Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Weasel words from Adobe on Lightroom  (Read 13104 times)
opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #60 on: May 17, 2013, 05:06:43 PM »
ReplyReply

So, ever work on a dual platform application with over 4 million lines of code supporting 64-bit binaries on Mac and 32-bit and 64-bit binaries on Windows? Photoshop is a big honking, complicated application... Just asking because I suspect not many people have (other than Photoshop engineers).

They sneeze at 4 million lines of code here

People that are a lot smarter than any of us tell us that code-branching is a technical non-issue, and if any company is smart enough to solve the technical hurdles, it would be Adobe. Obviously, administrative and legal issues are an entirely different matter, so it may simply be "technically" impossible from a "managerial" perspective.  

(i.e. "creating" several branches is not the same as "managing" several branches).
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2660


« Reply #61 on: May 17, 2013, 05:41:27 PM »
ReplyReply

The question is whether it's dispositive, and I have no way of knowing.

I think with "dispositive" you should win this weeks prize for obscure (American English?) terminology :-)

And with "I have no way of knowing" become the leading contender for the uncommon humility award -- actually the sole entry ;-)
Logged
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1213


« Reply #62 on: May 17, 2013, 06:02:46 PM »
ReplyReply

So, ever work on a dual platform application with over 4 million lines of code supporting 64-bit binaries on Mac and 32-bit and 64-bit binaries on Windows? Photoshop is a big honking, complicated application... Just asking because I suspect not many people have (other than Photoshop engineers).

To wind this thread of conversation back, at issue is whether or not CS6/LRx will be able to run on whatever operating system comes with your latest shiny toy.

The problem here is mostly Apple because newer hardware will come out that isn't supported by whatever cat-named version of OS-X you have, so you need to upgrade and Apple upgrades aren't always the most friendly. The situation for Windows is quite different.

So for Windows users, they will most likely still be able to use CS6 in 10 years on the latest Windows platform. That won't be the problem.

The problem will be that in 10 years you'll want to start developing raw files from your latest camera and that CS6/ACR8/LRx don't support it so you'll either need to use a raw to DNG converter or upgrade the entire application suite. This problem is an application architecture problem that ACR kind of fixes but doesn't and that is that new cameras and lenses are not plugins that can be downloaded from Adobe.

I suppose from an Adobe perspective, if all manufacturers started using DNG as their raw file format then again fewer updates for ACR/LR would be required to support new cameras, although I do suspect that there would be some desire to want to do things differently for each make/model as they don't all expose an image the same way or capture light the same way.
Logged
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1213


« Reply #63 on: May 17, 2013, 06:05:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I think with "dispositive" you should win this weeks prize for obscure (American English?) terminology :-)

And with "I have no way of knowing" become the leading contender for the uncommon humility award -- actually the sole entry ;-)

Isaac, do you ever discuss the topic at hand or do you always get involved in meta discussions and discussions about people and/or their use of language?

I say that because thus far I've never actually seen you contribute substance to a thread.

Actually, please don't answer this question or reply because this is a rhetorical reply and a response/reply is not required.
Logged
sunnycal
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


WWW
« Reply #64 on: May 17, 2013, 09:43:31 PM »
ReplyReply

So, ever work on a dual platform application with over 4 million lines of code supporting 64-bit binaries on Mac and 32-bit and 64-bit binaries on Windows? Photoshop is a big honking, complicated application... Just asking because I suspect not many people have (other than Photoshop engineers).

Actually I have; supporting not two but over half a dozen platforms with just as many past releases actively supported, and two forward code bases for short-term release and long-term major overhaul. The overall code base easily exceeded 20 million. This was the case in at least two of the companies where I worked. That said, code management has nothing to do with lines of code, it is a different process and works the same whether you have 4000 or 4 million lines of code.

Adobe CS is a multibillion dollar profitable business. Billion dollar product decisions are not made just because some engineers were whining (if, in fact, they were). If they were, the solution would have been to hire another dozen engineers at a cost of $1 million/year or better yet, have people in Asia do this for one tenth of the cost!



Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5419


WWW
« Reply #65 on: May 18, 2013, 02:56:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually I have; supporting not two but over half a dozen platforms with just as many past releases actively supported, and two forward code bases for short-term release and long-term major overhaul.

So, just to be clear, you were a coder or a manager? (it's been my experience that "management" tends to underestimate the engineering difficulties while programers tend to overestimate difficulties).

Just sayin'.

The engineers I talked to indicated the difficulties they had dual branching the two different builds, with and without the new features last year is what lead to the product management to suggest adoption of the subscription only model and dropping the perpetual license...which the execs decided to do. I'm pretty sure the dropping of CS7 came more from engineering/product management than the execs. I say that because (and I'm skirting a fine line here) the betas we were testing were Photoshop CS7 up until they were Photoshop CC versions. I don't want to get into timing of what happened when, but suffice to say CS7 was being tested a long time. And this comes to the conclusion of what I can say (I prolly said too much).
Logged
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1213


« Reply #66 on: May 18, 2013, 07:03:18 AM »
ReplyReply

The engineers I talked to indicated the difficulties they had dual branching the two different builds, with and without the new features last year is what led to the product management to suggest adoption of the subscription only model and dropping the perpetual license...which the execs decided to do. I'm pretty sure the dropping of CS7 came more from engineering/product management than the execs. I say that because (and I'm skirting a fine line here) the betas we were testing were Photoshop CS7 up until they were Photoshop CC versions. I don't want to get into timing of what happened when, but suffice to say CS7 was being tested a long time. And this comes to the conclusion of what I can say (I prolly said too much).

Interesting comment but it makes me wonder if Adobe could have benefited from having people on staff that are/were better accustomed to handling different versions of source code, moving changes between them, etc.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2660


« Reply #67 on: May 18, 2013, 12:12:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Isaac, do you ever discuss the topic at hand or do you always get involved in meta discussions and discussions about people and/or their use of language?

Obviously you feel at liberty to make meta comments and discuss people and/or their use of language.


I say that because thus far I've never actually seen you contribute substance to a thread.

Apparently there's some problem with they way you see.


Actually, please don't answer this question or reply because this is a rhetorical reply and a response/reply is not required.

Please don't make mean spirited remarks about others.


Jim Kasson humbly acknowledged that he (and additionally we) have no way of knowing the reality of the situation (however much we imagine that our experience provides insight). Schewe knows what he was told and that's more than the rest of us know.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5419


WWW
« Reply #68 on: May 18, 2013, 12:34:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting comment but it makes me wonder if Adobe could have benefited from having people on staff that are/were better accustomed to handling different versions of source code, moving changes between them, etc.

Oh, make no mistake, they have the people...and the skills, it's just that when you consider all the apps in the full CC and multiply that x2 for subscription and perpetual, the decision was made to drop perpetual...they wanted to concentrate on one set of deliverables.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1264


« Reply #69 on: May 18, 2013, 12:49:18 PM »
ReplyReply

The overall code base easily exceeded 20 million.
the way we code nowadays those millions LOCs are not something to be boasting about... it is not like manual assembler coding of the days gone...
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1264


« Reply #70 on: May 18, 2013, 12:51:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh, make no mistake, they have the people...and the skills, it's just that when you consider all the apps in the full CC and multiply that x2 for subscription and perpetual, the decision was made to drop perpetual...they wanted to concentrate on one set of deliverables.
but it has nothing to do w/ having a code to support both subscription and perpetual of course...
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1264


« Reply #71 on: May 18, 2013, 12:54:16 PM »
ReplyReply


The engineers I talked to indicated the difficulties they had dual branching the two different builds, with and without the new features last year is what lead to the product management to suggest adoption of the subscription only model and dropping the perpetual license...

the simple solution is not to have different features, but the same features and 2 different payment options... so in reality it has nothing to do w/ software, but everything to do w/ getting more $$$.... because it is very clear that subscription model will not be able to complete w/ perpetual model within the current pricing schemes if both were to coexist... otherwise why kill perpetual Smiley (if you have same features for both, just different payment model)... of course they could raise prices for perpetual mode of payment, but then between rising prices for perpetual and killing perpetual it was decide by marketing that killing perpetual is lesser PR issue.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2013, 12:58:26 PM by Vladimirovich » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5419


WWW
« Reply #72 on: May 18, 2013, 01:24:31 PM »
ReplyReply

the simple solution is not to have different features, but the same features and 2 different payment options...

I guess you didn't understand the accounting issues for the differences between subscription & perpetual licenses...due to revenue recognition issues, perpetual licenses can not get new features for the duration of the release after the end of the quarter the version was released. Compared to the subscription model in which new features can be offered as upgrades at any time. So, perpetual licenses can only get bug fixes and maintenance updates while subscription licenses can get new feature upgrades, hence the code branch.
Logged
sunnycal
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


WWW
« Reply #73 on: May 18, 2013, 04:13:24 PM »
ReplyReply

So, just to be clear, you were a coder or a manager? (it's been my experience that "management" tends to underestimate the engineering difficulties while programers tend to overestimate difficulties).

Just sayin'.

Both

The engineers I talked to indicated the difficulties they had dual branching the two different builds, with and without the new features last year is what lead to the product management to suggest adoption of the subscription only model and dropping the perpetual license...which the execs decided to do. I'm pretty sure the dropping of CS7 came more from engineering/product management than the execs. .........

Ok, to summarize, the engineering team recommended that Adobe drop a multi-billion dollar product channel because of some technical difficulties, and Adobe CEO and Board said. Sure, why not!

If only reality was that simple.

« Last Edit: May 18, 2013, 09:16:07 PM by sunnycal » Logged

dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1213


« Reply #74 on: May 18, 2013, 04:45:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess you didn't understand the accounting issues for the differences between subscription & perpetual licenses...due to revenue recognition issues, perpetual licenses can not get new features for the duration of the release after the end of the quarter the version was released. Compared to the subscription model in which new features can be offered as upgrades at any time. So, perpetual licenses can only get bug fixes and maintenance updates while subscription licenses can get new feature upgrades, hence the code branch.

Ah, so the real problem is not with the technical (software engineering) folks but with the accountants.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2668



WWW
« Reply #75 on: May 18, 2013, 04:53:08 PM »
ReplyReply

And I did tell Jeff to stop blaming the accountants Wink
Logged

jaclarkaus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #76 on: May 19, 2013, 12:01:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I guess you didn't understand the accounting issues for the differences between subscription & perpetual licenses...due to revenue recognition issues, perpetual licenses can not get new features for the duration of the release after the end of the quarter the version was released. Compared to the subscription model in which new features can be offered as upgrades at any time. So, perpetual licenses can only get bug fixes and maintenance updates while subscription licenses can get new feature upgrades, hence the code branch.

No, sorry, simply not true, accounting has nothing to do with it (my background is as an Accountant in multinational software company), however, new features are often withheld and bundled into reasons to upgrade to new versions.

I presume Adobe is trying to move to a subscription model to move customers from 'Investment' to 'Operational Expenditure' and get round funding issues often in larger businesses. They are not alone.

I see two logical options to get regular upgrades - Licence + maintenance (like BreezeBrowser effectively) or subscription. The problem for me with subscription is I use Photoshop maybe 4 times a year, Premiere Pro maybe twice and Acrobat Pro maybe 20-30 times. Makes any alternative expensive really.
Logged
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1213


« Reply #77 on: May 19, 2013, 12:59:02 AM »
ReplyReply

No, sorry, simply not true, accounting has nothing to do with it (my background is as an Accountant in multinational software company), however, new features are often withheld and bundled into reasons to upgrade to new versions.

Not quite. The problem is "revenue recognition."

You have 5 software engineers (lets say $500/day) that work on feature x that is delivered in 5 months (20 weeks) with a cost of $250,000. It can be delivered as an update to existing version v or to a new version w. The software as it is costs $1000 per copy and that covers the cost of all R&D into version v. Now you've an additional $250,000 that goes into v. What portion of the $1000 per updated copy covers the $250,000? Or is v's contribution $0? And what about the new version w? If there are no feature updates for v and all the new features are only present in w then it is easier to do the math on whether w has been a success commercially.

A subscription model removes that problem and changes a few spreadsheets, making it easier to deliver new feature updates.
Logged
sunnycal
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


WWW
« Reply #78 on: May 19, 2013, 01:15:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Not quite. The problem is "revenue recognition."

You have 5 software engineers (lets say $500/day) that work on feature x that is delivered in 5 months (20 weeks) with a cost of $250,000. It can be delivered as an update to existing version v or to a new version w. The software as it is costs $1000 per copy and that covers the cost of all R&D into version v. Now you've an additional $250,000 that goes into v. What portion of the $1000 per updated copy covers the $250,000? Or is v's contribution $0? And what about the new version w? If there are no feature updates for v and all the new features are only present in w then it is easier to do the math on whether w has been a success commercially.

A subscription model removes that problem and changes a few spreadsheets, making it easier to deliver new feature updates.

One solution that many companies employ is to make software development a wholly owned subsidiary and all business units just buy software from there for packaging and resell.

That said, it is funny that the discussion has moved from Code Management to Accounting. Accounting exists to facilitate business not vice versa. Dropping a product line to make life easier for accountants will be like the tail wagging the dog.

Even if we accept these explanations at face value, that it is so difficult to manage both product lines, then why not drop the Cloud version? In terms of revenue, CC version lags far behind CS sales.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5419


WWW
« Reply #79 on: May 19, 2013, 02:06:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Even if we accept these explanations at face value, that it is so difficult to manage both product lines, then why not drop the Cloud version? In terms of revenue, CC version lags far behind CS sales.

Because Adobe honestly believes this is the wave of the future. You can debate the point and disagree...but Adobe didn't do this lightly (seriously, there was tremendous internal debate and disagreement–which you'll never hear about)...but this is what Adobe, as a company, honestly believes. You can't fault them for doing what they believe is the right thing for the company and their shareholders even if you don't like it.

It is what it is...Adobe has balls and is willing to lay them on the line. Whether it's right or will be successful, I really don't know. But, it's not in Adobe's nature to cave just because of adversity...if anything, they tend to circle the wagons and draw closer together. The more nasty the response, the stronger their resolve will be.

The best bet is to chill out, let the tides roll in/out and see what transpires. Signing petitions and threatening boycotts ain't gonna make a dent...how things transpire of the next year will.

Do, or don't buy CS6 or subscribe to CC...the choice is entirely yours to make. Make your choice based on a clear and cogitate understanding of the issues and the relative value to you and your work...trying to make Adobe "bleed" for their perceived transgressions is doomed to failure and will only hurt yourself.

For those who are so adamantly against any sort of subscription model, is this based on experience of a subscription model or a knee jerk reaction against the change? I ask because I'm curious...I've been subscribed to the Master Collection since the CS 5.5 time frame and the only time I had any issue was late last year because of the CS6 13.1.0 and 13.0.4 fiasco (which was instrumental in the dropping of the CS line).

So, is the issue really one against rent or is it simply a factor of cost? The distinction is important...if you want to work towards change, it's useful to make sure you target the real problem and not diffuse the situation with OT bullcrap.

If you are a non-pro Lightroom and Photoshop user, what would you be prepared to pay/month for the services (noting that LR is been stated to be a non-subscription license).

And remember the title of this thread..."Weasel words" so rest assured that the OP isn't interested in reasonable discussion...the thread was started to provoke.

(which I've calmly avoided doing I might add).
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad