This content has been marked as final. Show 20 replies
I'd be willing to bet that Durin isn't paid to spend time on the forums; that he does it on his own time and on his own dime.
There may be a Pr engineer or two who might be willing to poke their head in here from time to time, but if history is any indication, the venom that will be spit in their direction by some users will make that willingness to be here evaporate like a drop of water on a superheated frying pan.
What Eddie said.
If these users aren't still around maybe they will give us a second chance. We sure could use the help.
Durin is the best. Whenever I've had a question or problem with Soundbooth or Audition, he's been there to help out. I know that some of the AE guys show up in that forum as well.
Many of use hopefully remember Wil Renczes, and how he showed up from time to time to help out. He's been absent from the forums for awhile, and I hope he wasn't part of the layoffs Adobe had late last year.
Wil was a great help, but I'm afraid that Eddie and Jeff probably are right. This forum has become quite toxic, filled with complaints and threats of lawsuits instead of earnest desire for support and questions. Many seem to use it as the place to rail on Adobe.
Wil if you're out there, some of us could use you from time to time.
Durin and Eric Chan are both stellar Adobe engineers. Eric put up with a lot of irate users on the Lightroom forum, kept his cool, and responded with both technical information and requests for feedback for specific problems the development team were having.
I suspect that the attitude and approach of the Adobe rep toward justifiably irate customers is paramount in any interaction.
Far too often Adobe reps, the so called product Evangelists, and the resident Adobe sychophants are far too ready to ascribe initial problems to user ignorance or configurations, instead of entering into a constructive dialogue, and being forthcoming about known weaknesses in a release, rather than glossing them over or acting as if they don't exisit.
As for having those working on the software team engaging with users--on company time--that seems to me to be customer relations 101 :)
I think that you might be lumping too much into an unmarked bag. What I see happening is an OP with a problem and several users saying that they have never seen that. It does not mean that the OP is wrong, but that others have not observed similar. This usually indicates that for them, CSx works fine on their systems with their Assets. (See below for additional comments on this.)
Watching these various fora for some years (PS for about 10 now), the majority of the problems stem from Assets. Next is system issues. Then you have the OE, which all of us have encountered at some time, or another. Last, are the true Bugs. Yes, they exist and seem to be more prevalent in CS4.
Now, if I post on a problem, and everyone says, "doesn't happen for me," then that is helpful. I can look beyond Bugs, and focus on my Assets, my system, or OE. (See, I told you I'd get back to this.)
I do agree that there are weaknesses in most releases. That's why I am reading the CS4 forum, as I have not made the investment in either system, or software, yet.
As for an Adobe-presence in these fora, I would beg any Adobe engineer to stop by, spend a few hours per day, and share some insight with us. Most of us can use it.
However, I see the same problems outlined by both Eddie and Jeff. I cannot blame anyone from Adobe, who would want to stay far away. Hey, they have families and lives beyond Adobe. Some of us, myself squarely included, do not seem to. Chris Cox gets hammered in the PS forum, though he's one of the early developers, and is trying to help. Too many posters do not wish help. They wish a forum to rant. They do not wish to solve problems, only to bash Adobe.
I am one of those Adobe apologists. If something works for me, and most Adobe products do just that, I try to help the other users get things going. Some want that, but some just flat do not. They want a public platform, and choose these fora.
Regardless of the differing personalities on these fora, I strongly believe that the main thrust of most is to help the posters, in whatever way they can.
Maybe I am very wrong,
I agree with you guys for the most part but I'm gonna have to point out that, pissed of consumers is no reason for a company to stop replying on a forum that there tech support tend to send people too. (that's how I showed up here, after my 24p stopped working).
Also there's that tiny fact AE and PS work WAY better than Premiere. Turn on the tv and flip through a few channels you'll see AE or Photoshop work in most of the commercials. Not so with Premiere.
Not looking for an argument just how I see things.
Sometimes I wish a Premiere programmer would help but then I think better. Let the guys work. Thet got a job ahead of them with CS4 the way it is and CS5 is, what, a year out?
I can see where your impression of my comments is well taken. I should have restricted my remarks to the fora where Eric and Durin mainly work, especially Lightroom over the last two years. Really, my remarks were in support of Durin and Eric as role models. I have no experience with the Adobe reps on this forum--except to note their absence!
I do have little experience here, but what little I have suggests to me that there are far fewer sycophants here than on the LR forum, and for the most part the users here are less defensive of the product--very hard for them to be otherwise given the range of both serious and nagging problems CSx versions initially have. The veterans here seem to have learned how to roll with that and focus on helping others to adjust.
Lightroom is somewhat different, in that it is a new product, a new concept, as well as one that went through a long public beta, so those that were enamoured of the concept were far too eager to defend the seemingly endless bugs and extremely slow feature development that plagued LR and pissed off a lot of users. One of the most annoying aspects of that context was the very sparse involvement of Adobe reps--that is until Eric Chan arrived at Adobe.
I have never seen another forum for any product with more negative responses--largely justified--than those that greeted LR 1.0! Thousands in the first month. V1 was by no measure anything but a poor Beta. 8 releases late with version 2.3, it is finally working without major bugs for most users, but still lags in feature development.
Premiere, by contrast, is an app that's been around a long time. And one, IMO, that never seems to reach its own potential, competitive role in the NLE market. And most annoyingly one where each initial new version release is plagued with new, half realized features, breaks and bugs --ironically, that usually do not get relatively resolved and stabilized until just several months before the next new version is released, where the cycle begins again. Given the cost of Premiere, that, of course, does not go down well!
I was not following this forum for the initial release of CS4, so I am judging the interaction here over the last 3 weeks or so. Based on that is a relatively civilized and helpful place--comparatively speaking :)
It is possible to point out problems/bugs/challenges in a respectful way. Sadly, few people do that. It always fascinates me when people claim to be professionals yet they behave like children. There is a lot of childish behavior in these various fora.
I don't blame the engineers for staying quiet or staying away.
Is Durin really his name or just a screen-name? If the latter then I would guess it's Dave Johnston who's been helpful to me priavtely a couple of times as well.
I like my Adobe products quite a bit. The only thing I have against them is the insane prices. I know it's whatever the market can bear and all that, but it's one thing to make a living and quite another to make a killing.
Points well made. I may have missed a bit, hence my reply. Thank you for the clarification.
I was in the public beta of LR, but did not find that it really did that much for my sitlls workflow. PS had just beefed up Bridge, yet again, and with some existing tools on my machine, I did not see the worthwhile uses for it. I'm sure that much has changed, and now a lof of folk sing its praises. Time for me to revisit.
As for the Adobe "presence," I do feel that it would be good from Adobe's part. Heck, who knows, maybe one of us is really an Adobe employee, incognito? I do hope that they read the fora, as there is a lot of good discussion here - much of it transcends the general "Feature Requests."
I suspect that what happens with some Adobe products is that a developer/engineer looks upon the software as their "child," and takes a parent's attitude towards it. They are also individuals, who enjoy interaction on the fora - some people just do not.
I also agree about Premiere. There is great potential, that somehow is never quite realized. I'm sure that it comes down to $'s, at the end of the day. Some MBA is yelling that Premiere can never make all the $ back, plus a hefty profit. The engineers have to beg at the throne for a few more ¢'s just for development and implementation. Premiere is possibly the "red-headed step-child" in the family, and maybe the engineers are just burned out, when they get home each day.
Regardless, much gets accomplished in this forum. Even without a known Adobe presence, the subscribers dispense a great deal of help. I know that I have benefitted from that.
Still, it would be great to have someone, who actually knows what goes on "under the hood," who could steer us in the right direction, all of the time.
Luckily for me, Premiere and the other components in the Production Stuido work for most of what I need to do. Could be better, but I am not unhappy with what I've got. Now, I'm still that kid in a candy store. "Look what I can do on my desktop! That used to take weeks, look horrible and cost thousands of dollars with film."
Thanks for making the corrections to my understanding.
I could live with the high price for a stable, all features working as they should, application with just the few little annoying but non critical bugs that one can expect in any mature software. Adobe meets that criteria in very few of its applications these days. AE is probably the best example of high quality for the money.
My suspicion is that they now have far too many applications to develop, upgrade, and service than they are willing to hire sufficient high quality employees to do all that--and meet the designated bottom line on profitability dictated from the top floor. So, guess who gets the short end of the stick :)
I know what you're saying. I don't know what they did as far as highering developers for all of their software or how they went about picking engineers, but they did impress me when they bought Cool Edit (I've been using it since 2000), and also offered it's developer a job with the company, so the guy who originally made Cool Edit (now called Audition) is still the same guy who's the chief software developer on Audition. I can only hope they made the same kind of deal with Macromedia, but I really don't know.
<good-natured ribbing><br /><br />"I don't know what they did as far as highering developers"<br /><br />doesn't look any better, nor is it easier to read in block quotes:<br />>I don't know what they did as far as highering developers<br /><br />because <i>highering</i> should have been spelled h-i-r-i-n-g. So, in the future, <i>you're</i> spelling should improve if you don't <i>loose</i> concentration.<br /><br /></good-natured ribbing><br /><br />:)
Two funnie. Hilaireous.
"because highering should have been spelled h-i-r-i-n-g. So, in the future, you're spelling should improve if you don't loose concentration."
Oh well, that's what happens at 1:00 in the morning.
At least my mistakes are by accident and not on purpose.
So...are you and Creig, or Craig, or whatever, ready to prove to the world how great those ears of yours are, or are you still full of crap?
Calm down. I enjoyed the debate over in the 5.1 audio thread, but since you made such a big deal about proper form even in forum postings, I'd thought I'd tease you a little bit.
No offense intended and I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough in post #15 that I was only kidding.
Don't worry about a word, or two, getting sideways. Using the "WayBack Machine," I still recall the first letter that I composed in WordPerfect (1.1 IIRC), and used Spell-Check. Boy was I ever impressed, as I am not an accomplished speller. I wore out four dictionaries in college. Well, my being impressed ended, when I read through the Spell-Check'ed version. I had misspelled a few words, and Spell-Checker automatically "fixed" 'em. Trouble was, the spellings that it chose were not even close. I wish that I still had a copy of the "corrected" letter. It would have made good fodder for this discussion, as nothing made sense, and some of the corrections were down right funny. Luckily for me, Spell-Checker has gotten a lot better in later generations. Still, I learned the fallibility of computers. I already knew about some of my own.
Now, if you meant reaching for a higher ring, well then that is a good thing for any software company...
Hunt, typing at 9:00AM AZT *after* his second cup o coffee
:-) Okay, sorry guys. PAX
PS, I'm kind of surprised that no one took me up on the sound test offer though. Even if I locked the files in flash it would have been real easy to cheat on it by just running the soundcard output through your mixer or patch bay and then back into the soundcard inputs to record the waves and then run a spectral graph on them to see which had less high-end content. I thought somebody would have figured that out in less time than it took me to type--sound test.