposure, an improved white balance tool, the ability to create presets for batch-saving images, and a couple of other things. None of these items are great innovations, nor would they make a top-ten list of features for driving an upgrade. But they are (I contend) useful little features that do make a difference in the day-to-day use of ACR by photographers.
This is the sort of stuff that I feel we (engineers on the ACR team) have an incentive to deliver on an ongoing basis.
-
Keeping users subscribed is best done by keeping users happy, which means listening to the users and working on the features that will really make a difference in their day-to-day use of the product (i.e., identifying and fixing common pain points, improving rendering performance, refining existing tools -- not just building brand new tools, polishing things, etc.).
This sounds like you're suggesting individual attention will be given to each user's specific problem for their own system. If so, I take it when one of these pain points are addressed to Adobe engineers the response is not going to be..."We're not experiencing your problem on our system" or "We can't duplicate the problem on our system" as it has been in the past.
Yes, that is a different approach but it does sound too good to be true or maybe the limits to this haven't been specifically lined out in this thread because that level of attention sounds like a lot of work for program engineers to tackle.
-
I don't agree. Adobe's new incentive under the CC model is to keep users subscribed (as opposed to purchasing upgrades). These sound related but they're a bit different. Keeping users subscribed is best done by keeping users happy, which means listening to the users and working on the features that will really make a difference in their day-to-day use of the product (i.e., identifying and fixing common pain points, improving rendering performance, refining existing tools -- not just building brand new tools, polishing things, etc.). This is a rather different view of improving the product, compared to developing whizzy "headline" features that are intended to drive upgrades.
This is the sort of stuff that I feel we (engineers on the ACR team) have an incentive to deliver on an ongoing basis.
That's a good thing as it's the little niggles [as dealt with by the JDI initiative that John Nack pushed for PS in recent years] that probably makes the most improvement to the day to day drudgery of working with software. For example one of the new features just announced in Premiere CC is the fact that "Transitions can be pasted to multiple edit points", something that shamefully should have been in the very first iteration of the software. Not to mention the "Link and Locate Media" which again is such a basic necessity, it again baffles me that it was missing. These sorts of tweaks are far more important than the fancy headline grabbing features used to sell a new upgrade as in day to day use they will save soooooo much time. So if subscription means more of the basics get improved, then subscription has an advantage over 24 month release cycles. One that has not been pushed in all the fancy marketing as I far as I know.
-
If so, I take it when one of these pain points are addressed to Adobe engineers the response is not going to be..."We're not experiencing your problem on our system" or "We can't duplicate the problem on our system" as it has been in the past.
As someone that's done beta since Photoshop 2.5, that is still and always will be a possibility. It isn't because Adobe doesn't want to find a fix, our systems are complex and differ and what may affect you might not be an issue with nearly anyone else. So the remark, with the implication that Adobe shrinks from finding and fixing bugs doesn't really wash. If they can identify an issue, they will fix it if they can.
Since the introduction of the CC subscription, the mindset of some who are not happy with it and how they suggest Adobe behaves is nothing short of the torch and pitchfork crowd. Unnecessary.
-
This sounds like you're suggesting individual attention will be given to each user's specific problem for their own system. If so, I take it when one of these pain points are addressed to Adobe engineers the response is not going to be..."We're not experiencing your problem on our system" or "We can't duplicate the problem on our system" as it has been in the past.
No, what I'm really talking about here are smaller features and refinements. I gave the above list of items for Camera Raw 8.2 as an example. That's quite a lot of new stuff in a reasonably short amount of time (a few weeks). None of it is going to knock anybody's socks off, but I believe photographers will find them useful nonetheless.
-
No, what I'm really talking about here are smaller features and refinements. I gave the above list of items for Camera Raw 8.2 as an example. That's quite a lot of new stuff in a reasonably short amount of time (a few weeks). None of it is going to knock anybody's socks off, but I believe photographers will find them useful nonetheless.
Eric,
Thanks for your insight/perspective. The suspicion & cynicism must get a bit tedious.
I'd much rather have continuous refinement/improvement of robust tools than "new stuff for new stuff's sake."
Your efforts on all our behalf are appreciated. I'm not much worried that you and your colleagues are going to just kick back now that you've trapped me into CC. ;D Good grief! LOL
Rand
-
It isn't because Adobe doesn't want to find a fix,
Could you possibly stop misinterpreting my line of questioning for specifics as some kind of finger pointing at Adobe?
Any good lawyer would be asking what Eric meant about helping users with their problems/requested feature adjustments (that appears a la carte) with the software that I don't think is written anywhere in the subscription plan EULA or is it?
Or to put it another way are the customer service promises Eric points out with the subscription plan included as part of the deal in writing anywhere and where can one find this?
How long would it take for the kinds of services to be added and to later be downloaded off the cloud to the existing subscription version of the software? Will it take months? Weeks? Days?
And Rand47 keep the back slapping up. It really adds to the discussion.
-
the ACR task list is extremely long ... ;)
Maybe you could open up the list? 2014? 2015?
-
Downloaded the first incremental upgrade to PS CC since I began my subscription about 6 weeks back.
Nothing dramatic but the enhancements to the pen tool are really useful and since I do a lot of work with the pen tool Im pleased with that.
Seems the improvements will continue to roll out.
-
Could you possibly stop misinterpreting my line of questioning for specifics as some kind of finger pointing at Adobe?
No. You start your silly line of question councilor by writing:
This sounds like you're suggesting...
Then you go on to make up some silly leading argument about some user problem that some theoretical Adobe (tech support?) employee suggests as being non-reproducible on their system and blows you off. Classic suspicion & cynicism as Rand points out.
Any good lawyer would be asking what Eric meant about helping users with their problems/requested feature adjustments
Doesn't appear you're a good lawyer either in real life or one on TV.
You are entitled to silly opinions without basis and I'm entitled to call you out on them. IF you have a concrete question for an Adobe engineer about what he wrote, ask it. Trying to read between the lines (poorly) isn't helpful to anyone here and you'd be far better off conversing with Eric in a more straight forward, adult fashion. He's here to help.
-
Maybe you could open up the list? 2014? 2015?
Hi Oldfox,
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here ... but my interpretation is, "How long would it take you / your team to finish the list?" I would say about 3 to 5 years. Does that mean in 3 to 5 years there will be nothing left to add? I don't think so. A few years ago I thought ACR was already pretty mature and someone asked how long my task list was, and I also said "about 3 years worth." I think it goes to show there's always more to add, and I by "more" I mean actually useful stuff, rather than useless filler stuff.
Advances in some areas often open up opportunities in other areas, which is why things keep getting added to the list.
-
Nothing dramatic but the enhancements to the pen tool are really useful and since I do a lot of work with the pen tool Im pleased with that.
The new Adobe generator is also pretty cool. But I'll be accused of being a fanboy even if it's a feature I would use on my multiple layered doc's I place in InDesign that I use to swap out covers of books. It isn't dramatic but will save me some time in organizing the multiple image layers I need to 'extract'.
-
What changes to the pen tool? I don't recall reading anything about that.
Jim
-
What changes to the pen tool? I don't recall reading anything about that.
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/path_direct_selection_tool_selecting_multiple_paths_on_drag_select
This is actually a new feature in Photoshop CC that allows you to select and edit multiple paths across layers. You can also select and edit multiple paths in the Paths panel.
You can limit which layers are selected when you drag on the canvas by using isolation mode:
-To isolate a single shape, double-click on that shape on canvas with the Path Selection tool.
-To isolate multiple layers (including non-shape layers), select the layers in the Layers panel, right-click on the image with the Path Selection tool, and choose Isolate Layers.
-To exit isolation mode, double-click on the image with the Path Selection tool again.
When you are in isolation mode, the vector selection tools will only select paths from the isolated layers.
-
When you place an anchor point and perhaps have it a couple of pixels off you can now press the space bar and move the point into place on the fly. I used to nudge it into place with the arrow keys. When you are constructing a lot of complex paths every little thing speeds up the process and helps make it more accurate.
-
I don't agree. Adobe's new incentive under the CC model is to keep users subscribed (as opposed to purchasing upgrades). These sound related but they're a bit different. Keeping users subscribed is best done by keeping users happy, which means listening to the users and working on the features that will really make a difference in their day-to-day use of the product (i.e., identifying and fixing common pain points, improving rendering performance, refining existing tools -- not just building brand new tools, polishing things, etc.). This is a rather different view of improving the product, compared to developing whizzy "headline" features that are intended to drive upgrades.
Btw, Thomas elaborates on this distinction in the video interview that Michael recently posted.
As an example, Camera Raw 8.2 (scheduled for release any day now) will have some minor refinements compared to Camera Raw 8.1, all of which originated as feature requests from users in this forum and elsewhere: a feather control to soften the blending for the spot tool, improved low-frequency noise reduction (color blobs), improved auto exposure, an improved white balance tool, the ability to create presets for batch-saving images, and a couple of other things. None of these items are great innovations, nor would they make a top-ten list of features for driving an upgrade. But they are (I contend) useful little features that do make a difference in the day-to-day use of ACR by photographers.
This is the sort of stuff that I feel we (engineers on the ACR team) have an incentive to deliver on an ongoing basis.
To my view that is real progress. I have come to hate software that has lots of shiny promises on the box that never really work. Then people try to get the next version hoping things are finally fixed. No, just more half finished features are added.
If this is the new direction, it is a big jump in value in my opinion.
-
Maybe you could open up the list? 2014? 2015?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here ... but my interpretation is, "How long would it take you / your team to finish the list?"
I as a customer would like know what's on your list (and what's not). That perhaps would help me deciding whether go for CC or not.
-
I as a customer would like know what's on your list (and what's not). That perhaps would help me deciding whether go for CC or not.
Unfortunately that's not a list that I can post publicly. However, based on the Camera Raw 8.2 examples given above, you can see the types of things we're currently working on (and will continue to work on). Of course, there are also major features under development, but naturally they will take more time to flesh out and deliver (i.e., not something that can be delivered every dot release).
-
Unfortunately that's not a list that I can post publicly. However, based on the Camera Raw 8.2 examples given above, you can see the types of things we're currently working on (and will continue to work on). Of course, there are also major features under development, but naturally they will take more time to flesh out and deliver (i.e., not something that can be delivered every dot release).
can we have a white balance tool w/ user controllable area size (used for evaluation, rectangle or circle) in acr please
-
can we have a white balance tool w/ user controllable area size (used for evaluation, rectangle or circle) in acr please
Is there a reason you posted using a 6pt yellow text?
For those who want to know what Vladimirovich asked, here it is in normal text:
"can we have a white balance tool w/ user controllable area size (used for evaluation, rectangle or circle) in acr please"
-
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.
I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell, Peter...
Businesses are meant to create shareholders value. Value could be beyond cash, but as soon as you go public, cash is king. You don't own your business anymore. Millions of shareholders, from institutional to hedge funds to a grand-mother's retirement account, they all demand returns (dividends and/or stock valuation).
In that world, a CEO is forced on a daily basis to make choices that are not necessarily his favorites.
Let me make a statement that may shock you: if the revenue stream is not dependent on R&D investment, R&D investment goes down to zero. And Eric Chan and many other skilled researchers, engineers and developers at Adobe will fire up their resumes and seek jobs with Google (Nik) or somewhere else.
That is, IF (capital IF) revenue is independent from R&D investment.
It isn't so.
However, no one could argue that the revenue stream in a forced rental model is as dependent on new releases as a purchase/upgrade model. Therefore, there is a reason why Adobe needed that: if they can't grow the topline fast, may be they can shrink the expense line, and therefore grow their profit line (bottom line) faster.
The bridge in Brooklyn is for sale, you know... (Just teasing, don't take it too seriously)