On Nov 22, 2006, at 6:20 PM, Listar wrote:
>
> Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:23:30 -0500
> From: Richard Lovison <rlovison@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: olympus Digest V3 #316
>
>
> Stephen Scharf wrote:
>> Richard,
>> There's lots of good reason why "customers" would do it for free...
>> they value what Adobe is doing for them and they value being
>> engaged in the development process. I know I do...
>
> Hmmm, "what Ad*be is doing for them". I think Ad*be is more concerned
> about what they do for themselves. I'm cynical enough to feel that
> as a
> corporation, they want a happy customer base with their needs
> fulfilled
> but only because that means profit for them.
Of course they want to make a profit....that is *whole point* of
doing business.
I also want AG to make a profit at his business, and small great
companies
like Markins and Really Right Stuff and even PixelGenius.
But you do sound pretty cynical. As I've already pointed out, Adobe
really does care about it's
customers, unlike a lot of companies. And I've met a no. of their
employees,
and they are a great group of folks. In fact, I would like work there
if I could get a job
with them. Better to have a company with a happy customer base like
Adobe does,
than some companies that consistently take advantage of customers, in
addition
to not fulfilling their needs. Cable companies are a good example.
And I, and many other customers want Adobe to be successful at what
they do,
because they make really great products. I know of a lot of people
that gripe about Microsoft products,
but, personally, every photographer I know thinks Adobe's products ROCK.
> In other words, I don't
> feel it's people (in this case, Ad*be Corporation) doing good deeds
> for
> other people (the customers) because that's a wonderful way to live
> and
> the fact that we (Ad*be) make money because of this is an added bonus.
> I feel it's more of find out what the potential customer base think
> they
> want, give it to em and then take their money, as much as they'll pay.
> Geeezz, I really am an old cynical bast*rd.
I agree, you do appear pretty cynical. There is nothing wrong or
immoral about a company that
makes a profit on products that a vast majority of people love to
use, and build their own business on.
>> .
>
> Hopefully they paid you for your time. I wonder how many other pro
> photographers they made a visit to?
In this study, they visited 10 photographers in the Bay Area. They
paid me $300 for my time,
but I would have done for free because I value the integrity with
which they approach
understanding their customers needs.
> I bet this is where they gathered
> the majority of input that determined the design of Lightroom.
No, Lightroom was in development for the better part of 2-3 years
before it went
public as a BETA, or before Aperture appeared. This is one of the
reasons why it is
so solid as a BETA. The User Researchers that visited me were there
specifically
with respect to Photoshop CS3.
> I wonder
> if the input from the Beta testing is changing much of that design
> or is
> being used to work out the bugs?
Both. A number of features have come from forum member suggestions.
> I still feel the Beta testers should
> be compensated for their time, at least the ones who offered serious
> input. A free version of the final release would be nice in my
> opinion.
Ain't gonna happen...they are in business to meet their customer's
needs and make a profit
as a result...same as small, great companies like Really Right Stuff.
Regards,
Stephen.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|