This content has been marked as final. Show 20 replies
To sell bundles. In the long term there is more profit in that.
Or end user profit-hungry-style. The bundle is far less costly than all individual applications.
> yeah, microsoft-profit-hunger-style
Last time I checked, Adobe doesn't quite fit the description of a charitable organization, donations to which provide me with tax benefits.
If I've overlooked Adobe's charitable organization status, please correct me. I could file a couple of amended returns that will generate significant tax savings for years past.
yeah, but what if i don't need all the applications included
That's your choice. Last I saw was that PP + AE as separate packages amounted to $ 799 and $ 999 respectively. CS3 Premium was $ 1699, so you get a rebate of $ 99 for inclusion of a lot of other software, PS, IL, BR, SB, FL and Dynamic Link. Seems like you don't like that offer. My guess is that a lot of people can not understand your reasoning.
>Adobe doesn't quite fit the description of a charitable organization
I get the sarcasm, but in this case I think the reference to Microsoft was a jibe because profit seems to be their only goal, whereas the correct viewpoint for any organization, whether for- or non-profit, is that serving it's publics should be the primary goal. 'Profit' will come if you do that well. But in Microsoft's near monopoly type case, that profit comes even when they don't serve us well (as in Vista), because for most people there really isn't any other viable choice. (And no, Mac isn't really a viable choice. It's market share is just too limited.)
> I think the reference to Microsoft was a jibe for profit being their only goal
I got that too. However, the jibe was completely inappropriate in this case, which is why I responded like I did. I think Harm did an excellent job of debunking the OP's line of reasoning.
I agree Harm did OK. I don't think you did as well. The Microsoft jibe was accurate. And I can understand the comparison in this case, even if you think it's not quite as accurate.
I mean, I can't think of any technical reason for Adobe not to activate DL for individual products, once they're installed. So there is kind of a profit motivated/public disservice reason for withholding it. Ideally, all decisions will be first public serving and secondarily profit motivated. (And I agree both need to be there, but there is a proper order to them.)
We'll have to disagree here, Jim. Dynamic Link is an added feature to entice users to buy the suite. An extra perk; an additional application. I don't see this a "public disservice" to PPro customers; rather I see it as a real benefit to the customers who spend the extra money to buy the suite.
Tomato, tomahto. Glass half-empty; glass half-full.
Consider it a feature that you can even buy the appps separately. Try Buying FCP by itself.
I wouldn't be surprised if PPRO is only available in a suite sometime in the future as well.
>I don't see this a "public disservice" to PPro customers
Well, do you agree that this is a very valuable feature that all PP users could make use of with the proper programs, whether or not they had the entire suite?
The suite is the "proper program".
Now Jeff, that's not really answering the question.
Do you agree that DL is a very valuable feature that any Premiere Pro user could make use of if he had both Premiere and AE installed, or both Premiere and Encore, whether or not he had the entire suite?
Of course. Just like Ultra CS3 would be a valuable tool for CS3 Production Standard users and Device Central would be a valuable tool for Premiere Elements users. And motion tracking would have been a great tool for After Effects 6.x Standard users.
Those tools differentiate one Adobe product from another, just like Dynamic Link differentiates the suite from the individual products.
So will you now argue that Adobe put profit ahead of all else, and actually eschewed their customer service obligations, by not including Ultra with Production Standard, or Device Central with Elements? Or that they did the same thing by offering Standard and Professional versions of After Effects for all those years?
I purchased Premiere 6.0 back when I first discovered the free trial. I then bought After Effects 6.0 at a trade show in NYC about a year later. I paid to upgrade them both at least once.
I resented having to pay as much for the entire suite as someone who only had one application. That really pissed me off. But now that I have the entire suite, I can see that the individual applications are all just part of the entire program.
Each application does just part of what I need to do. Without them all (except maybe one or two of them) I could not be as effective.
I believe that Adobe does care about their customers, to a point. That is, they care about what they can do for customers to entice them to upgrade, and to stick with the Adobe suite. To this end, they invite users to their offices to watch them work. They encourage bug reports and feature requests (although a response acknowledging the input would be welcome, you know?).
I think that Adobe would successfully upgrade more people to the suite if they allowed a discount for each product already owned. If everyone had the suite, everyone would be happier.
OK. Now that we are agreed that DL is a useful feature for everyone, can we also agree that Adobe has withheld that feature from those who have paid only for the individual programs they want/need, rather than the whole suite?
>Device Central would be a valuable tool for Premiere Elements users.
Well, here I'm inclined to think that DC would be much more valuable to the consumer oriented Elements users, rather than the Professional user. But that's besides the point.
See Jim? I told you we'd have to agree to disagree. Seven posts later and we're right back where we started.
I don't understand that, but at this point, I also just don't care. We're good.
> They encourage bug reports and feature requests (although a response acknowledging the input would be welcome, you know?).
If you look at that link you see how much more expensive the individual products are compared to the whole suite.