LightRoom Classic CC

[-hh]

Of course, and looking at their financials, they are doing better than ever. Moreover, a bunch of competitors at various ends of the market have popped up, so I would claim it is even a lot better for customers now. Win-win.

A few years ago, I was really distraught, because Aperture was languishing and the only alternative was Lightroom whose UI I hated. That still hasn‘t changed, and I don‘t own any Adobe software. But looking at the company, I still think it is making the right moves: it slowly converted its business model to a subscription model which helped their bottom line. And they are investing, as far as I can tell, in the right technologies (the cloud, automated image processing, etc.). Moreover, they are willing to replace software with ground-up rewrites and provide a slow migration path. Despite the change in business model, end users are paying less in subscription fees than if they had bought the shrinkwrapped Adobe CS Studio box every time it was updated. But customers have the added advantage that everyone is using the latest version. All of that sounds good to me. And thanks to the change in OS ecosystems, serious competitors are popping up.

A fair point, up until we observe that Adobe's prior revenues indicated that their typical customer wasn't buying every upgrade, but had gone effectively to a "Skip Upgrade" (buying every other) behavior, which from the philosophy that the 'market is always correct' perspective means that Adobe had been unsuccessful in making their upgrades (& price) sufficiently compelling for their customers. If this wasn't the case, then they wouldn't have increased revenues/profits when they went to their current business model.

I was thinking of larger businesses where you had always had to deal with service contracts and such — you needed to pay regularly to keep on using software. The only difference now is that in the past few years, software subscription went from being a larger business thing to being something regular customers now have to deal with.

Sort of. The historical and business-centric service contract model you're referring to had its genesis from the days before desktop PCs, and it was the desktop PC which disrupted this. Yes, you're quite spot-on in noting that with the service contract model being pushed to PCs that this shouldn't be a big paradigm shift for business ... as well as it clearly being something that is new for the home market.

I don‘t think this is manipulation, not even marketing, but a big benefit for everyone. Most software subscriptions only make you pay for months that you actually use their product. I could cancel my Strava Premium subscription now and will lose the associated perks soon after. So it may actually be better for customers to pay on a monthly basis.

Easy enough when one has one's work product data locally ... but when that is now in the Cloud too, missing a monthly payment has ... what length of a grace period before the data is wiped?

I assume you are talking about specific features, right? In this case you want to say that even though the Lightroom CC subscription includes cloud storage, even though you have no intention to use it, you still have to pay for it, correct?

Sort of (see below)

If that‘s what your argument is, then I‘d say that you do that with any product: there are always many features that you don‘t use, but you will have to pay for them. But I don‘t feel cheated just because my Microsoft Office license helped fund development of PowerPoint (which I never use). The cloud has for most software companies become table stakes.

Fair enough, but my perspective here is that there's now issues like them using my data set for their auto-recognition AI development ... as a condition of the EULA. That's a product that they clearly have the intent to go make other profits from. So where's my cut? When there's no such compensation thus offered, then where's the provision for me to opt out of them using my data for ANY of their own benefit purposes?

Like it or not, but our metadata is worth tons of money to the corporations ... and they know it.

 

[OreoCookie]

A fair point, up until we observe that Adobe's prior revenues indicated that their typical customer wasn't buying every upgrade, but had gone effectively to a "Skip Upgrade" (buying every other) behavior, which from the philosophy that the 'market is always correct' perspective means that Adobe had been unsuccessful in making their upgrades (& price) sufficiently compelling for their customers. If this wasn't the case, then they wouldn't have increased revenues/profits when they went to their current business model.

Agreed. And it held back the market, because not everyone was on the latest version. Similarly to how Microsoft was lethargic during the Aughts, and hundreds of millions of people were affected by stagnating progress in the software department. To me, this is one of the strongest advantages of a software-as-a-service business model.


Plus, there is no need to hold back a special feature for the next “major” release. Release it when it is ready and all current customers get to benefit from it.

Sort of. The historical and business-centric service contract model you're referring to had its genesis from the days before desktop PCs, and it was the desktop PC which disrupted this. Yes, you're quite spot-on in noting that with the service contract model being pushed to PCs that this shouldn't be a big paradigm shift for business ... as well as it clearly being something that is new for the home market.

I think a lot of the pushback for a subscription model comes from people who used to buy software on an individual level. Think about it: a lot of computer users never really bought software (apart from games), they bought computers and that included a copy of Microsoft Works or they got a copy of Office when they bought the machine and that’s that. These people now use smartphones where apps are either free, “free” or you have to pay a subscription to access certain features. Few software is pay-once. Upgrades are also much more frequent.

Easy enough when one has one's work product data locally ... but when that is now in the Cloud too, missing a monthly payment has ... what length of a grace period before the data is wiped?

I think this is an important point that has yet to be worked out. However, data management even now is mishandled by most smaller businesses. Just look at the scary percentage of how few actually have proper backups. Technology should make this easier for users, and the complexity is growing, not shrinking.

Fair enough, but my perspective here is that there's now issues like them using my data set for their auto-recognition AI development ... as a condition of the EULA. That's a product that they clearly have the intent to go make other profits from. So where's my cut? When there's no such compensation thus offered, then where's the provision for me to opt out of them using my data for ANY of their own benefit purposes?

Like it or not, but our metadata is worth tons of money to the corporations ... and they know it.

You raise a point here: unlike Google where it is clear that you are Google’s product that it sells to advertisers, you are Adobe’s customer and them potentially double dipping changes the balance. I am not aware that they have sold or licensed their technology to others (e. g. Apple), but even if they haven’t yet, that could change in the future.

Hence, I would like to see Adobe supporting other cloud storage vendors even if that means that you opt out of certain functionality. However, Apple shows that you can do image recognition client-side as well. Some encrypt your storage so these services can’t access the decrypted data.

 

[-hh]

(on skip-upgrades)

Agreed. And it held back the market, because not everyone was on the latest version. Similarly to how Microsoft was lethargic during the Aughts, and hundreds of millions of people were affected by stagnating progress in the software department. To me, this is one of the strongest advantages of a software-as-a-service business model.

The sword cuts both ways here: customers under the subscription model are paying every month under the hopes/expectations that the supplier will develop and deliver new features ... but they're not actually under any actual obligation to do so.

Plus, there is no need to hold back a special feature for the next “major” release. Release it when it is ready and all current customers get to benefit from it.

Frankly, I suspect that using Adobe (and particularly Photoshop) as an example here is problematic, for they had been particularly negligent for a decade in maintaining & modernizing their code base while there was the "everyone buys a major upgrade" carrot existed. Witness the entire "64 bit" OS X debacle - - and sure, Apple wasn't totally blameless, but much of the fault lay with Adobe's choices.

I think a lot of the pushback for a subscription model comes from people who used to buy software on an individual level. Think about it: a lot of computer users never really bought software (apart from games), they bought computers and that included a copy of Microsoft Works or they got a copy of Office when they bought the machine and that’s that. These people now use smartphones where apps are either free, “free” or you have to pay a subscription to access certain features. Few software is pay-once. Upgrades are also much more frequent.

A fair point, but with this sort of product, we're not really talking about Joe Sixpack who barely knows which side of the computer faces up. And similarly, at the traditional prices we're talking about, we're dealing with a more knowledgeable and discerning customer: it was a clear understanding of one's own workflow and needs which, in conjunction with the price tags lead to the questions of "do I really really need the latest upgrade?" and in the end, skip-upgrades was their business decision.

When we apply the same to a subscription model, what happens is instead of each employee's PC having a copy of the software (although not the latest on each) is that the expenses are managed by having just one "subscription" machine that employees will share.

Granted, I'm dating myself, but I can recall the days of when we had a "Keyserver" running on our local Novell file server to allow a resource pool of ~10 software licenses be shared across ~50 users. Not that I really expect this to be revived (although it likely could), but I'm pointing it out because this sort of stuff only existed because the software's COST-BENEFIT wasn't sufficiently compelling.

(On data backup management)

I think this is an important point that has yet to be worked out. However, data management even now is mishandled by most smaller businesses. Just look at the scary percentage of how few actually have proper backups. Technology should make this easier for users, and the complexity is growing, not shrinking.

Yes, it is chronically poorly handled. Even at many larger enterprises. A classic that I've run into is that they provide file servers to "solve" any local archiving losses - - but then when the employees actually use them, they then go on a tirade because people are using "too much" storage space. BTDT.

And while the current trend (I hesitate to say 'fad') is to offload the service .. ie, to the Cloud, much of this is currently done without a very hard-nosed pragmatic "what if?" examination of just if the contingency plans will really work. The time element for downloading a restoration is a simple example.

(On suppliers exploiting your data for their own 'Big Data' corporate interests)

You raise a point here: unlike Google where it is clear that you are Google’s product that it sells to advertisers, you are Adobe’s customer and them potentially double dipping changes the balance.

Yea, although their immediate defense is very predictable, namely that (a) we are the ones who are benefitting from their AI work in the manner of 'new features', and (b) because of the wonderfulness of these features, they're not charging us as much as they really should...

The fallacy of these sorts of claims are: (a) they're asserting "value" without proof, since as customers, we have no real choice to have not paid for them; and (b) their Quarterly SEC filings show that their profits have doubled.

I am not aware that they have sold or licensed their technology to others (e. g. Apple), but even if they haven’t yet, that could change in the future.

It is inevitable, as its value will become 'too tempting' for them to say "No" forever -- and their argument will be that as a For Profit corporation, they have an obligation to their Shareholders to maximize profits.

thus ... 'All Your Data Belong To Us'



-hh

 

[OreoCookie]

(on skip-upgrades)

The sword cuts both ways here: customers under the subscription model are paying every month under the hopes/expectations that the supplier will develop and deliver new features ... but they're not actually under any actual obligation to do so.

In theory, after delivering their goods, companies are not under any obligation to do anything … but I don't see why this is a compelling argument here: Adobe is a software company that makes software for creatives, and that hasn't changed after it switched its licensing model.

A fair point, but with this sort of product, we're not really talking about Joe Sixpack who barely knows which side of the computer faces up. And similarly, at the traditional prices we're talking about, we're dealing with a more knowledgeable and discerning customer:

The new generation who is brought up with smartphones and tablets will have a different attitude than us dinosaurs. For them, a subscription model will feel normal, and us dinosaurs, well, we just die out.

it was a clear understanding of one's own workflow and needs which, in conjunction with the price tags lead to the questions of "do I really really need the latest upgrade?" and in the end, skip-upgrades was their business decision.

I was under the impression that the reason people skipped upgrades was that being a freelance graphics designer was a cut throat business and many just didn't have the money to upgrade (or preferred to buy a new machine). Upgrades for CS Studio were costly, high-$$$ to low-$$$$ if I remember correctly. The feeling was that they can live without the new features.

When we apply the same to a subscription model, what happens is instead of each employee's PC having a copy of the software (although not the latest on each) is that the expenses are managed by having just one "subscription" machine that employees will share.

That depends on the size of the company. If you are a larger business, companies such as Microsoft actually audit you. My brother's company who is in IT, and was in charge of this licensing audit, went through this (with 10,000 seats). His company's lenient stance on what is allowed cost them six figures.

Granted, I'm dating myself, but I can recall the days of when we had a "Keyserver" running on our local Novell file server to allow a resource pool of ~10 software licenses be shared across ~50 users.

Key servers are still a thing for scientific software (such as Maple, Mathematica, Matlab and CS Studio) and a huge PITA. You have people hogging licenses (accidentally or intentionally), simply because they forget to close the app and so forth. Last year, we spent 5 hours on the phone with a software company because of a licensing issue: we had the proper license alright, but the software just wouldn't talk to the server for some reason.

Yes, it is chronically poorly handled. Even at many larger enterprises. A classic that I've run into is that they provide file servers to "solve" any local archiving losses - - but then when the employees actually use them, they then go on a tirade because people are using "too much" storage space. BTDT.

So here you have to ask: are managed servers (and that is what cloud storage ultimately is) and faster internet pipes better for these people or not? Even bigger companies consolidate a good share of their IP in data centers. They already trust the likes of Amazon with their core business data and maintaining mission critical IT infrastructure. I think it'd be much better if we paid people to manage our data infrastructure the way we pay people to maintain the power grid. We just have to figure out how to ensure that we retain some measure of control of our data.

And while the current trend (I hesitate to say 'fad') is to offload the service .. ie, to the Cloud, much of this is currently done without a very hard-nosed pragmatic "what if?" examination of just if the contingency plans will really work. The time element for downloading a restoration is a simple example.

I strongly disagree with the characterization of this as a fad. It is a natural consequence of ubiquitous internet access. In fact, my internet at home is faster than the internet in my office ten years ago. The question about data safety is: is using the cloud a net gain or a net loss? If you have no backups and start using Backblaze, this is a huge net plus (and they will overnight you a hard drive with your data on it in case you need to recover quickly). Do you trust Backblaze more than you trust an old 1 TB external hard drive that you in reality plug in only once a month?

Yea, although their immediate defense is very predictable, namely that (a) we are the ones who are benefitting from their AI work in the manner of 'new features', and (b) because of the wonderfulness of these features, they're not charging us as much as they really should...

The fallacy of these sorts of claims are: (a) they're asserting "value" without proof, since as customers, we have no real choice to have not paid for them; and (b) their Quarterly SEC filings show that their profits have doubled.

I don't understand how you get to these purported fallacies: them doubling their profits just means that their subscription model works as a business strategy. And what “proof” is there beyond the product they offer to their consumers? If Adobe rolls out more and more cloud functionality, then you see where their investment goes. You can still decide that you personally don't intend to use those cloud features, but that is just like me not using PowerPoint even though I had to pay for it.

It is inevitable, as its value will become 'too tempting' for them to say "No" forever -- and their argument will be that as a For Profit corporation, they have an obligation to their Shareholders to maximize profits.

I don't think it is inevitable, in fact, I think it is quite unlikely that this will happen. Look at Adobe's culture and how its business model is structure, and what the incentives are that emerge from both: it sells software directly to creatives, and the next generation grows up with cloud services where certain tasks are done server side. Competitors are ahead here already. Most, if not all competitors have an incentive to develop this technology in-house, and the only ones who might be interested in Adobe's cloud technology are those who are behind.

So to summarize: Adobe has no history of selling its technology to other businesses, and other businesses are incentivized to develop these technologies in-house. Even if Adobe were to license some of its technologies, the market would be very small (0~5 companies). This would require a major shift in culture, and as one business adage goes, culture always wins.

Compare that to Google: since its inception, Google's business model revolved around ads. It developed an extensive relationship network with all parts of the ad industry, and it is firmly entrenched now. The people who pay are, for the overwhelming part, advertisers. People who use Google services generally don't pay Google, and in many cases there isn't even such an option. Over the years Google has made many decisions that made its services worse for the user, but better for its customers (e. g. conflating search results with ads, and increasing the genuine results-to-ads ratio).


The problem with cloud technologies as I see it is that many long-term advantages for users are not favored by the current incentives. There is zero interoperability (save for some cloud storage services that use Amazon S3's interface), and there is usually no simple way to migrate.

 

[-hh]

In theory, after delivering their goods, companies are not under any obligation to do anything … but I don't see why this is a compelling argument here: Adobe is a software company that makes software for creatives, and that hasn't changed after it switched its licensing model.

The philosophical difference here is that Adobe needs to work 'harder' to earn a new sale when operating in the purchase-each-upgrade business model (where 'harder' is provide a more compelling value to customers).

The new generation who is brought up with smartphones and tablets will have a different attitude than us dinosaurs. For them, a subscription model will feel normal, and us dinosaurs, well, we just die out.

Understood, but this observation of shifts in customer behaviors doesn't mean that the underlying principles have changed.

I was under the impression that the reason people skipped upgrades was that being a freelance graphics designer was a cut throat business and many just didn't have the money to upgrade (or preferred to buy a new machine). Upgrades for CS Studio were costly, high-$$$ to low-$$$$ if I remember correctly. The feeling was that they can live without the new features.

Yes, there is that affordability factor as well, but it still comes back to the basic point that if the upgrade isn't considered to be significant enough ("compelling") then Adobe doesn't earn the sale.

That depends on the size of the company. If you are a larger business, companies such as Microsoft actually audit you. My brother's company who is in IT, and was in charge of this licensing audit, went through this (with 10,000 seats). His company's lenient stance on what is allowed cost them six figures.

True, but the underlying point here is that when overhead costs become too high, businesses are incentivized to figure out less costly ways of doing business. Setting up a stand-alone PC is but one example of how this can be done. A Keyserver is another. Not saying that they're always better, but the motivating factor for consideration of any of them is the business working group assessment that they're paying "too much" for whatever software product - - and "too much" again circles back to the principle question of if they are providing adequate value or not.

So here you have to ask: are managed servers (and that is what cloud storage ultimately is) and faster internet pipes better for these people or not? Even bigger companies consolidate a good share of their IP in data centers. They already trust the likes of Amazon with their core business data and maintaining mission critical IT infrastructure. I think it'd be much better if we paid people to manage our data infrastructure the way we pay people to maintain the power grid. We just have to figure out how to ensure that we retain some measure of control of our data.

Again, it comes back to value: how much are you spending to have what benefit (capability), which in no small part is effectively a "Make or Buy" style of question: can you do it more cheaply in-house, or is contracting out the better deal? And so on. What modifies this basic question are the factors of if your business can trust having the data outside of your brick walls, various security/trust concerns, etc. For example, if you're working with PII and/or Classified data, the business decision may very well be "I don't care how much cheaper it is, the answer is still 'NO'!".

I strongly disagree with the characterization of this as a fad. It is a natural consequence of ubiquitous internet access. In fact, my internet at home is faster than the internet in my office ten years ago. The question about data safety is: is using the cloud a net gain or a net loss? If you have no backups and start using Backblaze, this is a huge net plus (and they will overnight you a hard drive with your data on it in case you need to recover quickly). Do you trust Backblaze more than you trust an old 1 TB external hard drive that you in reality plug in only once a month?

Which is why I said that I hesitate to use the 'fad' tag. While I agree that ubiquity of access has been an enabler, that doesn't always result in it becoming more compelling. For example, cheaper long distance phone rates have resulted in Service Call centers to be able to be offshore to take advantage of cheaper labor - - but has also resulted in PR backlashes when customer believe it is a 'foreigner' on the line.

I don't understand how you get to these purported fallacies: them doubling their profits just means that their subscription model works as a business strategy. And what “proof” is there beyond the product they offer to their consumers? If Adobe rolls out more and more cloud functionality, then you see where their investment goes. You can still decide that you personally don't intend to use those cloud features, but that is just like me not using PowerPoint even though I had to pay for it.

Fundamentally, the proof only exists when there is real & meaningful competition where the customer can vote with his wallet between acquiring Choice A versus B. For example, on obtaining a new car, we can choose to obtain by buying, or obtain by leasing. In having that choice, the customer has more power to influence the market, and in doing so, will trend to receiving a better value for their dollars.

I don't think it is inevitable, in fact, I think it is quite unlikely that this will happen. Look at Adobe's culture and how its business model is structure, and what the incentives are that emerge from both: it sells software directly to creatives, and the next generation grows up with cloud services where certain tasks are done server side. Competitors are ahead here already. Most, if not all competitors have an incentive to develop this technology in-house, and the only ones who might be interested in Adobe's cloud technology are those who are behind.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I consider this sort of risk to be an inevitability because Adobe is a for-profit (and stockholder held) corporation. Just because it hasn't happened yet (that we know of) is fairly encouraging, but that isn't actually a firm prohibition that is positive control to prevent it from ever happening.

The problem with cloud technologies as I see it is that many long-term advantages for users are not favored by the current incentives. There is zero interoperability (save for some cloud storage services that use Amazon S3's interface), and there is usually no simple way to migrate.

There's also the ISP's as an integral part of the capability, and the current political climate is increasingly disinterested in limiting their profits as a natural monopoly (probably going more the other way, to purposefully turn a blind eye to stronger rises in oligopoly markets).

 

[mlblacy]

Understood, and which is and similarly to what @robgendreau pointed out too: ...Similarly, doing a 'restore' on just my photo database ... mine's now pushing 2TB ... would suck up half of my ISP's monthly quota, and at 25Mbps takes at least 8.2 days (assumes 100% of maximum theoretical throughput). Fun.

FWIW, I'm not being opposed philosophically to "progress" - - I'm just balancing its benefits versus its costs, and recognizing that individually, I'm not a particularly good use case/ workflow for it (currently).


-hh

Any professional who has a library of over 1tb is not going to want to waste their bandwidth for the "benefits" of cloud access. Like you my library is pushing 2tb, and I can barely copy it over to another a hard drive without being locked up for days, and days. If I need anything on the cloud, I simply selectively upload an album or folder. This is just another ploy to keep the holdouts migrate to their rentware model of business. When software pricing gets to the crazy point, and software updates are less than compelling, folks start skipping updates.

 

[MCAsan]

Any professional who has a library of over 1tb is not going to want to waste their bandwidth for the "benefits" of cloud access. Like you my library is pushing 2tb, and I can barely copy it over to another a hard drive without being locked up for days, and days. If I need anything on the cloud, I simply selectively upload an album or folder. This is just another ploy to keep the holdouts migrate to their rentware model of business. When software pricing gets to the crazy point, and software updates are less than compelling, folks start skipping updates.

you got that right!

 

[Alexander.Of.Oz]

Any professional who has a library of over 1tb is not going to want to waste their bandwidth for the "benefits" of cloud access. Like you my library is pushing 2tb, and I can barely copy it over to another a hard drive without being locked up for days, and days. If I need anything on the cloud, I simply selectively upload an album or folder.

I don't consider myself a "professional", I much prefer the term "amateur" as it means "doing it for the love of it", but I have libraries pushing 2TB each too. I use Lightroom Classic and DON'T use any of Adobe's cloud services. All of my libraries are on real drives that are in MY control. Lightroom Classic still offers the user full control of their files being stored locally and I don't see Adobe killing this off any time soon. They know full and well that they have many clients using large libraries, which won't work for them if they are forced to be cloud based, but they have now introduced a service for the mobile phone photographers based in the cloud, so they can share instantly to instagram and facebook, etc...

I don't really understand why everyone has their panties in a knot over a new product being introduced, but hey, haters gotta hate!

 

[OreoCookie]

The philosophical difference here is that Adobe needs to work 'harder' to earn a new sale when operating in the purchase-each-upgrade business model (where 'harder' is provide a more compelling value to customers).

I honestly don't think so, nowadays there are so many alternatives out there for Adobe products at different price levels, e. g. Affinity Photo, Pixelmator Pro or Affinity Serif. During the early CS days, it was just Adobe and nobody else.

A Keyserver is another. Not saying that they're always better, but the motivating factor for consideration of any of them is the business working group assessment that they're paying "too much" for whatever software product - - and "too much" again circles back to the principle question of if they are providing adequate value or not.

Key servers are a prime way to waste time and a good way to complicate the installation. They are hostile to end users (which might differ from “customers”, i. e. the person making the purchasing decision and paying the bills).

Again, it comes back to value: how much are you spending to have what benefit (capability), which in no small part is effectively a "Make or Buy" style of question: can you do it more cheaply in-house, or is contracting out the better deal? And so on. What modifies this basic question are the factors of if your business can trust having the data outside of your brick walls, various security/trust concerns, etc. For example, if you're working with PII and/or Classified data, the business decision may very well be "I don't care how much cheaper it is, the answer is still 'NO'!".

If you have very specialized needs, then yes, you might have to do it in house to either comply with regulations or comply with the wishes of your business partners. However, many cloud services do cater to that market as well, e. g. Amazon and Windows Azure are HIPAA compliant. As time moves on, the advantages of infrastructure as a service and software as a service grow, and there is less and less reason to do things in house. Even at very large institutions, having a top notch IT department is a very expensive proposition. In most cases, a specialized service will do a better job at managing a service than a small, dedicated few man IT department in a company will. And even more so, if it is more like one person doing IT on the side.

Which is why I said that I hesitate to use the 'fad' tag. While I agree that ubiquity of access has been an enabler, that doesn't always result in it becoming more compelling. For example, cheaper long distance phone rates have resulted in Service Call centers to be able to be offshore to take advantage of cheaper labor - - but has also resulted in PR backlashes when customer believe it is a 'foreigner' on the line.

I don't see how this example supports your argument: out sourcing customer support made products cheaper (and arguably customer support worse). People have long voted with their wallets, for a large share of the population they seem to prefer cheaper products with ******** service.

That has nothing to do with the present question, cloud services enable different functionality, they are not the equivalent of having your support calls answered in an Indian call center. The difference seems to be that you seem not to be interested in the extra functionality — which is fine.

Fundamentally, the proof only exists when there is real & meaningful competition where the customer can vote with his wallet between acquiring Choice A versus B. For example, on obtaining a new car, we can choose to obtain by buying, or obtain by leasing. In having that choice, the customer has more power to influence the market, and in doing so, will trend to receiving a better value for their dollars.

No, those are two very different things: financial success has nothing to do with competition, because Adobe's interests need not align with those of its customers. Meaningful competition is better for customers, but usually not better for the balance statement of companies. But honestly, I think Adobe's strategy seems to be working out in both respects: Adobe's profits are rising and for the first time in more than a decade are there competitors to most of Adobe's pro products. That's a win-win, no?

We'll have to agree to disagree. I consider this sort of risk to be an inevitability because Adobe is a for-profit (and stockholder held) corporation. Just because it hasn't happened yet (that we know of) is fairly encouraging, but that isn't actually a firm prohibition that is positive control to prevent it from ever happening.

I just don't see Adobe's incentives to do that and a way to market it. Could you explain that to me? What would Adobe's incentives be to change its business model? What would be the impact on its existing business where it sells subscriptions to its software and services? Who would it sell the image analysis data to? Apple? Google? Microsoft? Anyone else I am not thinking of at the moment? Why would these companies not further develop these capabilities in house?

There's also the ISP's as an integral part of the capability, and the current political climate is increasingly disinterested in limiting their profits as a natural monopoly (probably going more the other way, to purposefully turn a blind eye to stronger rises in oligopoly markets).

I reckon you live in the US, correct? In Japan, where I live, you could get 100 MBit/s symmetric internet for about $80 per month in 2003. My internet then was rather slow at a paltry 22 MBit/s, and I was happy to get properly quick internet (100 MBit) at a South Korean youth hostel. My parents back then had to live off of 750 kBit or 1 MBit down and 128 kBit or 256 kBit up (I don't remember exactly). Internet access speeds in the US might be lagging behind many other developed countries, but again, that is a problem time and enough political pressure will solve. (Or moving outside of the US.) You are right that this is a barrier for some cloud services: my parents's first DSL connection was not fast enough to download movies, but it was fast enough to download songs. Even slow internet connections nowadays are for the most part fast enough to stream HD content, technology will just keep on pushing the envelope.

 

[-hh]

(On working 'harder' to earn customers)

I honestly don't think so, nowadays there are so many alternatives out there for Adobe products at different price levels, e. g. Affinity Photo, Pixelmator Pro or Affinity Serif. During the early CS days, it was just Adobe and nobody else.

There does now (finally) seem to be some meaningful competition coming up for Adobe, although it probably has been deterred by Adobe's rental path often being discounted to keep customers within their ecosystem. Nothing really profoundly new for Adobe though, as they used to offer very highly discounted
"Student" licenses to get them in early...making up the revenue with upgrades.

Key servers are a prime way to waste time and a good way to complicate the installation. They are hostile to end users (which might differ from “customers”, i. e. the person making the purchasing decision and paying the bills).

Yup. Key servers exist not because they're fun, but because the person paying the bills don't like how steep the bill is.

I don't see how this example supports your argument: out sourcing customer support made products cheaper (and arguably customer support worse). People have long voted with their wallets, for a large share of the population they seem to prefer cheaper products with ******** service.

Its another tangent ... and similar to the Key server one: what's seen as "good" for the bill payer is not necessarily the same conclusion that the end user makes.

That has nothing to do with the present question, cloud services enable different functionality....The difference seems to be that you seem not to be interested in the extra functionality — which is fine.

Oh, I'm interested in the functionality ... but it still comes back to the question of how compelling it is, which informs the assessment of Pros -vs- Cons (including, but not limited to cost) to a 'Value' determination. If something really is a "Killer App" breakthrough, we're willing to do backflips, but when some new functionality isn't profound, there's no adoption rush - - and we can also resent being pushed.

...I just don't see Adobe's incentives to do that and a way to market it. Could you explain that to me?

Sure. Contemplate them using their customers' photos and their AI for a "Big Data" analysis using just the factors of time/date, facial recognition & geo-location.

What would Adobe's incentives be to change its business model?

As mentioned .. more income, which benefits their Stockholders (same as any other for-profit).

What would be the impact on its existing business where it sells subscriptions to its software and services?

Depends on how revealing the EULA is ... and if their customers bother to read it. FYI, Verizon was just recently in the news for having some "tracking" stuff - - but primarily because their webpage for their customers to opt out is broken, so customers can't in actuality opt out.

Who would it sell the image analysis data to? Apple? Google? Microsoft? Anyone else I am not thinking of at the moment? Why would these companies not further develop these capabilities in house?

Some competitors will develop the same types of capabilities in-house, rather than to buy them from Adobe ... but there's also some who won't.

Case in point, just how much do you think some Govt Agencies (domestic -or- foreign) would be willing to pay a company like Apple or Adobe to have access to a database (with or without a warrant) where they can use Facial ID to track virtually anyone in the world, and the dataset *includes* time & place, so they can easily build a temporal trace of their locations & movements for the last XX months or years?

Similarly, what about a retailer to learn more about your customer buying behaviors? Or for an insurance company to backwards-derive your risk-taking habits to figure out if to keep your policy or raise your rates?

Once one has the big database, the applications are limited by your imagination.

I reckon you live in the US, correct? In Japan, where I live, you could get 100 MBit/s symmetric internet for about $80 per month in 2003....

Yes, USA, and currently paying $45/mo for DSL (<1.5 MBit/s) before taxes. Last time I priced a plan (spring 2017), anything 25 MBit/s or better was roughly $100/mo after taxes & first year promo rates. The good news is that it does appear that things did improve this summer to be less rude: I'm now seeing some 50 or 100 MBit packages with promos in the $40-60/mo range, which still works out to close to $100/mo after the promo ends & after taxes....net result is no real decrease in price, but a decent step up in bandwidth.

Internet access speeds in the US might be lagging behind many other developed countries, but again, that is a problem time and enough political pressure will solve. (Or moving outside of the US.)...

Agreed, although the keyword here is "...enough political pressure...".

Until we resolve the "Last Mile" connection oligopoly - - which includes higher Govt intervention prohibiting local municipal services - - we're going to have poor customer value for ISP utilities (and given the current Federal climate being pro-business / anti-consumer, unlikely to materially change until 2019 / 2021).

 

[OreoCookie]

Sure. Contemplate them using their customers' photos and their AI for a "Big Data" analysis using just the factors of time/date, facial recognition & geo-location.

You are just thinking of the pieces in isolation, I'm asking for a business model that takes into account loss of business on other ends. Google's and Facebook's business models revolve around selling ads, and they create user profiles and analyze the hell out of all the data they accumulate.

What can Adobe do with the data — other than making their object recognition algorithms better? If you say “sell the data”, you have to include to whom they will sell? The big players, Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and the like, already have their in-house efforts going. Google doesn't have to buy access to Adobe's data, because Google actually has much more and better data to mine.

A sale of data would directly interfere with their existing and very successful business model, because unlike private citizens, who seem to be very willing to have their data mined in exchange for free stuff, companies can get very antsy about this kind of data sharing. Not least, because in many cases that would directly violate other contractual obligations e. g. a photographer has to his or her clients.

Some competitors will develop the same types of capabilities in-house, rather than to buy them from Adobe ... but there's also some who won't.

That's vague and sounds as if you don't know who'd actually buy that information. What companies are you thinking of?

Case in point, just how much do you think some Govt Agencies (domestic -or- foreign) would be willing to pay a company like Apple or Adobe to have access to a database (with or without a warrant) where they can use Facial ID to track virtually anyone in the world, and the dataset *includes* time & place, so they can easily build a temporal trace of their locations & movements for the last XX months or years?

No, I can't think of government agencies paying for that information, because I am quite sure the government would want to have access for free. It makes zero sense to me that the government would have to pay for that, all you need is a law that gives them a right to have access to that data. (I'm am very privacy-minded and against such laws.)

Similarly, what about a retailer to learn more about your customer buying behaviors? Or for an insurance company to backwards-derive your risk-taking habits to figure out if to keep your policy or raise your rates?

These companies would do much, much, much better with the data they can get from Facebook and Google. I see no incentive for them to mine that info. For example, since a lot of the data on the works isn't your personal data, they are revealing anything about you.

I'm not ignorant about the dangers here, I have opted out of all of Google's services as much as I can, and I use Facebook for the bare bones stuff only. And don't get me started about the mass collection of internet data by intelligence services. It's just that I think Adobe is not a player here and will not become one. Protection of my privacy is also another reason why I prefer Apple products: I see no business model for Apple monetizing my personal information that will make them more profit than that of selling devices and services.

 

[-hh]

You are just thinking of the pieces in isolation, I'm asking for a business model that takes into account loss of business on other ends. Google's and Facebook's business models revolve around selling ads, and they create user profiles and analyze the hell out of all the data they accumulate.

Not really, for you're assuming that their sale of the data would result in a loss of existing customers....and that that risk is predicated upon customers actually ever discovering that their data has been sold.

What can Adobe do with the data — other than making their object recognition algorithms better? If you say “sell the data”, you have to include to whom they will sell? The big players, Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and the like, already have their in-house efforts going. Google doesn't have to buy access to Adobe's data, because Google actually has much more and better data to mine.

And would not Google (et al) also have their data 'up for sale' too, to the same sort of Institutions? Particularly if the means is enabled by TLA's paying them for, say, improved AI software tools while using their own datasets? Better go do more critical reading of Open Literature.

...It's just that I think Adobe is not a player here and will not become one. Protection of my privacy is also another reason why I prefer Apple products: I see no business model for Apple monetizing my personal information that will make them more profit than that of selling devices and services.

I'm in general agreement you for Apple, but I've also seen how they've been put under public political pressure when they push back - - this week's news included another iPhone (Texas church shooting). Given past patterns, I'd infer that anyone who's not been targeted for public criticism for not supporting GWOT probably means that they've already 'cooperating' ...

 

[OreoCookie]

Not really, for you're assuming that their sale of the data would result in a loss of existing customers....and that that risk is predicated upon customers actually ever discovering that their data has been sold.

If Adobe did that, at least in certain jurisdictions (I'm thinking of the EU), they would violate consumer privacy regulations and get into very serious trouble. And this type of stuff will eventually come out.

And would not Google (et al) also have their data 'up for sale' too, to the same sort of Institutions?

No, absolutely and definitely not. Google's data and algorithms are its crown jewels, and something they will never, ever sell directly. Google will sell you access to certain types of consumers to show ads to (e. g. straight women ages 25-34 living in Utah whose hobbies include endurance sports), but Google will never give you access to raw data or their algorithms. If they went on to sell their data to, say, Microsoft Bing, they would lose their competitive edge. It makes no sense. Ditto for Facebook, which will allow you to target groups with pinpoint precision, but you will not have access to Facebook's data.

That's why I am saying that Adobe doesn't have a business model here to sell that kind of user information on the market. The only thing that Adobe might sell, and I am very skeptical here, is some of its algorithms. Let's say Apple decided it is so far behind Google in image recognition that it needs to license Adobe's image recognition technologies. Then Apple still would not have access to the data that Adobe's customers have uploaded, it would just indirectly benefit from Adobe being able to train their algorithms on a very large data set.

I'm in general agreement you for Apple, but I've also seen how they've been put under public political pressure when they push back - - this week's news included another iPhone (Texas church shooting). Given past patterns, I'd infer that anyone who's not been targeted for public criticism for not supporting GWOT probably means that they've already 'cooperating' ...

That is an important discussion, but entirely different (and one where I think we would be on the same side anyway): Apple would not cooperate because it wanted to, but because it would be legally obliged to. That means, they don't do it for some financial gain.

 

[-hh]

If Adobe did that, at least in certain jurisdictions (I'm thinking of the EU), they would violate consumer privacy regulations and get into very serious trouble. And this type of stuff will eventually come out.

Given that US Security Classification Guides have a "25 year expiration" default, it certainly has the potential to be an eventuality...but that doesn't mean that this can won't get kicked down the road for as long as the JFK Assassination files have (already). And the EU Members certainly have similar provisions for National Security that can be employed.

No, absolutely and definitely not. Google's data and algorithms are its crown jewels, and something they will never, ever sell directly. Google will sell you access to certain types of consumers to show ads to (e. g. straight women ages 25-34 living in Utah whose hobbies include endurance sports), but Google will never give you access to raw data or their algorithms.

That's still thinking inside of a narrow box, as narrowly defined 'Government Use' technical data rights have been around for a good 20+ years (that I happen to know of). For example, instead of a "give us the jewels" approach, how about instead considering the opportunity of a contact offering by some random Three Letter Agency (TLA) to bankroll the research into the development of the databases and algorithms, which may have a requirement for transparency (for auditing purposes) but without actually buying the IP. Plus it isn't hard to similarly envision that such a contract could also include funding for a certain set of 'database hooks' which would be for the use of the TLA for when they have a (classified) warrant. All done in the name of National Security and bankrolled under a Black budget line.

FWIW, in doing some quick Open Literature digging on Google, it looks like the FY15 budget request included at least $58.7B in 'black' projects. Granted, these probably aren't all of this 'Data Mining' sort (need another new spy satellite too?), but odds are high that it isn't a non-budgeted item.

That's why I am saying that Adobe doesn't have a business model here to sell that kind of user information on the market. The only thing that Adobe might sell, and I am very skeptical here, is some of its algorithms.

Another point we'll probably have to agree to disagree: we don't know everything that's going on, so we don't know what the likes of Adobe (et al) may have been contacted with. For all we could know, their entire shift to the "Cloud" initiative (and even the rental software model, since it allows more automatic & background updates) could very well have been motivated by some TLA waiving some cash around...

That is an important discussion, but entirely different (and one where I think we would be on the same side anyway): Apple would not cooperate because it wanted to, but because it would be legally obliged to. That means, they don't do it for some financial gain.

It certainly is an important discussion, and one which goes well beyond this general topic.