Sure, we need a higher end finishing product, but is Symphony really it, and does the CC alone really qualify it as that? I mean in reality, not in the limited perceptions of your clients, however profitable their lack of understanding has proved to be.
Symphony's effects limitations and flaws have been discussed too many times for me to need to do it here. I would support having two Avid product lines, but only if the "high" end product really merits the name. In this day and age, I'm not sure Symphony really does any more.
Best,
Shirley
-----Original Message-----
From: Nigel Gourley <avid-l@outpostfacilities.co.uk>
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 20, 2011 7:11 am
Subject: RE: [Avid-L2] Re: Symphony owners?
Hi there,
I'm not sure I can explain It but... It is perceived certainly in my
marketplace as a more expensive finishing device by clients and therefore we
can charge more for doing jobs on it. That in itself means the price and the
name adds value. When clients want a symphony online they don't even know
why often they just think it will be better in some way than the MC they did
their offline on.
We just quoted on a job where they want to do the conform in DS and not
symphony. For no technically sensible reason but because it's perceived to
be more high end and therefore more suitable.
So if the difference disappears then so does my ability to charge more!
So I'm reasonably in favour of a premium product costing a premium amount.
The fact the colour correction is different is one of the things that
enables us to say, you need to do that in symphony.
N
From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Job ter Burg (L2B)
Sent: 20 February 2011 14:24
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Symphony owners?
Nigel,
IMO, the Q is not so much if there is any development, but why Symphony is
still a separate product.
Can you explain why Symphony owners have to keep on paying premiums for
every upgrade that brings nothing more than an MC owner gains?
I can't.
Job
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 feb. 2011, at 13:23, "Nigel Gourley" <avid-l@outpostfacilities.co.uk
<mailto:avid-l%40outpostfacilities.co.uk> > wrote:
> Just to even out the balance a bit I must say I almost totally disagree.
>
>
>
> Without going on and on for example..
>
>
>
> what other software company is selling 10 year old functionality?
>
> Think Word, excel, outlook, etc etc.
>
>
>
> I think it's pretty good at the moment the pace of MC advancement. Almost
> too quick for us to keep pace.
>
>
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
> From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf Of
> Shirley Gutierrez
> Sent: 20 February 2011 05:27
> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Symphony owners?
>
>
>
>
>
> Very well put!
>
> We don't seem to have any problem agreeing with each other on this one;
now,
> if only someone at Avid agreed with us, perhaps something would actually
> happen.
>
> Frank, do you still read the list?
>
> Shirley
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blafarm <blafarm@yahoo.com <mailto:blafarm%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:blafarm%40yahoo.com> >
> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sat, Feb 19, 2011 7:39 pm
> Subject: [Avid-L2] Re: Symphony owners?
>
> Agreed.
>
> It is utterly depressing that in the year 2011 -- the only material
>
> differentiator between MC and Symphony is still Advanced Color Correction
> and
>
> Universal Mastering.
>
> It is also utterly depressing that in year 2011 -- both of these platforms
> are
>
> still wallowing in obsolete toolsets that are over 10 years old. I mean --
>
> really -- what other software company is selling 10 year old
functionality?
>
> I won't go into the gory details of what is wrong with these two products
--
>
>
> except to say that if Avid is unaware of their shortcomings-- we are all
in
> deep
>
> trouble.
>
> What I will say is my opinion that there is simply no reason for these two
>
> products to not be merged into one.
>
> And for that one surviving product to have herculean developmental
resources
>
>
> thrown at it -- to overcome the past 10 years of squandered opportunity --
> that
>
> would have allowed Avid to be an innovative leader -- and not an
embarrasing
>
>
> follower.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at:
> http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/
>
> Individual Email | Traditional
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/join
>
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> Avid-L2-digest@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Avid-L2-digest%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Avid-L2-digest%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> Avid-L2-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Avid-L2-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:Avid-L2-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> Avid-L2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Avid-L2-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:Avid-L2-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at:
http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
Yahoo! Groups Links
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/
Individual Email | Traditional
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
Avid-L2-digest@yahoogroups.com
Avid-L2-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
Avid-L2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
No comments:
Post a Comment