Can somebody clarify something for me. The WSJ article includes the statistic that motion picture film sales have fallen from 12.4 billion feet in 2006 to an estimated 449 million feet for this year, a decline of 96%.
The article talks almost exclusively about what media films are being shot with nowadays. But am I right in guessing that those sales figures must include all types of motion picture film, including internegative, interpositive, and release print stocks, not just camera negative film? So it's probably the case that the vast majority of the decline in sales comes from the large-scale switch to digital post-production and (for movies) digital projection?
In other words, the 12.4 billion feet of film sold in 2006 was not all camera negative film was it? Thanks in advance for any answers.
Danny: The message is simple: who is supporting a CC system is supporting a very scary future. If Adobe will be successful with their CC, others will follow. Visa versa.It is up to you how you would like to see the future. Plenty of alternatives, so no excuse.
Say NO(!) to Adobe's CC, they lie to you, and you know it.
You personally may not have liked Adobe's pricing or feature development, but obviously enough other people did to keep them in business.
If they really are offering no value over any length of time, other companies will take their customers away.
And there is nothing in the CC plan that prevents users from going someplace else. Yes, you might have to migrate some work and data to different applications, but that risk is inherent in every piece of software you use. It's a barrier to change, but in the case of Adobe's photography apps, it's not a very big one because there are well-established non-proprietary formats for pictures and for picture metadata. Adobe will have to be offering something of value to keep its photo customers.
Adobe cannot succeed over the medium or long term if they become grossly stagnant and overpriced, no matter what license model they are using. Their position is not that well protected, and I'm sure they know it.
GaryJP: If you are inclined to believe Lightroom and others will never be converted to Creative Cloud only, trust what they tell their investors, not what they tell their customers:
"More importantly, moving forward all Adobe and channel focus will solely be on Creative Cloud offerings and CS6 perpetual revenue becomes de minimis."Adobe Systems CEO Shantanu Narayen
"Q2 was the last quarter we broadly offered perpetual volume licensing of CS6 through the channel. As a result, there was high demand by customers serviced by the channel who wanted to add to their perpetual seat capacity. This drove the upside relative to the high-end of our total targeted Q2 revenue range. We believe these customers will migrate to Creative Cloud over time. Beginning in Q3, the channel is solely focused on licensing Creative Cloud."Adobe CFO Mark Garrett.
Seems pretty clear those statements were about CS6 specifically, not about all Adobe software and were made back when the transition to CC was still relatively new.
Adobe still offers many perpetual licenses: Lightroom, Elements, Premiere Elements and also many pro and commercial applications like Acrobat, Framemaker et. al.
In fact, as of right now, a quick scan of their product page shows about 60 desktop software titles available with around 33 of them being sold with perpetual licenses -- more than half of their desktop products are available with perpetual licenses.
I think it's easy to see that Adobe will sell its titles via whatever license model they feel will produce the best business results for each title, on a case-by-case basis, and it's not automatically true that subscription is the answer for every program or target market.
Svetoslav Popov: Not good enough. My Photoshop CS6 will never expire, as long as it runs on my computer's OS. I paid 210€ for the upgrade, so for the next 5 years it costs me projected 3.50€ per month. I could use it 10 years - that amounts to 1.75€ per month. You'll never beat that, Adobe.
@ Svetoslav Popov
Just as a side note: your accounting is incomplete. In figuring the cost of Photoshop perpetual, you have to include your initial purchase price, not just the upgrade prices. At some point in the past you paid 700-800€ for your first copy, right? That counts (although figuring out how much it counts is not straightforward).
PicOne: How do upgrade fees (to eg. LR6) get calculated if the upgrade becomes available somewhere in the middle of your 1yr contract?
IOW, to say this $9.99/month cost structure is "permanent" doesn't mean much if LR5 is about to be replaced, and this pricing is only valid for LR5 +CC (and no other future version of LR).
> "However, for the stupid people out there's sake, can u tell me how the customer "off the street" visiting www.adobe.com actually navigates to the catalog page you linked?"
A link to the perpetual version is on the main Lightroom page. It's below the CC price boxes at the bottom of the page and it's labeled "Upgrade to Lightroom 5 >" (Note that it looks like neither the CC boxes nor the perpetual link appear if you are signed in to your Adobe ID -- or at least my ID, which Adobe knows has a current subscription, so they likely suppressed all the purchasing links.)
And as others have pointed out, Lightroom perpetual can be purchased from hundreds of vendors other than Adobe.
mumintroll: As I predicted. Adobe lower the prices to lure new stupid customers.
. "They didn't lower the price. It's a one year deal, after which the price returns to $20 a month."
What do you get out of coming here and lying? What weird psychological benefit does it have for you?
Nowhere does Adobe say that the price will go up to $20 after one year. Nowhere. You don't have the slightest idea what will happen to the price of this package or anything else Adobe sells.
PicOne: What isn't said above, is that seemingly you can now ONLY GET LR IF YOU SUBSCRIBE to the $9.99/mo plan. The option to purchase standalone LR is seemingly gone from Adobe's site if you click the How To Buy link
Do you really think a change such as the one you are claiming happened would not get mentioned by Adobe or by DPReview? Crazy.
Lightroom 5 is still available with a perpetual license. Please stop spreading misinformation. You can buy it with a perceptual license by clicking on the "Upgrade to Lightroom 5" link on the lower right of the main Lightroom page. Or you can do it here:
Prognathous: The only thing you need to know: the $10 photography bundle is a trap.
Quote from Adobe's membership contract:
"The price of your one-year commitment (as reflected in the monthly installment amounts) may change for your next annual renewal, and we’ll provide you notice of a change by email"
In short, nothing but a teaser price. Get ready to pay through the nose as soon as you've created enough project files and can't properly open them by anything else. Good luck being Adobe's hostage.
> "It's confounding that any rational human being would defend Adobe's subscription model."
What an odd statement. Renting, as a form of acquiring the use of a product or service, has been around since the dawn of recorded history.
Deciding whether it makes sense for you in any particular case is just a simple cost-benefit analysis. You can buy a car or lease one, right? Is it "confounding" that car companies offer these choices? Are you "confounded" by the millions of cars that are leased every year by individuals -- and here's a kicker for you -- companies with very cold-eyed accounting departments?
I guess you haven't been thinking very hard about your software. All software is a trap if you don't have a plan for migrating your data out of it, if that becomes necessary. You could lose access to any piece of software for several reasons that are just as likely as a subscription product becoming too expensive.
If CC becomes too expensive for me, I'll convert my "project files", with their edits, into a format that lets me migrate them to another software app. It's not rocket science. And I have a plan to do that for every single piece of software that I use that contains data that I want to save (writing, pictures, emails etc.). I've already had to migrate my emails through 5 different applications and from Mac to Windows and back to Mac, starting with Compuserve email from 1992. This is nothing new, and it has nothing to do with the sales model of the software.
Julian: Does this mean that from lightroom 6 onwards we are gonna be limited to cloud versions only? If so I will plan my migration away from lightroom.
It definitely does not mean that LR6 will be cloud only, and anyone who says it does is just spreading baseless FUD. Nobody knows for sure what the indefinite future holds (not even anybody at Adobe), but Angus is right that there is a strong business case for keeping Lightroom available both ways.
A wonderful, deeply evocative, historically rich series of photographs. What a great legacy to discover. The last three images of your family are beautifully poignant, Barney. I'm reminded that people who lose their homes in natural disasters often say that the most important possession they hoped to save were their family pictures.
Almost as enjoyable to me are the great Anglo Saxon names of Eldred and Edgar, the intrepid cat. If there's a cousin Ethelwulf or a parakeet named Eadwig somewhere back there in the family tree, I can't wait to see pictures.
I say this as someone who was born and raised in California with a Gaelic name unknown in that land but which, I'm told, would have made me an Edmund if I were English.
Corkcampbell: When did State Street become Japanese?
Actually, the Japanese "branch" of State Street must certainly be a separate Japanese company. Of course, its shares may all be owned by the U.S. parent company (but maybe not). I think it's a little bit of a squishy definitional issue, and I wouldn't say that Reuters is flat out wrong.
Donnie G: The good news is this camera won't be sold in the U.S.. Thanks Nikon!
That may just be a temporary inventory thing -- i.e. Nikon USA needs a few more months to sell through older inventory. There's nothing stopping them from starting to sell this model next fall, for example.
jkoch2: Olympus expects to cut losses from imaging products from Y23b to Y5b for the year ending this March. To turn a profit in the next year will not be easy, though, if unit sale continue to decline. To date, none of the companies publish any analysis of profitss or losses on particular categories. the big unknown is whether, after discontinuing most P&S operations, sales of system or high-end cameras will generate sufficient returns to justify the R&D, overhead, and capital. Not an easy assignment! FYE Mar-15 will be the camera world's end time and final judgment of the quick or dead.
Did Mr. Imano's phone ring during the interview? Wonder how many camera company execs are fond of smart phones or using them as cameras?
R&D cross-pollination is most certainly not unique to Olympus. Every major camera company has other significant optical businesses, and they all benefit from R&D crossover (in both directions, by the way -- i.e. Olympus's R&D for medical optics, which is huge compared to its camera R&D, has undoubtedly helped cameras over the years).
As for Nikon, its current position where 3/4ths of its revenue comes from cameras is historically somewhat unusual for the company. But, yes, Nikon is definitely much more vulnerable to a downturn in the camera business than any other major company.
anteportas: For me as a journalist the interview misses to many points in detail. Examples?
1.) Mr. Iida says, users are asking for new flashes. Why does the interviewer not ask if there is something in the pipeline and what these flashes will look like?
2.) Mr. Iilda says that Fuji has to refresh the lens lineup. What does it mean? Which new lenses can we expect from fuji?
3.) When will there be an x-pro 2 an what will be the differences to the x-t1? Only the hybrid-viewfinder?
4.) Mr. Iida sys Fuji has to be innovative. So what are the areas of technical innovation we can expect from fuji in the near future?
Just a few examples abaout information this interview is not providing.
Not sure what type of journalism you do, but it's clearly not consumer electronics. Companies almost never reveal answers about specific future product plans. Asking those kinds of questions is just a waste of your time and theirs.
SHood: "Although we don't have access to sales figures, we understand that the 1 System is doing pretty well for Nikon."
Ummm. Did you miss their press release saying they have 500k camera units unsold in warehouses, most of which are the Nikon 1. Nikon also said they are re-evaluating the Nikon 1 product and cutting back on Marketing and R&D.
This quote looks like it came directly from Nikon trying to save face.
Ummm, did you read their press release?
Nikon revised their ILC _forecast_ for this year (ending March 31, 2014) down by 550,000 units; they did not say they had 500K unsold cameras sitting in a warehouse.
And they said they would "reconsider product planning of Nikon 1". They said nothing about cutting back marketing or R&D.
They might _increase_ marketing and R&D. The phrase "reconsider product planning" simply means they believe they may need a new feature/design/price mix to meet the sales targets they had set for themselves. What they do to accomplish that is anybody's guess. It might mean doubling down on their investment, not cutting back on it.
My friend Nick Didlick, a professional photographer and Nikon School Instructor, has been doing this for years with a very cheap and simple setup.
He uses a plastic trash can that he buys at the local drug store, cuts a hole in it near the bottom, then expoxies the cover glass from a 4 x 6 or 5 x 7 picture frame over the hole (on the outside of the trash can).
I've seen some nice shots of trout and other fish that he's taken in rivers and creeks using his "BucketCam", as he calls it. But, yes, he has pushed it a little too far into the water and doused a camera once or twice. He likes to dry them on the heater vent of his car during the drive home.
Walter: A lot of people are predicting the demise of Adobe. I personally doubt they will ever go back to the "old' way. That would truly lead to their demise and would end up totally compromising a software which was always aimed at the professional/serious photographer. Letting it succumb to the $1.99 app world would not be good for anyone.
The new set up will be too expensive for many especially if you take into account the global nature of this internet forum...
I suspect Adobe recognise that to survive they will need to look at a smaller more lucrative professional market much like Hasselblad always has done. There will always be that high end market. Photoshop will get more and more expensive but don't be surprised if Adobe come out with a cheap version in the near future which will adequately suit the masses.
Hating Adobe is a waste of energy and will change nothing..... there is more to life.
@ Walter: "don't be surprised if Adobe come out with a cheap version in the near future"
It's amazing to me how many people don't get this simple idea. Adobe just might have a little plan to fill the hole for photographers that the CC model is creating. With, oh I don't know, something like Lightroom and maybe some as yet unannounced upgraded version of Elements or something similar, all still available for a competitive price on a license model that the market will be comfortable with. Who could imagine such a revolutionary idea?
CC is about the suite, not the individual programs. It's a much more compelling offer for people who use multiple apps -- some combination of Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Premiere, After Effects, Dreamweaver et.al. every day in their jobs (and there are at least hundreds of thousands of those people). For other people, Adobe may have a different plan. (Disclaimer: I don't know, but it's an easy guess.)
madeinlisboa: OMG. CC is already out, not by subscription, if you know what I mean. They are sinking faster than I thought.
Unless you can cite a source, Stu 5's comment stands. Adobe has actually said that the Creative Cloud will not affect the piracy situation. That's obviously the case and nobody would know that better than Adobe.
Some journalists and commentators made the assumption that CC was partly an anti-piracy measure and reported that, but they were a little too far over their skis, as the saying goes. Adobe, as far as I know, never made that claim.