"What I am trying to share is that most users are doing it for fun, while only a few are using them for their jobs." On what are you basing this statement, my feeling that is entirely the opposite. I doubt they generate $22B from hobbyists.
Aren't there tens of thousands of licenses used by corporations that have historically been the key to their growth? These were the most sticky ones and the ones that I see most likely to be canceled because of AI.
While I agree with you about your assessment of art, I think you are forgetting that artists need to eat too. Most financial decisions that make them money are made by nonartists, who will gladly use AI. I have already seen AI-made advertising posters on buses and online. Before AI someone with Adobe license had to make them. Adobe will not disappear, but I think their growth slows down significantly.
My sentence is wrongly written I think. What I meant to say was that either way, actual users should not cancel their subscriptions because they find satisfaction in the usage of those softwares. Might rework that part. I didn't mean to say that most dollar volume came from individual users.
My definition of art goes further, not only in the perception from the artists but also in the perception of consumers. Exactly like I said with the video I shared compared to the last Moana, it is uncomparable in what it makes watchers feel.
Advertising is about communication. If your ad is soulless... You won't sell much. And that's what AI will feel like.
But you're right when you say those are assumptions. I might be wrong but until today... It's more of a combinaison of generation & modification, not entirely relying on AI, a combinaison which Adobe is perfectly positioned to capitalize on as that's what they've been focusing on since years.
I think their growth will be stable at worst, because they propose what advertisers need. A perfect control of their content boosted by AI services.
Thanks for your comment though, those are valid points! Will have to wait & see!
"What I am trying to share is that most users are doing it for fun, while only a few are using them for their jobs." On what are you basing this statement, my feeling that is entirely the opposite. I doubt they generate $22B from hobbyists.
Aren't there tens of thousands of licenses used by corporations that have historically been the key to their growth? These were the most sticky ones and the ones that I see most likely to be canceled because of AI.
While I agree with you about your assessment of art, I think you are forgetting that artists need to eat too. Most financial decisions that make them money are made by nonartists, who will gladly use AI. I have already seen AI-made advertising posters on buses and online. Before AI someone with Adobe license had to make them. Adobe will not disappear, but I think their growth slows down significantly.
My sentence is wrongly written I think. What I meant to say was that either way, actual users should not cancel their subscriptions because they find satisfaction in the usage of those softwares. Might rework that part. I didn't mean to say that most dollar volume came from individual users.
My definition of art goes further, not only in the perception from the artists but also in the perception of consumers. Exactly like I said with the video I shared compared to the last Moana, it is uncomparable in what it makes watchers feel.
Advertising is about communication. If your ad is soulless... You won't sell much. And that's what AI will feel like.
But you're right when you say those are assumptions. I might be wrong but until today... It's more of a combinaison of generation & modification, not entirely relying on AI, a combinaison which Adobe is perfectly positioned to capitalize on as that's what they've been focusing on since years.
I think their growth will be stable at worst, because they propose what advertisers need. A perfect control of their content boosted by AI services.
Thanks for your comment though, those are valid points! Will have to wait & see!