I like this direction
I can't understand why. Who wants to be restricted in their use of software by internet availability ?Take, for example, a small advertising company with maybe 10 graphic designers using PS. They maintain a PS subscription instead of buying 10 copies of the latest version (each time a new version is released). Perhaps they get a small discount for maintaining their group subscription. No time and expertise needs to be spent on installation, configuration and upgrades - just sign on and use the product. Sounds pretty good.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147228\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
While we're ripping the idea apart....
Have you considered the difficulties of working on large images ?
Using software on central servers is possible with the sort of little files word processors and spreadsheets use, not often more than a few Mb. It only takes a short time to upload the data to work on.
It doesn't scale to image files in the 100mb zone (which many people here work with). Just consider how long it would take to upload a modest memory card of RAW data, say 4gb, to a remote server ? hours
Just say no and keep it local.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147917\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Does that mean people in Europe will pay the same as the US, not around twice as much as they do now? difficult to find a good excuse if it's online! Wayne
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"Software as a Service"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147223\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Certainly we've already seen the beginning of this trend. FWIW I like this direction - may take a few years to mature, but I think "Software as a Service" is going to be the way of the future.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....BE-SERVICES.xml (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyid=2007-10-18T130541Z_01_N17292526_RTRUKOC_0_US-ADOBE-SERVICES.xml)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147223\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Certainly we've already seen the beginning of this trend. FWIW I like this direction - may take a few years to mature, but I think "Software as a Service" is going to be the way of the future.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147223\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I believe that nobody today is really clear about what customers are willing to accept and Adobe is just testing the grounds here.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205821\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As soon as all our old (some still in dos) applications are converted to run over the web, all our pc's will only have XP-Pro and a browser installed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In that scenario, why do you need XP?
You will note that google is one of the main supporters of SaS...
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205937\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Don't computers need an operating system? Sorry I am not in IT.
I know our IT people are avoiding Vista like the plague, so assumed they'd stick with XP-Pro, I suppose a non-windows os could be used?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205940\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What does one do in those situations?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=206866\")
I resurrect this stale post to see to what extent peoples appetite for this kind of delivery channel might have changed.It's still a rubbish idea I won't buy into.
It's still a rubbish idea I won't buy into.I agree. I think the only views that have changed since 2007 are those of the marketing folks at Adobe.
I would question the efficacy of any color-managed work taking place in a software as a service context. Can someone explain to me why I can trust the color will be accurately rendered through a web browser?
SaaS doesn't necessarily (or even usually) imply browser UI.Personally I don't want internet access on a computer I rely on to make my living, my editing computer isn't connected to the web, that avoids the risk of remote access or viruses affecting my wokflow.
Adobe's products are downloaded to your HDD, and need (re)activation monthly via internet, otherwise they are more or less like "normal" Adobe products, AFAICT.
Personally I don't want internet access on a computer I rely on to make my living, my editing computer isn't connected to the web, that avoids the risk of remote access or viruses affecting my wokflow.
To be honest even with a good fibre optic broadband connection it's still subject to problems, do I want to risk not being able to work just because my internet falls over. No Thanks
Personally I won't be signing up to an online service, there are allways other companies willing to take over if theres a gap in the market, I'll just use something else, if Adobe don't want my money...... someone else will. Wayne
Ditto.
Happy moving, Adobe. You'll be moving without me. Over the years I've purchased thousands of dollars worth of Photoshop, Premiere, After Effects and Audition. In the future, I'll be happy to invest it in the developers* who even now are preparing to cash in on your soon-to-be former customers.
*Including, I'm sure, any number of soon-to-be former Adobe software wizards.
Absolutely and positively NOT interested in "cloud" computing at all. The operative word in the phrase "personal computer" is "personal" and the whole impetus behind the PC revolution was to replace the centralized, controlled "data processing" infrastructure with computer power that was under the direct and sole control of the user of those resources. Empowering the individual user and freeing him from centralized control was the driving force. The Cloud marks a return to the bad old days. Yes it has some advantages but the costs in privacy and surrender of the immediate personal control of one's assets far outweighs them in my opinion.
Consider the consequences of an unexpected communication failure 15 minutes before your Big Presentation is due to begin if your slide desk resides in the Cloud. Consider the consequences of an administrative screw-up causing your subscription payment this month to get lost. Consider the consequences of the sudden bankruptcy of the company that operates your data storage service whose servers house all your archive files causing the servers to go dark.
Absolutely and positively NOT interested in "cloud" computing at all. The operative word in the phrase "personal computer" is "personal" and the whole impetus behind the PC revolution was to replace the centralized, controlled "data processing" infrastructure with computer power that was under the direct and sole control of the user of those resources. Empowering the individual user and freeing him from centralized control was the driving force. The Cloud marks a return to the bad old days. Yes it has some advantages but the costs in privacy and surrender of the immediate personal control of one's assets far outweighs them in my opinion.
Consider the consequences of an unexpected communication failure 15 minutes before your Big Presentation is due to begin if your slide desk resides in the Cloud. Consider the consequences of an administrative screwup causing your subscription payment this month to get lost. Consider the consequences of the sudden bankruptcy of the company that operates your data storage service whose servers house all your archive files causing the servers to go dark.
Four words, Adobe: I don't rent software.
FWIW, I just found this:
http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2011/archives/22903
Wow, that's some heavy words from a gentleman who has a lot of sway in the business as far as I can tell. For those who don't know, he's the editor and publisher of Photoshop User Magazine, CEO of a veritable photography training empire in Kelby Training, ...
Perhaps most notably, he signed the open letter in his role as the President of The National Association of Photoshop Professionals, .....
As of when I just checked the poll, Adobe had a 3% approval rating, which is even slightly below that of the U.S. Congress. I hope Adobe is paying attention.
It's a poll from a self-selecting sample, ie. results are utterly invalid.
I'm sure that people at Adobe are telling themselves the same thing right now.
The only big change in terms of most users is the 1 version back upgrade policy. I understand it...I don't disagree with it because I use PS professionally and will automatically upgrade at the earliest availability to maximize my ROI (note, I keep the previous version also installed in the event a new upgrade barfs–which is permitted in the EULA). I'm much more careful when it comes to OS's though...
It was either CS or CS2 where Adobe changed the previous upgrade policy....before then ANY previous version of Photoshop–even a 1.0 serial number–could be upgraded. There wasn't really a strong protest at that time. While the 1 version back policy will bite recreational users, it really doesn't impact pro users and make no mistake, Photoshop is designed and intended to be a pro application. Yes, Adobe gets a side benny for selling Photoshop to a lot of non-pros...but that is not the core market nor driving force.
JMany pro users hardly use any new capability.
Uh huh...then what are the doing?
Each and every version of Photoshop (and ACR) has added useful and perhaps mission critical functionality. Really, this isn't an argument based on pros but more based on recreational users. If pros are debating the relative value of upgrading to the most recent version, then they really aren't pros...are they? Professionally speaking, if you aren't up to date then you are behind the times...and that's not really professional...skipping a version isn't really viable professionally.
Sorry to say Jeff, but it really looks like you are getting confused between pro Photoshop user and pro photographer. You are the only pro photoshop user in the Western Part of the galaxy, all the other guys use PS to achieve a photographic purpose (or other purpose).
To that end, PS was perfectly able to meet the needs of Professional photographers in CS2.
The only really valuable addition since then has been 64 bits support on OSX. Add decent multi-CPU support and PS will be the platform it should be.
Cheers,
Bernard
To that end, PS was perfectly able to meet the needs of Professional photographers in CS2.
Another point is that I guess that many use pirated versions of Photoshop. I'd suggest that would Adobe sell a serious version of for modest money, many user would opt to go 'legit'.
I'm quite sure they've done the calculations of what happens at what given price. The price of Photoshop *is* modest.I would consider the price of Lightroom to be on the high side modest while the price of Photoshop is ridiculous, especially compared to the cost of hardware. Software isn't purchased in a vacuum and a given program is often only one of dozens that the user needs to purchase in order to get the various day to day tasks accomplished. $699 (or $999) for Photoshop may be "modest" if that's the only program one has to purchase but who uses ONLY Photoshop? Keeping current with all your image processing software AND all your general office software AND your bookkeeping software AND the software that does whatever else you use the computer for can quickly get out of hand.
Uh huh...then what are the doing?
Each and every version of Photoshop (and ACR) has added useful and perhaps mission critical functionality. Really, this isn't an argument based on pros but more based on recreational users. If pros are debating the relative value of upgrading to the most recent version, then they really aren't pros...are they? Professionally speaking, if you aren't up to date then you are behind the times...and that's not really professional...skipping a version isn't really viable professionally.
If you bought the Windows version, you'd still be able to run it under Windows 7 (even Windows 7 64 bit).
So who forced you to update?
I'm quite sure they've done the calculations of what happens at what given price.
It’s also the accountants and the money men who search the firm high and low to find new and ingenious ways to cut costs or even eliminate paying taxes. The activities of these people further dispirit the creators, the product engineers and designers, and also crimp the firm’s ability to add value to its customers. But because the accountants appear to be adding to the firm’s short-term profitability, as a class they are also celebrated and well-rewarded, even as their activities systematically kill the firm’s future.
In this mode, the firm is basically playing defense. Because it’s easier to milk the cash cow than to add new value, the firm not only stops playing offense: it even forgets how to play offense. The firm starts to die.
If the firm is in a quasi-monopoly position, this mode of running the company can sometimes keep on making money for extended periods of time. But basically, the firm is dying, as it continues to dispirit those doing the work and to frustrate its customers.
Sorry to say Jeff, but it really looks like you are getting confused between pro Photoshop user and pro photographer. You are the only pro photoshop user in the Western Part of the galaxy, all the other guys use PS to achieve a photographic purpose (or other purpose).
To that end, PS was perfectly able to meet the needs of Professional photographers in CS2.
The only really valuable addition since then has been 64 bits support on OSX. Add decent multi-CPU support and PS will be the platform it should be.
Cheers,
Bernard
I am on OSX.
The question stands. The answer is, Apple.
So Adobe shouldn't change their policy because Apple forces upgrades?
CS6 doesn't even have a scheduled launch date yet, so there is time to adjust - people would still complain no matter how long they were given to "adjust".
CS6 doesn't even have a scheduled launch date yet, so there is time to adjust - people would still complain no matter how long they were given to "adjust".The tenor, volume, and amplitude of the complaints would be much different.
If 1M photoshop users put up $500 next year, instead of sending it to Adobe, we could create the next generation of photoshop from the ground up. Occupy Adobe anyone? :-)
If 1M photoshop users put up $500 next year, instead of sending it to Adobe, we could create the next generation of photoshop from the ground up. Occupy Adobe anyone? :-)
Don't bet on it...Adobe has a LOT of IP that you would have to engineer around that would seriously complicate the proposition. Beside the fact that the proposition is ludicrous on the face of it–I mean what are the odds 1M former Photoshop users could agree on anything?It was intended just to underscore a point. There is a lot of purchasing power in the photoshop user base, enough to justify the development of an alternative. A little competition in this area would be a good thing for users.
The Gimp is already pretty close.It's a contender for a better photoshop. The GUI is a little too X11 and Tk/Tcl for today's user. Does it have 16-bit support yet? I like some of its filters better. If it did everything I wanted, I'd use it and pay in. But since Gimp replicates photoshop's deepest flaws faithfully along with many of its virtues, I think it's also a dead end.
It's a contender for a better photoshop. The GUI is a little too X11 and Tk/Tcl for today's user. Does it have 16-bit support yet? I like some of its filters better. If it did everything I wanted, I'd use it and pay in. But since Gimp replicates photoshop's deepest flaws faithfully along with many of its virtues, I think it's also a dead end.
I could be wrong, but I understand that the next gen of Gimp 3.0 will be 16 bits.
...think Lightroom recently - were acquired from third parties and then incrementally (in most cases with small increments) improved.
I mean what are the odds 1M former Photoshop users could agree on anything?
Wrong...Lightroom was a total internal development project by Mark Hamburg. Nothing external had any impact on Lightroom including
Hi,
I'd like to add my 5 cents to the discussion of recent Adobe's changes...
I wrote a detailed article about that, looking at the company both from the financial and technology point of view - that may explain, possibly, most of the recent changes - for the better and/or for the worse...
According to some analysts’ opinion, Narayen finds himself in the unhappy position of solving a trivial problem: Adobe’s stocks stagnation in a worldwide economy crisis. Unless he finds a way to revitalize them, the company may risk to become a takeover target – bad end from an executive point of view, since they got part of their incomes as a stock options.
In fact, about 4 months after Creative Suite 4 release Adobe’s stocks slumped badly, from $43 to $17 (-53%), as a direct result of a fall in sales.
Nonetheless, at least one upgrade failed dramatically; some commenters said that Adobe has been unable to build products the quality of which could support sufficient sales to prevent a series of shake-outs; and it may now appear that the company urges to find a better financial position in the stock market, in order not to become a takeover target.
My apologies. I thought they had purchased Pixmantec Rawshooter and didn't know Lua was an internal Adobe development.
NASDAQ went down in the same period by around 35%, as did related stocks like Microsoft and Autodesk
Pretty much stopped reading there...
Lua is a scripting language not the name of the project. The code name of the project was Shadowland which you can read about here (http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story/). Adobe did purchase Pixmantec but AFTER Lightroom was developed and released in beta form. The development of Lightroom started in 2003 by Mark Hamburg. Pixmantec was bought in 2006 for some technology and to get the engineer who worked on ACR/LR for a while but has no left the company.
Some say that even if the last ten years were not the brightest ones for many tech stocks, Adobe did compare poorly to many others companies like the ones you mention - and mind you, Adobe had a near-monopoly in its field and almost no competitors.
That is regrettable, of course!
Even if we disagree on financial analysis (not a problem at all to me, analysts strongly disagree now on the future of the EURO zone, for instance, and they happily keep doing their job) I would have liked to know your opinion about the points I made there, such as:
1. A company which underwent 3 rounds of layoffs for +2.000 employees in the last 3 years is a company that is profoundly changed - and perhaps not for the better.
2. Being the core business split in two (so different) areas, such as creative content production and ad/marketing/web statistics, this may give rise to some legitimate doubts, especially if you know that:
2a. Upgrade cycles must coordinate some +20 different application (which is crazy or not a very good thing, depending on your attitude)
2b. Some application paradigms (in the blog I refer particularly to Photoshop) are old, and the development cycles can't afford the company to make any true, actual rethinking/rebuilding of the paradigm: only make it slightly evolute (some say for the better, some say for the worse)
3. You shouldn't feel particularly malicious if you think that the recent changes (like the upgrade policy, with the discount on CS5.5 upgrade) are just a way to raise upgrade revenues in the last 2011 months, and not a way to please/help the users base and gently move them towards a subscription system.
4. Adobe has risen some bad feelings on that very same user base (unfairness, unloyalty) for they are using some old tricks to squeeze some extra money and changing the rules after the cards are dealt - and (if you consider the bad, bad communication around the Flash/Flex affair - just a week or so after MAX 2011 when everything seemed oh so fine and happy) to developers as well - left into the panic waiting for official information about the future of their businesses.
5. Etc etc, I don't want to leave those willing to read the full post (http://www.davidebarranca.com/2011/11/adobe-crossroads/) without any surprise.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to comment.
Kind regards
Davide Barranca
www.davidebarranca.com
[...]Adobe has risen some bad feelings on that very same user base ... changing the rules after the cards are dealt[...]This is well put, and in many ways it comes down to that: a fundamental break with good faith.
Wrong...Lightroom was a total internal development project by Mark Hamburg. Nothing external had any impact on Lightroom including Apple's Aperture which while released before LR was actually started at about the same time. It's also useful to note that Photoshop was licensed (it wasn't bought out from the Knoll brothers till version 3) as a vector to raster utility for Illustrator 88.Thats not what Adobe said in june 2006 "Adobe has purchased the 'technology assets' of Pixmantec, the Danish company behind the RawShooter raw workflow and conversion application. Adobe states that this acquisition "strengthens Adobe's leadership position in raw processing" and that that Pixmantec's raw processing technology will be integrated into Lightroom and other Adobe products"
If you are trying to draw conclusions based on Adobe's history, it would be useful to be drawing those conclusions on correct data...
Thats not what Adobe said in june 2006 "Adobe has purchased the 'technology assets' of Pixmantec, the Danish company behind the RawShooter raw workflow and conversion application. Adobe states that this acquisition "strengthens Adobe's leadership position in raw processing" and that that Pixmantec's raw processing technology will be integrated into Lightroom and other Adobe products"
.....and that that Pixmantec's raw processing technology will be integrated into Lightroom and other Adobe products"
But then, while its paints a much better picture of Adobe's internal R&D abilities, it's more worrying on the management side: if what they purchased was so minor that it was almost irrelevant, buying it wasn't sensible economically. Anyway, Adobe isn't worse than many other large companies in that respect...
The press release didn't say how much Adobe paid, did it? I wouldn't presume it was a huge amount. Adobe is rather cheap (I know this from personal negotiations :~)
And I'm not trying to defend Adobe the corporation...but rather the people I know who are friends. When it comes to the Photoshop team and the ACR/LR teams I know them to be a very hard working and dedicated group from personal experience. As for the rest of the dev teams, I don't have a lot of personal interaction and thus little knowledge. I'm also on the fence about the whole Creative Cloud initiative and I think the change in the upgrade policy is an unexpected surprise that will adversely impact a lot of people. So, we'll see how this all shakes out. The 1 version upgrade doesn't have an impact on me since I would always upgrade to the next version and do so very early in the product cycle to get the max ROI. I really don't understand why people seem to want to delay an upgrade to shorten the usefulness and value of the upgrade. I do understand why some people only upgrade alternative versions...something the new policy will eliminate I suppose.
I really don't understand why people seem to want to delay an upgrade to shorten the usefulness and value of the upgrade. I do understand why some people only upgrade alternative versions...something the new policy will eliminate I suppose.
Hi Jeff, perhaps the attitude of delaying an upgrade is a mix of prudence ("is it buggy? Will it be compatible with my XYZ plugin?") and economic assessment ("Do I really need it? Is there anything new that my workflow will benefit from? Should I consider to skip the upgrade?" - and these are tough times we all know); questions that may take some time to evaluate properly and answer to.
A monopolist, I think, can make his user base angry (yes, they will upgrade just the same), nonetheless the very same user base will kiss him bye-bye as soon as a viable alternative appears - and with technology evolving at such an high rate, it's just a matter of time... Who knows!?!
I think this is the definition of an oxymoron! ;)
Me? I switched to Mac, but I'm still a geek ;-)
Photoshop is the pro standard and while it may have anti-fans, pros who need the functionality really don't have a choice.
Maybe you remember the (Windows OS) Rawshooter camera Raw converter that was tipping the scale against Adobe, and other alternatives? Such initiatives will only be encouraged by effectively raising the price, and Adobe may not be able to buy out all threats as easily as that particular one ...
I disagree about not having a choice. There are alternatives, some even more potent than the Adobe implementation, but they might complicate the workflow a bit by adding another (software) step to the process.
The joys of being a Win7 user! :D
Looks like Adobe is backing off the big changes to their CS6 upgrade policy, which should be a relief for older customers ...So now they've annoyed all their customers that rushed out to buy a CS5 upgrade to stay in the loop.
At least they got me to buy to where I got a good deal upgrading CS3 to CS5 for $133 w/free shipping off Amazon.Lucky you. In the UK it's been £160 ($248)..............................no sale here
Got a restoration job right after the upgrade arrived in mid-December and didn't want to have to learn new software and deal with any installs and online updating issues.What features in CS5 were useful that aren't in CS3 ?
Hi Alan,
You're probably not alone in that, but Adobe does have a Product Return & Refund Policy (http://prodesigntools.com/exchange-return-refund-adobe-software-product-order.html) if that’s a possibility you want to consider.
Lucky you. In the UK it's been £160 ($248)..............................no sale here
What features in CS5 were useful that aren't in CS3 ?
Good move.
If by bad you mean, "now in line with the rest of the software market", then, yes.
We'd all like to have the lowest possible costs, but look at it this way - how much have you saved because of Adobe's extremely generous policy to date?
It was generous compared to the competition. Yes, it was part of your purchasing criteria, but it doesn't change the fact that you saved a considerable sum.
Now, it's also a part of your purchasing criteria and you're counting the extra cost, so it's reasonable to count the previously saved amount.
PS - no one's stopping you from "upgrading when you really need to and see value".
If by bad you mean, "now in line with the rest of the software market", then, yes.
I did actually reread the whole thing... and Adobe did in fact just reduce the pain for existing CS3 and 4 users. The basic direction seemingly remains otherwise the same for future releases (meaning upgrade now only possible from n-1 release).
If my understanding is correct then this remains just as bad...
Cheers,
Bernard
At least Adobe are still offering some upgrade discount. The trend is to charge full price to all comers, be they new users or upgraders. For example, as I recall there is no special pricing available from Microsoft for an upgrade to Office 2010 from any previous release, even 2007, nor to Win7 from an older OS. Neither does Intuit discounts for upgrades to current releases of Quicken or Quickbooks.
Arguably, this is a lot worse on OSX since Apple seems to be unable/unwilling to release OSX iterations that do not affect the ability of older versions of software to run without issues.
Doesn't appear to be entirely Apple's fault.
When I was in school I was exposed to this phenomenon that when professors who held grudge against each other had to take it out on each other students because many times they could not do any direct harm to the other professor. Seems the same between Apple and Adobe. Adobe refused to do Premier video editing program for Mac sometime ago and it seems as a revenge Apple is locking them out of stuff such as Flash on iPads, or properly disclosing on how to manage software switch from Carbon to Cocoa libraries, etc. I don't know how much it is hurting Apple or Adobe, but it seems to be hurting people who have nothing to do with this row.
You can add to that the initial release of Photoshop Touch for Android only...Selective facts? Other touch and tablet oriented software has initially come out on iOS first.
Selective facts? Other touch and tablet oriented software has initially come out on iOS first.
I just feel sorry for the talented engineers at Adobe that business agendas seeingly driven by stock holders and investors keep alienating the end users who like their products.
Until there's a 100gb pipe running to my home with an fail-safe uptime, I'm completely uninterested in this.
I'll maintain a system capable of running CS5 for as long as possible. Definitely won't be switching until I'm forced.
Which means you've failed to understand that you will still be able to purchase CS6 as a standalone piece of shelfware - not based in the cloud or requiring a subscription.
If people would actually read first hand material from the vendor instead of half of any given rant on a forum, they'd be much better informed.
I think it is still a fear that the "Cloud" mentality will take over in the future. Yes, we can still get the software on disk, but how long will that be the case?
Probably at least 2-3 major releases forward, or perhaps indefinitely due to piracy-related promotional reasons which I won't get into here.
Feppe, curious what you mean by "piracy-related promotional reasons" keeping disc-based software around longer - Adobe has said they expect the cloud will reduce piracy, which may be one major reason for the push... thanks
If Adobe could completely eliminate piracy everyone would be safer and better off with lower prices, generous policies, and stronger growth - think about how App Stores work with demand elasticity and little to no piracy. But right now on the desktop, for some the perception of "free" sounds better than any price, student or otherwise. The company has an active anti-piracy department that we talk to, while CEO Narayen rails against piracy in interviews and it's one of the stated goals with the cloud/web - so Adobe execs don't appear too conflicted about the topic.
If Adobe could completely eliminate piracy everyone would be safer and better off with lower prices, generous policies, and stronger growth -That's possibly true. The problem is that whilst Adobe continue to charge huge prices and have expensive upgrade policies lots of people will continue to be tempted into piracy.
That's possibly true. The problem is that whilst Adobe continue to charge huge prices and have expensive upgrade policies lots of people will continue to be tempted into piracy.But the cost of apps for smartphones is trivial compared to full featured software. Microsoft suffers a considerable amount of piracy on both Win and Office despite the fact that prices are not all that high and they don't update as frequently as Adobe. Plus you can stay on Office applications for a long time before there is really a critical need to upgrade (there is also a much larger user base for Office than PS or LR).
The app store model works to prevent piracy because the amounts charged for apps is trivial, the profits come from the volume sold. I'm sure that if companies were charging the sort of amounts Adobe charge for their boxed desktop software you'd see a much higher degree of piracy in those market segments.
What I'm essentially saying is that Adobe's stricter upgrade policies, expected price increases, and move to the cloud to crack down on piracy are hurting their market share and their bottom line. I'm glad I don't own their stock.
Again, I'm not making any judgment calls about right or wrong, just an assessment of how the market is.
I don't know their exact rational for "moving to the cloud" (really a move to a subscription model, but how un-sexy is that? Call it the "Cloud"! People love clouds!). Maybe the management really does think that this is the best thing for their customers. But if their primary motivation really is to crack down on piracy, it's really a tragedy. It represents a company that's out of ideas, that's gotten away from doing the things that made it successful in the first place. And rather than address their real issues, they're externalizing the problem. They're fooling themselves as to how much money they lose to pirates. Most people who pirate software do so because they can't afford it. People who pirate software software aren't going to start shelling out hundreds of dollars for Photoshop because they can't steal it anymore; they're going to go to the next best free and/or inexpensive thing (a lot of them will probably realize they never needed PS in the first place when they do this).
If Adobe wants more of their users to upgrade more often, they need to offer more compelling upgrades.
Exactly. To me the most disturbing aspect of this particular up again/down again trial balloon is that it screams Nex Gen marketeering. When a longtime creative, successful, customer-close company begins pouring resources into extracting more coins from its golden geese instead of improving its goose-feed, it's time to consider polishing your resume if you're on the inside -- and looking for another relationship if you're on the outside.
I don't know their exact rational for "moving to the cloud" (really a move to a subscription model, but how un-sexy is that? Call it the "Cloud"! People love clouds!). Maybe the management really does think that this is the best thing for their customers. But if their primary motivation really is to crack down on piracy, it's really a tragedy.
... but are of limited use only attractive to a small subset of PS users. We all saw the marketing blitz that happened with the latest release, all for a handful of features which I bet 99.999% of PS users could live without just fine.
Wow. That's a pretty big statement. Content-aware fill, Puppet warp, and the CS5 advancements in edge/masking tools typically save us several hours every month...I agree with feppe that 'features' like content aware fill and puppet warp are just gimmicks that few people want. There was nothing in the CS5 upgrade for me. Small improvements in existing tools like edge masking may well be welcomed by a few users, but a reason to pay for an upgrade ? maybe not.
Multiply that savings times a standard hourly rate and you're past the upgrade price pretty quick. We could be alone on that, but I kind of doubt it.
Which means you've failed to understand that you will still be able to purchase CS6 as a standalone piece of shelfware - not based in the cloud or requiring a subscription.
If people would actually read first hand material from the vendor instead of half of any given rant on a forum, they'd be much better informed.
Wow. That's a pretty big statement. Content-aware fill, Puppet warp, and the CS5 advancements in edge/masking tools typically save us several hours every month...
Multiply that savings times a standard hourly rate and you're past the upgrade price pretty quick. We could be alone on that, but I kind of doubt it.
You use content aware fill? Wow, I heard a rumour that someone had found a use for it ;)
If you do panos and need to fill in areas, content aware fill comes in real handy...
I know CS6 is available as a standalone product, I wasn't suggesting anything different. Seems like the only one with reading comprehension issues is you, my friend.
I am sticking with CS5, because it is likely to be the final release of Photoshop that won't have some kind of next-gen cloud system integrated into it, not because of something I've failed to read.
You use content aware fill? Wow, I heard a rumour that someone had found a use for it ;)
You use content aware fill? Wow, I heard a rumour that someone had found a use for it ;)
I tried to use it few times but it didn't work for me :) I would prefer more stable software instead ....
Regards, Filip
-----------------------------
http://shotworldwide.com
The archetypal exemple of this flashy incremental strategy is "content aware fill" which is the kind of stuff that wows people, but ends up being of very limited use in real life.Actually it is an extremely useful tool for some people. And simply as a big time saver it is quite valuable in professional usage.
Adobe is making a classic business decision based on their product and user base. One of the real difficulties in standing pat with PS CS5.x and LR3.x is that they are unlikely to support new cameras and lenses when the upgrades appear. I so rarely use PS these days (I must be in the Michael Reichman school as per his statement in the latest LuLa C2P tutorial) so I can probably live without an upgrade since it's difficult to see what new can be added that would really help out. However, if I don't upgrade LR and a new Nikon comes out that I really want there is a risk that I would need to take. It's not like MSFT products where I can stay content using old versions of Word and Excel (and there are great open source alternatives if one want them). Ultimately, I'll upgrade LR (and if softproofing is there use PS even less).Adobe provide a free DNG convertor which allows you to use new camera files on older software for as long as you want to.
Hum... never had to use such a capability in more than 5 years shooting panos.
Adobe provide a free DNG convertor which allows you to use new camera files on older software for as long as you want to.
I agree with feppe that 'features' like content aware fill and puppet warp are just gimmicks that few people want. There was nothing in the CS5 upgrade for me. Small improvements in existing tools like edge masking may well be welcomed by a few users, but a reason to pay for an upgrade ? maybe not.I've noticed that when I first use with a new version of any Adobe product there is always that slight adjust as things have changed. But without fail, whenever I then go back to the previous version that I am far more familiar with, I find myself missing things in the new version. Adobe, unlike Apple are very careful not to upset long time users with modifications to how things work and usually consult before removing anything, so adjusting to new version is pretty painless on the whole. With the Adobe products I use that is.
The second issue is just what percentage of potential upgraders that use PS can charge for their time ? or maybe more particularly, how much of that chargeable time is taken doing tasks that can be significantly shorter with the new features ?
Time saved also has to be counted against the time taken to upgrade, learn effective use of the features and adapt to any changes in the new version. I know a lot of people are more productive with older versions that they know very well, rather than having to change their working practices every two years.
Exactly right - the Adobe DNG Converter is free to download ad can be quite handy, although some folks think it's inconvenient to integrate into your workflowMaybe they should complain the the camera manufacturer who ignored free and open standards [DNG] or simply changed the label of the 'new' raw file which then breaks its functionality with previous raw software. It's Canon/Nikon/Olympus who cause the problem, not Adobe. Yet Adobe gets the blame for not supporting a 4 day old camera with 4 year old software that is no longer being sold.
I tried to use it few times but it didn't work for me :) I would prefer more stable software instead ....Although content aware fill seems like magic, it sadly isn't. So you do have to learn to use it and like all tools it will have limitations. It's still more magical than an Ipad though! ;)
Hi John, we have a team that covers Adobe full time and most of these relevant stories aren't available elsewhere, so trying to add value and information to the discussion.Said with a straight face? You've even linked to articles that are little more than copies of Adobe press releases.
A few thoughts. Adobe trying to move content/software to the web as subscription sucks. I don't want to run to the internet everytime I want to use software. It's strictly a revenue thing -- trying to get people to pay more, more often. Believe me, I'm a capitalist. I like to make money. I've worked for myself for 35-years. But I also give clients a fair deal. I've had SO many issue with my phone company and my DSL speeds in the past year thatI'd have been dead in the water if I had needed to run Photoshop from the web.
And from whaty I've heard/read, Adobe does want people to run it from the web, not be based on their own computer.
Well, I just finished retouching one of my images which has 950 MB in total size (with layers). Could anyone give me an advice, how to store images of this size "on the cloud" please?
Thank you in advance :)
Filip
----------------------------
http://shotworldwide.com
Yes, I'm positive this is exactly what Adobe wants, and the subscription model is the first step towards PS moving exclusively to the cloud - but it will take years.
Well, I just finished retouching one of my images which has 950 MB in total size (with layers). Could anyone give me an advice, how to store images of this size "on the cloud" please?
Thank you in advance :)
Stop spreading FUD. This is probably the fifth time I've had to say this: PS or your images are not stored on Adobe's servers.
And do you seriously think anyone would implement a system which requires source images to be stored in the cloud? If it ever happens (a big if) it won't happen until there is enough bandwidth to make it fast.
Stop spreading FUD. This is probably the fifth time I've had to say this: PS or your images are not stored on Adobe's servers.
Actually, with Creative Cloud - image, project, and data files would/could be stored "in the cloud" on Adobe's servers, up to 20GB worth...More accurate would be
More accurate would beDoes it mean that Adobe wants us to pay for something that we are not going to use? Or will they give us a choice to pay less if we do not wish
Actually, with Creative Cloud - image, project, and data files can be stored "in the cloud" on Adobe's servers, up to 20GB worth if you desire. If not, you can carry on as normal.
I do not use the 3D features in Photoshop. I would not expect a discount because of that.If you're using the standard version, you don't get 3D features. You have to pay extra for the extended version (IOW you get a discount for not having the 3D fluff)
Honestly, you don't. That's the whole fallacy of "the cloud". In my mind, it's really designed for text documents and spreadsheet and PDFs, not large graphics files. You are better off with several hard drives for image backup than trying to upload a nearly 1GB image to a server somewhere. My 2-cents.One potential model:
If you're using the standard version, you don't get 3D features. You have to pay extra for the extended version (IOW you get a discount for not having the 3D fluff)I use the extended version, I still do not expect a discount for not using the 3D features.