I'm sincerely disappointed that after going through the beta stages for over 9months, promises, contribution, expectations. Adobe would release an incomplete and feature-less product as part of its creative cloud release. Several ideas contributed by beta testers was turned down for just half-baked additions. This is disappointing! Adobe wants me to pay for that!
Marian Driscoll wrote:
Was it not already known that the public beta was to check for existing bugs, not to introduce new features?
I don't recall any promises from Muse developers.
This is the official Release. Isn't it? Are official Release suppose to be for bug fixes. Are you saying we should be dumb to pay for a tool Adobe will use to fix bugs with little or no features for a year? I'm a customer not a shareholder for God sake! Where is the surprises Dani mentioned. Where are the ideas a lot of beta users suggested over the last couple of months. eh! Marian you should know better than this because you were part of the private & public beta testing. There is no value for money in this official release. You expect customers to pay for another beta testing for one year! Excuse me this is broad day light ro*****!
I'm happy with Muse and happy to pay for it. Not sure what you mean by "no features for a year". Of course, I will look forward to new things being added, but I think it is a grand start.
Adobe was under no obligation to promise features and the Muse team did well to follow company policy about not discussing new features. Dani could not even commit to the name of "Muse":
We're not new to public betas. These beta programs are used to generate interest and to test for bugs. It is extremely rare for new features to be added in public betas. That is just how the software industry works. Adobe is not unique.
I'm surprised that they put Typekit in Muse 1.0 without running it through beta testing.
I am well aware that there is little value in this first Muse release. I probably won't be interested until 3.0. The first release of InDesign, while promising, was pretty underwhelming as well (though, not as bad as Muse).
I am well aware that there is little value in this first Muse release. I probably won't be interested until 3.0.
Then I would have spent $540(average of $180 per annum, at the snail rate Adobe is going) by 2015 for one software in the cloud! Marian, we all know Adobe didn't promise any feature, but it is expected of a brand like Adobe to know the effect of releasing such a poor product on its share price before the end of the month. It might come crashing! Adobe needs to learn from RIM. It only takes a company to release poor product and create dissatisfied customers to start going down(God forbid!). But Adobe needs to be more quality conscious.
...Then I would have spent $540(average of $180 per annum, at the snail rate Adobe is going) by 2015
Why would you pay $540 for unfinished software? Why don't you buy software from another developer that has a more mature product?
How about stop fighting over who's wrong and who's right?
You have all have got your own personal opinion and a point. I don't see any meeting grounds since you all stand in different areas of the spectrum:
- Marian will wait until there'll be something she deems mature and worth the price,
- topelovely is upset that after all the beta testing, now Adobe asks users to pay for a release deemed not worth the price, and sees that as a continued beta testing period at subscribers expenses,
- grayrockgraphics is OK paying a subscription for a product that although not mature, is being helpful enough to make it worth the subscription cost.
You are all right in your point of view... so I see no point in arguing over who's point is "righter"... so in the end:
- Marian will subscribe, perhaps after version 3 will be out, or whenever she will think the app is mature enough to justify the cost,
- topelovely will probably hold a grudge to Adobe for a bit longer and may take more than version 3 to make a purchase worth the subscription price, in the meantime may (or not) actively looking for alternatives that may exist in the market,
- grayrockgraphics will continue to be a happy camper
As far as I am concerned and I don't know if any users in the community will share (or have even thought about the new cloud subscription model from my POV)...
There is one thing I don't like about the cloud pricing and that is the fact that I will be at the mercy of Adobe to be able to use creative tools. This is something I honestly don't like much at all. Not a question of fairness, principle or even price... it's practicality and experience that raise several concerns. For instance:
- What will happen with my creative tools when/if a company offering them via subscription decides to stop offering as they may find something else more profitable or for any other reasons? Flash hasn't been killed, but no longer enjoys the popularity and dominance it once had... Flex has turned into Flash builder later only to be handed to the Apache foundation to be shelved somewhere... Catalyst died when was just coming out of the woumb as Flash lost exponetially in popularity with the advent of the iDevices which forced Adobe to rethink its strategy on its Flash platform turning a dying product into a niche one to be used mostly for 3D gaming and other niche app building turing its aims at plugin-free, web-standard-compliant creation tools (therefore adding Edge and Muse projects to the family).
So although most of the efforts and hours of learning dedicated to become proficient in Flash and AS1, then AS2, and once again AS3, have gone mostly down the drain (in practice) along with the money invested in it since there are much less opportunities out there today for flash developers, not all was completely lost. Knowledge of some programming principles, best practices, optimization, etc., experience with the application and AS3 will be reusable across other apps, are some of what remained. But above all, one thing hasn't been lost and that is my access to the Flash application itself, since I haven't been required (nor will be required), to pay a monthly subscription in order to access the applications I OWN. I still own the Macromedia versions of Flash and can still install them on my mac to my heart content as I see fit... I can do the same with all the version of the software I own. Call me silly or old fashioned, but I'd rather own my applications than pay a subscription to access the tools that earn my livelihood. I like to decide when to spend or not to spend rather than going on an endless and indefinite payment plan.
I do not disagree with having the option to offer a formula where customers will subscribe to a cloud service in order to access their applications (and I know apps are not running in the cloud... no need to reassure about the fact they still run on users desktops), that's something that will help Adobe and not most users. The company started to loose purchases for the way upgrades where offered. I could not justify spending close to 1K in an upgrade that added little to nothing to what I currently owned, so now Adobe has turned to indefinite charging to make sure everyone keeps paying and will forced everyone to update whether they like it or not, even when not needed, and even when can't afford it at any given time.
While this model my satisfy some users, others like myself, would prefer to be given the option to continue purchasing stand alone versions of the products that do not impose a mandatory cloud membership in order to be able to use the application. I still want the ownership of the right to access the application whenever and however I see fit and necessary to me. The subscription-only model is most damaging as it becomes a pre-requisite to be able to continue to work free of pending monthly bills that in time add up and may represent for most an unnecessary expenditure. Large corporations may not care about it, but many freelancer professional are increasingly being forced to penny-pinch and become more frugal for a list of reason I will spare you mentioning here.
The new cloud subscription model was likely pleasing to shareholders, and Adobe as it's designed to create a steady revenue stream for the company. Much like the wireless carriers' cell plans, where one would continue to pay for the service even when not needed. And what's more one will have to continue paying even if there'll be a price increase... since it will no longer be an option to "skip the next couple releases".
I still own, can access, actively use and find satisfying most of my professional needs the apps in my CS4 Premium. That not only increases my ROI in software, but gives me confidence that I will continue to be able to works for months to come without having to pay $50/month just to continue to use those applications and won't force me in upgrades that I might no be interested in, I might not want, or I might not be able to afford at a given moment. I would gladly pay for something when I will have use for it, it will make financial and practical sense and I would actually pay to ownership the right to use it free from limitations such as having to pay a monthly access fee.
So for that and other reasons, many users aren't rejoicing for the most part, and are rather concerned and/or upset about the decision of Adobe to go down that route... I am (quite obviously) one of the concerned ones. The concerns and opinions I expressed above may or not find you in agreement, but one thing is undeniably clear: this move will have far reaching impacts that many of us aren't even thinking about today. And that's just a fact, no matter how many like Marian will patiently wait for a release that will justify the investment, or how many others will be sulking over having to pay for beta testing-grade apps like topelovely (understandably upset about it) delaying purchase indefinitely perhaps looking at alternatives, and no matter the many that will be happy campers like grayrockgraphics, and have no trouble paying the fee and who probably haven't given much thought about what this scenario could mean long-term once ownership concept will be completely removed and dependency concept will have become the new paradigm.
Just on that note I'd like to let all temporary happy campers that the monthly subscription has been set at the current amount to entice users to switch, but it will be unlikely to remain as such for long and there won't be any guarantee it will always be matching everyone's idea of "affordable"... after all since you make a living on those apps, would it be unfair to ask customers to pay $1,200 ($100/mo) to update the suite that enables them to continue to work? Some may respond that's even cheap! But I may argue that the suite alone brings little value, it's who it's used and what's being produced that creates one's livelihood, those apps are just enabling tools. For a cheesy reference... the values were not in the chisel and hammer Michelangelo used to sculpt but in his skills, artistic sensibility, genius... (and almost fanatical devotion to the pope ;D)... true he could not sculpt without chisel and hammer, nor he would have been able to bring to life his splendid creations with a dull chisel. But I hope everyone gets it: it's not all about the just a chisel.
The point of the matter is that for many more users the subscription model will be a clear loss. Just consider this:
It's been about 4 years since I owned CS4 and for it I paid ~$650 with taxes. With each passing month I've increased my ROI and NOT my EXPENSES, so buying first to upgrading as needed should be a no-brainer. I have had no need to upgrade since and, where freelancing required to work on newer versions, the client provided their own copy installed on their own computer which created no pressing need for me to rush into unneded upgrades.
So under a subscription plan ~$54/mo with taxes (assuming the current amount remained the same in the 48 months span of app ownership) where my TCO today would have been $2592.00 and counting, my actual TCO it's been about $13.55 and it is lowering itself (not increasing!) with each passing month. The total of $2592.00 I would have spent in 4 years of subscription-based access, are roughly x4 the of what I paid to upgrade therefore it represents a total of 4 upgrades at a $650 price point. Regardless to the fact that I had no need for such upgrades (not that I could even decide to save my money and continue using CS4 since there isn't such an option in subscription-based plans), I would not be getting 4 upgrades to major releases, but only two CS5 and CS6 (something that as I mentioned, was unnecessary form my needs). It isn't a question of being a cheapskate, but rather spending where it makes sense to do so and saving where spending would be wasteful. I don't know about most people but I could put to good use any "extra" cash and as a matter of fact the $1,942 saved would easily cover a $40.45 cellphone plan over those 4 years... how would you like to get free cell service for 4 years? Of course you could use that money for course tuition and invest in learning new skills or whatever you deem necessary... point is why should we be forced pay indefinitely for a subscription when ownership in many cases (certainly mine as you can see from the number above) is a far more convenient (for me not Adobe) deal?!
To those who may argue that subscriptions give access to the latest software, I say two this:
1) that comes at a hefty premium and as I showed above it would be much cheaper to upgrade to major releases as needed, especially since it not always necessary to have the latest release... Adobe knows that full well and that's why is now pushing subscriptions-based access to its creative suite to increase revenues (not a critic to their move, it makes good business sense for a company as their interest is in growing revenues first and foremost. Unfortunately that happens to be detrimental and uneconomical for customers and there's no arguing intention here).
2) you will have no other option but continue to upgrade whether you like it or not since the moment you would end your subscription you will be left with nothing to work with.
3) In my calculation above even in the case where there would've been parity and would have had to pay a full $2,592 for the cost for ownership after 4 years, at the end of those 4 years I'd be still owning the application, while after 4 years of paying monthly subscription access I'd be left holding my jewels
Further argument of "what about including the cost of original full CS purchase used to upgrade"? Well if point #3 above wasn't already making that question completely moot, even adding roughly $1300 of a CS2 bought 2 years earlier it would come to a total of $1,950 that in 6 years would mean the cost would still have been ~$27/mo (though in my case was lower as my upgrade path from Macromedia MX studio 8 to costed less than 1/2 than those $1,300)
so to wrap up... I'd like to see Adobe keep both options so that customers will be able choose the formula that best suits their needs... those who prefer ownership will be able to buy physical copies of the applications, and those who prefer a subscription model, will be able to go that route as well... and everyone will be a happy camper ;D
I admit to being pretty underwhelmed by the official launch of Muse, especially the partial selection of Typekit fonts (which, pardon me, are disamyingly Powerpoint-ish). As a long-time print designer and Indesign user, this program appealed to me very much at first, but I'm now longing for the ability to refine my layouts in any special way.
It was my own fault for diving in and subscribitng to the Creative Cloud yesterday without assesing the final product, but I would have been satisfied if only Muse had evovled a bit because I'm looking forward to it being my main tool (especially after years of not having a web design solution that worked with my print design skills). I do know that Adobe listens and tries to evolve its products based on customer feedback but the bar is set very low here and I am worried that having little crumbs of new features added to Muse along the way will be too frustrating.
Please, Adobe, beef up Muse. Insist on full Typekit support. Get the in-app FTP publishing working (that's been in every web design program for pretty much... ever.) Don't make us suggest and vote on features when our time and efforts yield no results.
And for the love of all creatures great and small, don't disappear tools that are helping us learn your new products! Following the Muse training videos has been like a sad game of Where's Waldo.
KeyStudio you are in the wrong industry! You should di standup man! Seriously... I am still laughing at your closing comments! ;D
I too home Adobe will listen... and I know they do... the page of bringing features to fruitiona and the growing pains may be quite unnerving at times, but so far I've seen decent results all things considered (yes a bit slow, but we've come to expect things banged out right away and knowning the little I know about programming there are loads of challenges we aren't even remotely aware of... and that's on the building level alone... I don't even want to start to imagine what's happeining at mamagement, marketing and strategic level, let alone at the influence exerted on project by corporate and financial decisions.
If I wouldn't give half flying and I believed the teams at Adobe weren't really dedicated people who in spite of appearances do listen more than the average company (also they better do to to remain the commpany they are today ) I wouldn't even be wasting time providing feedback to the development and web forum/management teams. I know I share equal frustration as I decided to dive into Adobe Edge and, boy there are things missing! Let try some zen patience for a while and see how far we get before throwing the towel on believing something awesome won't ever come out of these projects (Muse/Edge)
Marian Driscoll wrote:
...so I see no point in arguing over who's point is "righter"...
Nobody was arguing.
My bad, maybe if I would have said "discussing" it migth have been more appropriate as I didn't mean arguing as in figthing, sorry if that bothered you Marian. I simply got an overall feeling of making a point over another while reading the thread where topelovely was expressing disappointment to which you replied mitigating complaints about Adobe and the Muse team.I assure you I had no intention to upset a bright and, if I may, gorgeous young lady such as yourself (or anyone else involved in debate for that matter ) My apologies, indeed if that's what came across.
All is good that ends well. It was great musing but now that one can do video with photoshop I guess I'll wait for the day one can do websites with indesign without having to upload video to yutube etc. And I agree this cloud thing is one bridge too far.
And hopefully adobe will come to its senses and offer the "cloud thing" as an additional purchase model for those who will find it preferable, not "instead of" the traditional software ownership model we've had so far, making us all happy campers.
There are still bugs. The Leading in the type is inconsitant from layout to browser view. Also glitches accur where graphics get displaced though they have no special assignment. How the styles are set up is a joke, Why cant they have tem the way they do in indesin?
And though it does run better than the beta version, it is still slow for a paid application. In my opinion it was not ready for release. The only promise I expext when I pay for software is that works well and it works consistantly. Muse has not made it there yet
your loss.... I'm happy.
And we're happy it works for you... although that doesn't make it automatically viable for everyone, especially if they've just purchased recently CS5.5, and in no case should be the only commercial model of the many obviosu reasons I've listed at great lengths.
You are right.. it's a loss probably for the person you are referring to, though your rather childish comment (mere objective observation not an attack nor I intend to be offensive or judgemental) won't help your fellow Adobe customer who clearly has needs different than yours.
This program still has bugs. Transitions in the slideshow widgets don't work in FF. Something Muse recognizes, but has yet to find a solution. Now I'm stuck buying a program with issues because my site was created in this not ready for prime time program. Thanks Adobe!
I aggree. How can you charge for a final release when Muse is basically still in beta? I have issues with thumbnail transitions not working in FF. They acknowledge its a problem, but not another word from them and it's been more than a month...
It is frustrating that there has been no updated word about getting real Typekit fonts loaded since mid-May. That means at this point--17% of the way into my one-year subscription--and I am still missing one of the main features that drew me to Muse, being a long-time designer and Typekit user. Honeslty, I had never even heard of the ones that are available for use now, and I know my fonts.
I would like to put my 2 cents in. I know Muse isn't perfect but it fills a terrific need for some of us and I am happy, in fact delighted, to have it available. I don't think the cost is prohibitive at all.
What I value is this: it is the only program as far as I know that makes everything very simple yet isn't bound by templates. For some of us that's what we've hoped for.
In time things will get fixed. In the meantime I like being able to do most of what I wish to do -- very simple, but looking the way I would like my website to look.