"The ACA I see as an interesting idea and a useful additional tool to Avid to focus development. I'm not a great fan of the unwashed masses having that sort of input in development. We'd just end up with MC becoming FCP legacy…"
Explain to me this point, as I still see the ACA as a pure PR move to show that Avid "is listening". Avid has has sponsored forums of discussions of problems, techniques, feature requests, suite setups, workflows, etc. How will a this committee be better than that? Even Avid can't really explain it beyond PR-speak. To see Avid trying to charge for input they already have is absolutely galling. And the "unwashed masses" comment is a bit insulting. Who would you say is "washed enough" to have input? Just broadcast folks? One man shops? Educational?
"But I suppose the biggest challenge isn't going to be Avid's it's going to be ours. Without a loyal user base MC is at risk and if it does fold then we lose MC."
I'm sorry, but that's backwards. It's Avid's challenge to create products that will keep the user-base engaged. They already have enough input from many many sources to create a future "strategy" (even without the ACA). That's like GM telling the public "it's your challenge to buy more of our cars (een though they are falling behind the competition) or we will go bankrupt." So to even insinuate that the user-base needs to take responsibility for Avid's life or death is ridiculous. Make better products and market correctly them correctly (figure out what your brand is and who your brand speaks to) and you will have an active engaged user-base.
my gentle humble opinion, of course! :-)
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (23) |
No comments:
Post a Comment