11 thoughts

  1. Fabulous. Thanks to Adobe (and you, Ben???) for getting us this information during the current Max. Makes next year planning a non-issue.
    Joe Meboe

  2. Wow… Las Vegas, then Chicago, then San Francisco… pretty soon only Adobe will be able to afford to attend! Oh well. Good luck with Max 2007.

  3. I think Vegas, San Fran, Chicago are all great cities. But expensive to stay (and to justify to management). I used to work for a company that regularly sent 4-6 people each year, and now they only send one.
    I’d like to see MAX in a "mid-size" market (think New Orleans/Wash DC). Seattle. St Louis. Denver/Colo Springs. Austin/Houston. Phoenix. San Diego. All have nice sized convention centers that (in some cases) can accomodate double Adobe’s capacity. The big cities are great, just put more of a strain on smaller companies tightening their travel budgets.

  4. Tim, that all gets taken into consideration, really. The truth is that there really are not that many cities that can host the event the way we need it to work, large enough room for keynotes, as many rooms as we need for sessions and meetings and more, hotels nearby, and so on. And then there are date issues, cites like San Diego are booked years in advance. Plus, some locations (D.C.) are actually more expensive than Chicago or S.F. I am not disagreeing with you, we really do want to find a balance, but doing so is pretty complex. Having said that, for 2009 … well, you’ll have to wait. 🙂
    Vishnuprasad, not this year. But definitely something that is being considered for the future.
    — Ben

  5. @Tim, Washington DC is a very expensive ticket for a lot of ppl. CFUNITED is there and it’s $200 a night at the hotel and often expensive airfares. Airfares work best when you pick a hub (SF, SLC, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas). On top of that you need a city

  6. Tim raised a good and valid point. But on the other hand – given that there are attendees from other parts of the world than domestic US, cities like San Francisco or Chicago are much more accessible because they’re international airline hubs. San Fran is great for Asia/Pacific as well as for people from Europe re direct flights. Chicago was at least good for Europeans… But travelling to St. Louis is probably a bit of a pain for someone from overseas.

  7. Tim raised a good and valid point. But on the other hand – given that there are attendees from other parts of the world than domestic US, cities like San Francisco or Chicago are much more accessible because they’re international airline hubs. San Fran is great for Asia/Pacific as well as for people from Europe re direct flights. Chicago was at least good for Europeans… But travelling to St. Louis is probably a bit of a pain for someone from overseas. http://www.oyunlarkeyfi.com http://www.oyunuk.com

Leave a Reply