Adobe - Creative Cloud Update

[BernardLanguillier]

afaict The situation is simply that you wish to use PS CC without subscription, and Adobe don't wish to provide PS CC without subscription.

I don't wish to use a subscription based solution at all because I feel that there is simply no way the issue of "business continuity" after subscription end can have a workable solution.

In other words, these real world examples are a clear proof that once you start to subcribe, you are bound to have to continue subscribing as long as you continue the activity for which you are using the software.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Isaac]

... because I feel that there is simply no way the issue of "business continuity" after subscription end can have a workable solution.

Because you consider proprietary artifacts to be assets, but they are fully assets only when combined with unrestricted use of the proprietary algorithms, and subscription restricts the use of some proprietary algorithms.

Which is why you won't be satisfied by - "We agree our customers should be able to open their files even after they've unsubscribed," Wadhwani said. "It's their work, and they should be able to reliably access what they've created."

We can guess that will only be a restricted use.

In other words, these real world examples are a clear proof that once you start to subcribe, you are bound to have to continue subscribing as long as you continue the activity for which you are using the software.

They are proof of the incremental benefits of continuing to use the same proprietary tool, which become part of the cost of moving to a different tool.

[BernardLanguillier]

Because you consider proprietary artifacts to be assets, but they are fully assets only when combined with unrestricted use of the proprietary algorithms, and subscription restricts the use of some proprietary algorithms.

Which is why you won't be satisfied by - "We agree our customers should be able to open their files even after they've unsubscribed," Wadhwani said. "It's their work, and they should be able to reliably access what they've created."

We can guess that will only be a restricted use.

They are proof of the incremental benefits of continuing to use the same proprietary tool, which become part of the cost of moving to a different tool.

Yes, absolutely.

I believe few people would consider these "artifacts" (layers, masks,...), that I call IP, no to be valuable assets.

So this means that starting to subscribe means a choice in terms of continuying to pay forever OR loosing these valuable assets when you "decide" you won't continue to pay.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Isaac]

I believe few people would consider these "artifacts" (layers, masks,...), that I call IP, no to be valuable assets.

They only have value when combined with the proprietary algorithms.

I'm pleased to have a clear understanding of your views.

[BernardLanguillier]

They only have value when combined with the proprietary algorithms.

Indeed. The Abode decision to focus on CC alone has highlighted our dependency on the continued availability of the platform (data and the algos turning them into photographic assets) in which we decided to invest our IP.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Shantanu Narayen, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Adobe, has recently sold nearly all (around 97%) of his $10,000,000 Adobe shares, just before the CC was introduced.

Don’t know if this is in anyway relevant to the ongoing Creative 'Mushroom' Cloud, but it is interesting don’t you think?

Dave

[john beardsworth]

Interesting? Or just a cheap insinuation?

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Interesting? Or just a cheap insinuation?

Whatever you want John, I am simply passing on comments as stated directly from Adobe's own user discussion forum, I have not made this up and I am not insinuating anything, I am simply passing this on, so if you want to think cheap, then cheap away  

Dave

[BernardLanguillier]

Interesting? Or just a cheap insinuation?

Abode has publicly acknowlegded that they knew their move would not be popular.

You'd have to be real stupid not to anticipate a short/mid term negative impact on stock value. Now if Adobe's decision turns out to be good overall business wise, then the stock will bounce back.

So the decision of the CEO to sell is most likely related to CC, but it does not necessarily indicate that he doesn't believe in the stategy. Either he needs cash now or he doesn't see himself staying with Adobe long enough to benefit from the possible long term positive impact on stock value.

Who knows what his position was in this debate. It may have been decided by board members as part of a grand scheme to start deploying stable revenue generation schemes in order to resist the move towards free software. Indeed, we all know that the kind of "ad dumping" performed by Google may not be ruled illegal early enough to prevent killing a significant chunk of software IP providers like Adobe.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Peter Le]

Adobe - Freedom of Choice - We Love Choice - Create without limits

http://web.archive.org/web/20110623095449/http://www.adobe.com/choice/

 
• At Adobe, we believe that the open flow of creativity, ideas, and information should be limited only by the imagination. Innovation thrives when people are free to choose the technologies that enable them to openly express themselves and access information where and when they want.
• Openness is at Adobe's core.
• We believe open markets that allow developers, publishers, and consumers to make their own choices about how they create, distribute, and access content are essential to progress.
• We remain certain that open markets are the only way forward.
Thoughts on Open Markets - John Warnock and Chuck Geschke

http://web.archive.org/web/20110716073019/http://www.adobe.com/choice/ openmarkets.html

 
• As the founders of Adobe, we believe open markets are in the best interest of developers, content owners, and consumers.

• We believe that consumers should be able to freely access their favorite content and applications, regardless of what computer they have, what browser they like, or what device suits their needs. No company — no matter how big or how creative — should dictate what you can create, how you create it

• When markets are open, anyone with a great idea has a chance to drive innovation and find new customers. Adobe's business philosophy is based on a premise that, in an open market, the best products will win in the end

• In the end, we believe the question is really this: Who controls the World Wide Web (insert how you use your Software)? And we believe the answer is: nobody — and everybody, but certainly not a single company.

    Found this from Adobe a little while back......interest isn't it ?

[kencameron]

Don’t know if this is in anyway relevant to the ongoing Creative 'Mushroom' Cloud, but it is interesting don’t you think?

I would find it more interesting if I could think of any plausible way in which it might be relevant to the ongoing creative cloud etcetera.  What kind of connection do you see, Dave?

[lhodaniel]

I want to know why his actions don't run afoul of Insider Trading laws.

[john beardsworth]

Firstly, because they are disclosed. Secondly I would expect the sale to have been at arm's length.

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

I would find it more interesting if I could think of any plausible way in which it might be relevant to the ongoing creative cloud etcetera.  What kind of connection do you see, Dave?

I only passed on this info so people could speculate for themselves as to its relevance or otherwise, because as I stated when I posted it, I personally didn't know if it was relevant or not. 

Dave

[john beardsworth]

Sure.  

Look, I couldn't give a toss about this guy, but shouldn't the discussion attempt to stay above the level of nasty insinuation? No doubt he is as responsible as anyone for the decision to change the business model, but the rest of the board would be equally aware of the potential volatility of the stock price. They didn't choose to sell at that date "just before" the announcement. What do you make of that, eh? He also sold some stock back in January, "just before" nothing happened. Speculate on that, why don't you?

John

[jrsforums]

Sure.  

Look, I couldn't give a toss about this guy, but shouldn't the discussion attempt to stay above the level of nasty insinuation? No doubt he is as responsible as anyone for the decision to change the business model, but the rest of the board would be equally aware of the potential volatility of the stock price. They didn't choose to sell at that date "just before" the announcement. What do you make of that, eh? He also sold some stock back in January, "just before" nothing happened. Speculate on that, why don't you?

John

Someone who knows specifically could voice in here.  However, I know that in the USA there are specific rules on when executives can sell stock.  This is to avoid insider trading.  I would doubt that any executive would...or would be allowed by the board and legal dept....to sell at an inappropriate time.

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Sure.  

Look, I couldn't give a toss about this guy, but shouldn't the discussion attempt to stay above the level of nasty insinuation? No doubt he is as responsible as anyone for the decision to change the business model, but the rest of the board would be equally aware of the potential volatility of the stock price. They didn't choose to sell at that date "just before" the announcement. What do you make of that, eh? He also sold some stock back in January, "just before" nothing happened. Speculate on that, why don't you?

John

John, you say you don't give a toss about the guy, yet you have obviously just spent some time digging around in the man's Adobe trading history and then discussed it on this forum, which I didn't do before posting the previous link and haven't done so since. All I did was copy and paste a link from a current discussion on Adobe's own forum, under a thread discussing the Creative Cloud, so if you think that is "nasty insinuation" then that represents your way of thinking not mine.

Stop getting your knickers in a twist already, you'll burst a blood vessel or something

Dave

[john beardsworth]

Quit the insults, Dave. I merely followed your links and read them more thoroughly than you appear to have done, or with my background I perhaps understood them a little more readily. I'm not even sure you noticed that your "just before" was a whole month.

You know, I doubt you are so naive to believe that you weren't making unpleasant insinuations, even in jest....

[ButchM]

Regardless if Narayen had the most innocent motives for selling his stock ... the quantity of shares, and the overall percentage of his total Adobe portfolio he converted to cash, along with the timing of the sale(s) ... has to make one wonder why he thought his investment was more valuable as cash now, and not in support of his own company increasing the value of his shares in the near future. I'm sure the SEC has (or is ) scrutinized his sell off ... so if he was up to something nefarious, we likely would have heard rumblings to that end by now.

It's really not that unreasonable for folks to at least raise an eyebrow when considering this action, especially in light of the sweeping change in licensing policy that can place doubts in stockholder's minds.

[john beardsworth]

It's not unreasonable to raise an eyebrow - but it is to make insinuations when you should know that your "evidence" doesn't support them.