Creative Software Woes
Like most people on this blog, I believe the creativity involved in making art on computers, electronic mixers, etc. is still the same, just manifested in different ways. I started out as a film student, splicing my own celluloid, and switched to video for its lower cost and greater ease of production. I don't think I had to work any less hard in the creative process, but Final Cut Pro did make editing much easier. My only issue with the digitization of art is the software. It seems to me that there is a powerful monopoly over control of the programs. If you ask anyone about photo-editing software, they’ll answer with “Photoshop…,” and Final Cut Pro has quickly taken precedence over Avid, with programs like Adobe Premier being little more than a side note.
There is no doubt that these popular programs are great and that they keep on changing and becoming better, unlike products of more traditional monopolies. However, the costs and bundling methods of these software creators really makes me feel like the boundary between “haves” and “have nots” in the art industry can and will grow wider. The costs of programs has risen and companies like Apple and Adobe have begun packaging programs together so you have to buy them all or none. The latest Creative Suite (3) for Adobe aimed at photography costs around $649 (American dollars and without the student discount) and the Creative Suite for Adobe that includes essential special effects software is around $1,000. Apple’s latest Final Cut Pro 6 Studio 2 will set you back around $1,300, or $500 to upgrade from the last version (not to mention this software has to run on a Mac).
To an artist who is just at the beginning of their career and who is more interested in independent filmmaking, these prices seem very steep. I don’t know what I’m going to do when I’m out of college and can’t use the programs for free or buy them at a reduced price. At this point one might say to steal the software off the web like everyone else does. However, software companies keep finding ways to limit this and much of the stuff I have found for “free” on the web has some kind of default or doesn’t include everything I need/want. Stealing this software also makes artists “criminals” in the end, or so the story goes, and I think the creators of the software do deserve to get paid for what they have made. I don’t know what would be a solution for this software monopoly, other than that the companies offer a fair price for just what the customer wants and not the 5 or 6 other programs the creators think consumers should buy with it.
There is no doubt that these popular programs are great and that they keep on changing and becoming better, unlike products of more traditional monopolies. However, the costs and bundling methods of these software creators really makes me feel like the boundary between “haves” and “have nots” in the art industry can and will grow wider. The costs of programs has risen and companies like Apple and Adobe have begun packaging programs together so you have to buy them all or none. The latest Creative Suite (3) for Adobe aimed at photography costs around $649 (American dollars and without the student discount) and the Creative Suite for Adobe that includes essential special effects software is around $1,000. Apple’s latest Final Cut Pro 6 Studio 2 will set you back around $1,300, or $500 to upgrade from the last version (not to mention this software has to run on a Mac).
To an artist who is just at the beginning of their career and who is more interested in independent filmmaking, these prices seem very steep. I don’t know what I’m going to do when I’m out of college and can’t use the programs for free or buy them at a reduced price. At this point one might say to steal the software off the web like everyone else does. However, software companies keep finding ways to limit this and much of the stuff I have found for “free” on the web has some kind of default or doesn’t include everything I need/want. Stealing this software also makes artists “criminals” in the end, or so the story goes, and I think the creators of the software do deserve to get paid for what they have made. I don’t know what would be a solution for this software monopoly, other than that the companies offer a fair price for just what the customer wants and not the 5 or 6 other programs the creators think consumers should buy with it.
posted by Erin at 7:45 PM
3 Comments:
Just wanted to say that this is a very good point. I'm too tired to say anything clever on the subject, though!
I think this is a fair-ish kind of point. However, you have to remember, that although the prices seem steep, this is still in "prosumer" territory. And likewise, there are always the less-liked younger cousin of the programs you've mentioned. Which is usually a fair bit cheaper. Photoshop had Corel Draw, final Cut Pro has Adobe premiere. Then theres the "official" cheaper alternative such as Photoshop Elements (which comes free with just about every new computer or digital camera these days), and Final Cut Basic.
There are also the much cheaper often free alternatives, Windows Media Maker (You get what you pay for right?), Picasa etc. You clearly know of many alternatives for film making, remember that if someone works in a different area, they are likely to know of al the alternatives too.
And for my final point, these products have gained a monopoly for a reason, they are simply that good. No matter what anyone says, you can do things much faster and to a higher quality in Photoshop (once you've learnt how) that you can in any other image editing/creation programs.
Great post - and follow-up comment. I think you're both right (there I go fence-sitting again!). Often (though not always), products rise to the top because they are simply better than the others. IMHO (and I'm no video specialist - just a dabbler), this is the case with FCP. (Google is another example, in a very different category). But the problem Erin speaks to, is that once a product reaches dominance, it can exploit that dominance in ways which inhibit competition and/or price many people out of the market. But whilst I don't want to sound like a PR for Apple, they are in my view one of the slightly more human tech-corps in the way they 'step' their products. So, for example, the latest version of iMovie which comes bundled with the Mac, is really very powerful and it is possible (with good camera skills and creative flair - something software can't replace) to produce some very respectable looking products without shelling out a fortune. Then they offer an express version of FCP at the next level, before the full monster which comes at a premium cost. I actually think that Adobe are more restrictive with their products (which now include the standard web tools of Dreamweaver and Flash since they bought Macromedia) which is, ironically, why there have been are more open source and/or free alternatives (e.g. Gimp).
Post a Comment
<< Home