Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Linus mathematical proof for not leaving Adobe is wrong

This first equation from ltt Adobe video is flawed cos it suggests that none of the productivity is wasted on Adobe instability

 

100%=$420,000+$10,000=$430,000

 

100%=$420,000+$42,000=$462,000

 

But if we put a conservative estimate of even 9.7% of the productivity is wasted due to Adobe 

 

$430,000x9.7%=$41,710/year wasted time 

 

$420,000x10%-$10,000=$41,000/year 

 

So not only he wasn't less but would also spend less on the employee 

 

Unless Adobe cos anything less the 9.7% productivity drop it is actually a viable solution to stop suing Adobe and probably should

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what prompted you to post about this, did they say anything new on this matter or is this about this video from 2 years ago?

 

Where did the numbers come from? (haven't rewatched yet)

CPU: AMD Ryzen 3600 / GPU: Radeon HD7970 GHz 3GB with Noctua Fans / RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX 2x8GB DDR4-3200
MOBO: MSI B450m Gaming Plus / NVME: Corsair MP510 240GB / Case: TT Core v21 / PSU: Seasonic 750W / OS: Win 10 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

It isfrom the video if u watch the 420k was the amount he base his reason on in the video

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

here's where your math went wrong:

 

the comparison they made against adobe's efficiency already includes the annoyances they have with adobe, because they are comparing against their current workflow in practisce. so that estimate of time lost in adobe does not matter, because it is part of that 420k editor salary we are working with. (which according to the video did not include office space, hardware cost, etc.)

 

also, 9.7% efficiency loss (also, what the heck kind of 'estimate' is this?) is ENORMOUS for efficiency loss. that's every employee losing about 45 minutes per day, each day, due to an occasional adobe crash. or because of how efficiency loss works.. that's just about an hour per employee per day extra work (because the time they add falls to the same efficiency loss)

 

also, i just blasted trough a 2 year old linus video to see where things went off the rails, and then did math on a topic that was already decided by someone whose money and staff is affected.

 

EDIT: PS, i feel like i should add.. it's safe to assume that the point of the video isnt the exact math, as it is about how insignificant the cost of adobe is compared to the cost of maintaining your staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the video was made 2 years ago and they are still using the Adobe suite, i doubt they are going to change their mind because of your post. They have determined that the cost to use adobe and the issues they have with it, are still better than the alternatives.

🌲🌲🌲

Judge the product by its own merits, not by the Company that created it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is in response to video please add video you are referencing to.

 

I don't have time now to check video, new or old. But I'm going to make a note of units you are using. If you use currency, then it's obviously not "in wasted time". If you want to use "in wasted time", you'd need to use work-hours (aka manhours) per day/month/year (very commonly used when employees are on monthly salary). Adding here that notion of "spend less per employee" is pointless. Salary and weekly work hours are constant. Any savings would be from getting more effective working hours with the same workers.

 

For example, just watched seminar about improving locational data of entrances. A former delivery driver said that minor improvements could save 10s time per delivery. If he makes 10k deliveries per week, time saved would be 28h/week. Or with hourly rate, around €500/week. Or in more deliveries, almost doubling the weekly amount.

 

Feels like you heard numbers, used some high school math and forgot to apply the real-life factor.

^^^^ That's my post ^^^^
<-- This is me --- That's your scrollbar -->
vvvv Who's there? vvvv

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

That video is another expense-flex piece. He loves those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rex Hite said:

That video is another expense-flex piece. He loves those.

Could just switch to final cut and have a cheaper and more reliable workflow 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

Could just switch to final cut and have a cheaper and more reliable workflow 

His team uses mostly Windows workstations. You do realize Final Cut doesn’t work on Windows?

My eyes see the past…

My camera lens sees the present…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

His team uses mostly Windows workstations. You do realize Final Cut doesn’t work on Windows?

Yup, but considering when they upgrade they spend about the same as a mac studio on a PC then it kinda evens out 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of thinking about workers are discrete blocks of work completion is an inherently flawed concept, and a 9.7% downtime does not necessarily decrease worker output by the same amount. In other words, your methodology is flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 10:13 PM, Imbadatnames said:

Yup, but considering when they upgrade they spend about the same as a mac studio on a PC then it kinda evens out 

out of curiousity, how well do macs and final cut deal with 4k (and higher res) footage? the reason they spend so much, is because they need dat memory for smoothly handling so much data.

 

ps: another detail about switching to apple: i guarantee you all their systems are AD or AAD joined devices, so editing on apple devices would also involve integrating that into their existing domain... which really isnt apple's strongest side last time i checked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, manikyath said:

out of curiousity, how well do macs and final cut deal with 4k (and higher res) footage? the reason they spend so much, is because they need dat memory for smoothly handling so much data.

9 streams of 8K Prores playback 

1 hour ago, manikyath said:

 

ps: another detail about switching to apple: i guarantee you all their systems are AD or AAD joined devices, so editing on apple devices would also involve integrating that into their existing domain... which really isnt apple's strongest side last time i checked.

Not really, apple supports pretty much all file formats, from what I know FCP can slot into Adobe CC if you really want it to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Imbadatnames said:

Not really, apple supports pretty much all file formats, from what I know FCP can slot into Adobe CC if you really want it to. 

the file format isnt the issue, the AD account / access control part is the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, manikyath said:

the file format isnt the issue, the AD account / access control part is the issue.

Should be fine, some movie studios work with FCP and FCPC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×