On Jul 26, 2014, at 6:35 AM, switthaus@mac.com [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Is it just me that thinks it's silly for Avid to keep using resources updating software that's two major versions old? Am I reading this right?
It's not only not surprising, it is a requirement of Avid's historic model. Remember that a support contract includes updates. Their are people out there paying Avid to update the older versions which they have under contract.
Further, consider that two "major" versions are often less than two years apart. I know I expect software to work for more than two years! This is a conservative business and systems managers don't like to upgrade. We often skip versions. At any given point in time, the majority of installations will be at least one or two versions behind the current version. The installed base of MC is much older than you might think.
That said, Avid's model has just changed. This commitment to older versions is indeed considered a drag on the bottom line unless you can get customers to pay for it, and that is hard. Just ask Microsoft. That's why the subscription model is sweeping the industry. It creates predictable cash flow for ongoing development AND incentives for customers to keep software current and in sync with the installed base.
Cheers,
tod
__._,_.___
Posted by: hoplist@hillmanncarr.com
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (10) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment