i feel the only reason AD has to use this model is that they where too greedy, they bought up all the software in the industry hoping to create a monopoly and only found out later what a fucking stupid idea that is dev cost wise. The cost of developing all these packages is unsustainable. So now there screwing their clients, the additional strain probably causes them to put out an inferiorly tested product with lest time afforded to each demographics needs. i reckon places like pixologic luxologic and maxxon don't really have these kinds of problems, pertaining to the fact they only have one package to support, meaning they have an incentive to tailor it to there clients and make it the best package out there. a much healthier approach all things considered.
On 31 August 2014 11:35, Tim Leydecker <[email protected]> wrote: > Brooding about this thing more. > > > I had mentioned before how I like the Unreal Engine license model > approach which let´s you postpone investment if you are willing to > freeze yourself temporarily to the last built you had access to before > "putting your version updates on hold", stepping out of your subscription. > > That´s basically like buying once, then once more every other new release > or just when there is a justifiable neccessity, e.g.just buying updates. > > The Unreal model gives you a lot of freedom. It doesn´t force you to > constantly commit money. > > At work, I see the same thing. Major version iterations are 2012 and 2014 > packages. > Most likely 2016 will be the next step. Even while on support, it isn´t > always > practical to push everything and everyone through releases constantly. > > Unless of course the software you plan to commit to has a defect that will > only > be adressed in an update... > > The time it takes to get the workenvironment in place, including plug-ins > and > workflows is enough with every other version already. > > That may change, with release circles and software getting more reliable > and > less buggy but then the need to constantly update/subscribe gets even less > pressing. > > In a nutshell, going the forced to subscription customers only way reduces > the > useability of the software, as it can easily lead to even faster update > cycles > if only to give a reason to subscribe but then get less reliable > milestones as > everything is constantly changing anyway and the next release is around > the corner. > > It´s flashing, blinking, screaming new in your face while making your > progress look dated... > > It might be worth finding out how much time people loose already per day on > windows updates, general software updates, login procedures, update > downloads, > the overhead to just keeping everything in sync. The stuff you have to do > before > you start working really. > > Personally, I don´t mind paying subscription, I might even find a benefit > in > opting in and out, for example with the 3DS Max version i have lying around > and rarely use at the moment but might need at a short notice. > > But still, the releases I commit to for work aren´t neccessarily the > lastest built only. > > > Cheers, > > tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 31.08.2014 07:47, Angus Davidson wrote: > >> I might be wrong but i was getting a very much force people onto the >> latest version vibe from that interview. Which may very well work for >> Autocad, but it sure as hell isnt going to work for Max and Maya. >> >> That model isn't working very well for Adobe as any user of After Effects >> will tell you. Its causing a world of hurt as far as bugs and instability >> goes. >> >> = >> <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" >> style="width:100%;"> >> <tr> >> <td align="left" style="text-align:justify;"><font >> face="arial,sans-serif" size="1" color="#999999"><span >> style="font-size:11px;">This communication is intended for the addressee >> only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, >> please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not >> copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the >> University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into >> agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that >> the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University >> and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are >> not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the >> Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and >> outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in >> writing to the contrary. </span></font></td> >> </tr> >> </table> >> >> >> >>
