Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Paul Sumi on November 11, 2011, 04:28:45 pm
-
http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2011/11/adobe-creative-cloud-and-adobe-creative-suite-new-choices-for-customers.html?PID=2159997
Not sure I'm reading this Adobe blog article correctly, but it looks like Adobe's upgrade discount price will now be available only one version back, instead of the current 3. In other words, if you want to get PS CS 6 at a discount when it comes out, you will have to own PS CS 5 or 5.5.
The following is from the second-to-last paragraph:
"For customers who prefer to remain on the current licensing model, we will continue to offer our individual point products and Adobe Creative Suite editions as perpetual licenses. With regards to upgrades, we are changing our policy for perpetual license customers. In order to qualify for upgrade pricing when CS6 releases, customers will need to be on the latest version of our software (either CS5 or CS5.5 editions). If our customers are not yet on those versions, we’re offering a 20% discount through December 31, 2011 which will qualify them for upgrade pricing when we release CS6."
I have been upgrading every other generation, but looks like this'll force me to update every generation :(
-
Sounds like Adobe is really making a push into cloud computing. Their new Carousel phone/tablet app is another example. Pricing on it is more than a bit absurd as well; for something of dubious value. Syncing media to and from a device really isn't that onerous a task. $600/year is a pretty hefty price to pay if all you want is Photoshop. But it seems as though they may be making it punitive to keep the standalone version in an effort to try to force users into the cloud arrangement.
Not at all a customer friendly move. But what's the alternative? Adobe knows that there really aren't any so people will have to bend over the desk and take it with one approach or the other.
-
If they do get soft proofing into the next LightRoom, I'll probably stick with my current CS5 for many years.
If they try to force LR into the cloud, too, I'll probably quit doing photography and take up something less expensive, like racing America's Cup yachts.
Eric :'(
-
If they try to force LR into the cloud, too, I'll probably quit doing photography and take up something less expensive, like racing America's Cup yachts.
;D
-
If they keep pushing it they may end up with the same problem Netflix has at the moment.
-
Not sure I'm reading this Adobe blog article correctly, but...
Yes Paul, you did read it correctly and it's true - Adobe will be instituting a revised upgrade policy (http://prodesigntools.com/last-chance-to-upgrade-adobe-cs2-cs3-cs4-to-cs5.html) for the Creative Suite line of products... But Lightroom remains unaffected on upgrades, as far as we know.
However, it may interest you to know that (a desktop version of) Lightroom is included as part of Adobe's new Creative Cloud (http://prodesigntools.com/what-is-the-adobe-creative-cloud.html) software set, per CTO Kevin Lynch.
No word yet on whether yacht racing is included.
-
This way they can do minimal upgrades to programs and continue to charge the upgrade fee, but now force users to pay it every upgrade cycle...I had CS3 Photoshop and saw no reason for me, personally, to buy CS4...but I saw many improvements that would help my workflow in CS5 Photoshop, so I bought that upgrade...I don't like 'choice', even when it's minimal, being taken away from me...
I still have both Illustrator and Indesign in CS3 versions...I was going to upgrade both for CS6, but now I'm going to have to rethink my plan. My initial reaction is to upgrade Indesign to CS5...I need a good layout program, but it'll probably be the last upgrade I buy for it. I think I'll stick with Illustrator CS3 and just never upgrade it again. The last few years I haven't been using it much.
I have CS5 so I'll wait till the end of CS6 availability to buy the upgrade unless Adobe offers some incredible new features that I can't live without. I love Photoshop. Been using it since the early 1990's around version 1.8 or so. Version CS5 of Photoshop is sweet. Would hate to have to use something else, but I'm going to start investigating my options. I'm also using and loving Lightroom. Fingers crossed they don't screw with that, but I have serious doubts now.
In this time of economic hardship all over the planet Adobe seems just plain greedy. I'd like to hear the 'positive' side to all this from someone. Ok, it'll fill the bank accounts for some at Adobe. Anything else? I work as a freelance using programs I need to satisfy client demand. I don't need 'cloud' anything to get my work done.
So, what happens now, if I don't buy the CS6 Photoshop upgrade now (spring 2012 or whenever) and I want to buy the CS7 upgrade I have to pay the price to buy Photoshop, the complete program, again? I've been upgrading for about 20 years now. I guess I've bought the whole program, in terms of cost, several times over. The accountants at Adobe must feel that isn't enough. It's hard times at Adobe I guess.
-
If they keep pushing it they may end up with the same problem Netflix has at the moment.
I'm not familiar with Netflix and their problem...would you have a link to some news item or something about it please...just curious...
-
Hi, Morris. Much as I hate to post a link to the Huffington Post, here's the first article that jumps out at me: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/netflix-price-increase-subscriber-loss_n_964026.html. Netflix used to give a subscriber DVDs and streaming movies under a single, quite reasonable price plan. Then they split the DVD rental from the streaming subscription and raised their prices. As a result they lost enough customers that they're having to backtrack on the whole thing. I think splitting the subscriptions was the right thing to do, but their timing was terrible. I think Adobe's timing is terrible too.
-
Thanks for the link Russ...
-
I have been upgrading roughly every other version, whenever the new goodies look as if they will make a big difference to me. In the future I expect I will wait until the cost of a complete new version is less than the total cost of the upgrades that I will have skipped.
Eric
-
I upgrade only when forced to - last time it was because of the latest LR changes not pulling over to CS4.
-
I'm another who generally upgrades photoshop every other update ( ie. CS3 to CS5 ). I've been using PS since version 5.5 ( I'm also using Illustrator ). This change to the upgrade path is bad news for me. It feels like a company with a virtual monopoly getting very greedy and arrogant*. ( Remember Quark ).
Graeme
* No disrespect to the guys who write the software at Adobe
-
* No disrespect to the guys who write the software at Adobe
My sense is that the folks who write the software bust their guts to make is as good as possible, while the folk$ in Marketing and $ale$ have other intere$t$. ::)
-
Hmmm, if they were "greedy" then you wouldn't get any upgrade path. For those who are using the software professionally, what percentage of your revenue does the expenditure represent (taking into account any tax offsets)?
I'm not suggesting you can't complain or that you shouldn't ask Adobe to consider keeping the current model (or moving to another one entirely that you may propose), but I think it's a little disingenius to start suggesting that they're greedy or some such. There are significant costs involved in producing, maintaining and supporting each version - if they feel they're not generating enough revenue then they need to change their business model.
Again, I'd look at the actual ROI and make the decision accordingly, and put the costs into a proper perspective.
For those who are not professionals, then it's a luxury item and you choose to buy or not accordingly. It's not as though this new policy is unusual in the software world.
-
Looking like more Photographers will be abandoning Photoshop especially with the new release of OnOnes perfect layers (Plugin or stand alone) combined with Lightroom, cant do everything but what a grate start .
-
It is a complex problem. Stopping upgrading is simply not an option because the whole underlying stack, starting with the OS keeps moving forward.
The movement is in fact accelerating on the windows side to get closer to a 1.5-2 years release cycle similar to Apple. You want to buy a new Mac? It is going to ship with the latest OS for sure. If you have a bit of IT skills, you might be able to downgrade one generation of OS, maybe 2? Considering the way OSX is evolving towards iOS, downgrading the OS will probably have become impossible by the time 10.8 or 10.9 ships.
You will be totally stuck if your hardware dies. You will have to use a new OS on which only the last or last 2 versions of Creative Suit run. Since you decided to skip 2 releases because they had zero value for you, you will not be eligible for an upgrade. The failure of your laptop will cost you the price of a full CS purchase...
I am afraid this is where we are headed on OSX, it is a bit less clear on Win side, but they might not be far behind.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I work as a freelance using programs I need to satisfy client demand. I don't need 'cloud' anything to get my work done.
Curious, do others feel the same way?
Because Adobe seems to be making this move to try to incentivize subscriptions to the cloud service, instead of perpetual licenses... Will it work?
What do you think? Would love to gather feedback to share directly with the company.
-
I do not like the idea at all. I also am one of the users who typically upgrade every other version. I just upgraded from CS3 to CS5 this month.
I really am against having a "subscription" to software. But, I am not a working professional. If I were a working pro, then it probably would not matter as much...or even matter at all.
I always would rather purchase something than to "rent" it. A subscription is renting.
-
Curious, do others feel the same way?
Because Adobe seems to be making this move to try to incentivize subscriptions to the cloud service, instead of perpetual licenses... Will it work?
What do you think? Would love to gather feedback to share directly with the company.
What inside track do you have with Adobe?
WRT the new cloud subscription service, I won't use it. First because I don't need all of the software applications that I'd be forced to pay for. Second, I neither need nor want it. Third, and related to the second point, I don't want to have to rely on an internet connection to edit images. Fourth, and related to the third point, at this time internet connections aren't fast enough to make it efficient; particularly in the upstream direction.
-
+++++ to everything Bob said. I'm the same way. I simply won't use a "subscription" service on the "cloud." Adobe's thinking in this respect is cloudy.
-
This may be good for Adobe business wise, but then perhaps not. Many may move on to other software. I personally use the Design Suite Premium since I am a photographer, graphic designer, and web designer. I too prefer to upgrade only every other version (depending on features included in each version).
I am sick of this whole "cloud" movement. Yes I grew up with the Internet and with the World Wide Web. I like to use it, but I don't want to be forced to. I want to be able to get everything done, even if I unplugged my router and modem. These companies should watch some Star Trek. They had manual backups for just about everything.
Adobe, please don't become another controlling company! I am already forced into a great deal of things by Microsoft and Apple >:(.
-
Adobe, please don't become another controlling company! I am already forced into a great deal of things by Microsoft and Apple >:(.
Hey, that's the best business model there is!
Rob C
-
Hey, that's the best business model there is!
Rob C
Apparently. Although we've let governments do that which worked for a while, now though, not as much.
-
What inside track do you have with Adobe?
WRT the new cloud subscription service, I won't use it. First because I don't need all of the software applications that I'd be forced to pay for. Second, I neither need nor want it. Third, and related to the second point, I don't want to have to rely on an internet connection to edit images. Fourth, and related to the third point, at this time internet connections aren't fast enough to make it efficient; particularly in the upstream direction.
Our company has been official Adobe partners for over five years, and we have regular conference calls and contact with them. And we'd love to send them some thoughtful feedback here.
Regarding the new Adobe Creative Cloud (http://prodesigntools.com/what-is-the-adobe-creative-cloud.html), there may be a point of clarification on some understandings of it...
If you look at the original Adobe blog post (http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2011/11/adobe-creative-cloud-and-adobe-creative-suite-new-choices-for-customers.html) that started this thread, you'll see that it also includes access to all latest desktop Creative Suite applications and Lightroom via standard download and installation. In other words, your usual products like Photoshop don't have to run online or over the web.
Adobe says those applications will run on a subscription basis at the cost of $50-$70/month for the collection, for annual contracts. Tablet/touch apps and community cloud access are also included.
Of course, if your membership ends or lapses, so does your ability to run any of the products.
So, does that change the cloud equation at all? Does it help to explain their big upgrade policy change (http://prodesigntools.com/last-chance-to-upgrade-adobe-cs2-cs3-cs4-to-cs5.html)?
In other words, does that make memberships to the cloud service more attractive vs. permanent licenses... or does the answer remain the same?
-
If you look at the original Adobe blog post (http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2011/11/adobe-creative-cloud-and-adobe-creative-suite-new-choices-for-customers.html) that started this thread, you'll see that it also includes access to all latest desktop Creative Suite applications and Lightroom via standard download and installation. In other words, your usual products like Photoshop don't have to run online or over the web.
Adobe says those applications will run on a subscription basis at the cost of $50-$70/month for the collection, for annual contracts.
Does this mean we have to pay a subscription to get our programs? Or can we still purchase and use them in the same manner as we always have?
-
Welcome to the forum, Tools. To answer your question, it doesn't make a damned bit of difference to me. I don't want any software that's going to die if I stop making payments on it. I haven't made payments on anything for decades, and I'm not about to start now. If Adobe goes through with this, I'll be through with Adobe. There are other tools out there that can do pretty good work. Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that if Adobe does this, Nik, or some other outfit will hustle to fill the yawning gap Adobe's going to leave behind.
-
"I haven't made payments on anything for decades, and I'm not about to start now."
Damned right, too! It's been a system that's led to a hell of a lot of people biting off much more than their wallets can chew! I've always been of the belief that unless you can put the money down, then you can't afford it. I twice bought cars that way, on accountant advice, and regretted it amost immediately. It seemed to lead directly into lean business seasons where I'd have had greater peace of mind just sitting on my bank account; irony being, I could have bought outright, but listened to pro advice and nebulous reasoning about putting the higher cost against tax etc... I should have run with my instincts!
Rob C
-
"I haven't made payments on anything for decades, and I'm not about to start now."
Damned right, too! It's been a system that's led to a hell of a lot of people biting off much more than their wallets can chew! I've always been of the belief that unless you can put the money down, then you can't afford it. I twice bought cars that way, on accountant advice, and regretted it almost immediately. It seemed to lead directly into lean business seasons where I'd have had greater peace of mind just sitting on my bank account; irony being, I could have bought outright, but listened to pro advice and nebulous reasoning about putting the higher cost against tax etc... I should have run with my instincts!
Rob C
This is just how I feel. The only thing I made payments on was my student loan. (Which was because I was too stupid to get more scholarships). I prefer to pay everything with cash or my debit (not credit) card. I fear the day may come when we are forced to use debt because no other payment options are available. I hope Adobe becomes a part of the solution rather than the problem. I really like the engineers/programmers over there, they do a fine job, but some of the higher ups... no so much, or at least I disagree with some of their decisions.
-
It just seems like a way to milk an already overpriced (especially outside of the US) program, at those kind of prices monthly you'll have paid more than simply buying the program outright in less than 2 years if my maths is right. Let's take PS Extended as an example. With a yearly plan you pay $50 a month or $999 to buy it outright. How many people would have used PS for less than 2 years before buying the program all over again at the new price? That's what you're doing with subscription. Even the new upgrade deal is better than this. Perhaps that's the point, training us to get used to paying more, a lot more for PS. Rather than pay your $999 once and then an extra $350 every two years for upgrade, now you get to pay the entire amount again in under 2 years. Every time.
I'm setting up a large studio in a country outside the US. I asked the main national importer of everything photographic, the people supplying the MFDB's, the profoto lights, the computers, etc for a copy of CS5 as an addition to the $85K package we were ordering. He said not to bother. I said I didn't understand, we needed Photoshop. His comment was that as the price was so high compared to the US price, people just weren't buying it and they didn't bother selling it any more. I'm assuming they mean that people are doing what our studio will be doing, buying it in the US via a contact there, half our parent organisation is in the US so it's not difficult to source. Actually I'm not quite sure that is what he meant....
-
Our company has been official Adobe partners for over five years, and we have regular conference calls and contact with them. And we'd love to send them some thoughtful feedback here.
Regarding the new Adobe Creative Cloud (http://prodesigntools.com/what-is-the-adobe-creative-cloud.html), there may be a point of clarification on some understandings of it...
If you look at the original Adobe blog post (http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2011/11/adobe-creative-cloud-and-adobe-creative-suite-new-choices-for-customers.html) that started this thread, you'll see that it also includes access to all latest desktop Creative Suite applications and Lightroom via standard download and installation. In other words, your usual products like Photoshop don't have to run online or over the web.
Adobe says those applications will run on a subscription basis at the cost of $50-$70/month for the collection, for annual contracts. Tablet/touch apps and community cloud access are also included.
Of course, if your membership ends or lapses, so does your ability to run any of the products.
So, does that change the cloud equation at all? Does it help to explain their big upgrade policy change (http://prodesigntools.com/last-chance-to-upgrade-adobe-cs2-cs3-cs4-to-cs5.html)?
In other words, does that make memberships to the cloud service more attractive vs. permanent licenses... or does the answer remain the same?
No, it doesn't change anything. At least not from my perspective. Adobe is forcing upgrades every new version release or the cloud option. As you've seen from the comments here, a number of people don't upgrade every version. I'm also one of them. I don't like being forced into a position I don't wish to take. Adobe wants to move people to the cloud option. That's clear. It appears the company has changed its upgrade policy to try and effect that transition by making it more difficult for users to upgrade when it may be better for them to do so. Unless each and every new version is going to have significantly new and improved tools, there's no good reason to upgrade for each new version. History indicates that every other version has a more significant set of improvements. I'd guess that's why a number of people follow the every second release upgrade process.
Are you really interested in taking information back to Adobe? Or are you here just to try to shill for them and help them justify this policy change? Why so much cloak and dagger about who you are? More transparency would be welcomed.
-
Yes, I'd like to know more about you too, Tools.
If you really are able to pass the rumble of the crowd back to Adobe, tell them it doesn't pay to get your customers POed at you. If Adobe would sell Photoshop at a reasonable price they'd probably improve their revenue, and they'd sure as hell improve their market share. During my winters in Florida I teach photography in a retirement community. These are people interested in photography as an art form, with a middle-class level of wealth. These are people who own boats and play golf. I've tried to get them interested in Lightroom, at least, and, hopefully, Photoshop. They won't buy it. A lot of them will buy Elements, but the prices above that are just too high. Some of them use things like Picasa.
-
Are you really interested in taking information back to Adobe? Or are you here just to try to shill for them and help them justify this policy change? Why so much cloak and dagger about who you are? More transparency would be welcomed.
I agree - it would be better if the writer of these posts opened up about his/her own identity, and quite a few members of this forum have similar ongoing contact with Adobe.
People can always talk directly to Adobe at http://feedback.photoshop.com/
John
-
Does this mean we have to pay a subscription to get our programs? Or can we still purchase and use them in the same manner as we always have?
Actually Adobe is maintaining the ability to purchase the same perpetual licenses as usual, with the upgrade period shortened as described.
Are you really interested in taking information back to Adobe? Or are you here just to try to shill for them and help them justify this policy change? Why so much cloak and dagger about who you are? More transparency would be welcomed.
We cover Adobe the company, and write about (http://ProDesignTools.com) their products. Our readers are you, the application users - so if the use of Adobe products increases or decreases, it affects us as well.
In five years, this is as big a change as we've seen - so we're trying to gauge how it will be received, and what impact it will have.
Believe me, this is no shill - we have been happy with the way perpetual licenses and upgrades have worked for years, so this cloud membership model is a new world. We're fairly active on the Adobe Forums (http://forums.adobe.com), but I wanted to try to get some honest reaction from somewhere more independent and a step away.
So, is nobody in favor of the new cloud all-in-one subscription model then? Or is it more of a price issue - not cheap enough, or not what you want, regardless of cost?
Thank you all for your feedback, really appreciate it - and will be folding it back to our call with Adobe next week. We'll also probably be writing another article about it, reflecting customer response.
-
Frankly, Tools, if Photoshop in the cloud went for an annual charge of ten bucks I still wouldn't be interested. I move around too much, and I want Photoshop on my high-end laptop when I'm in a motel with less than satisfactory web access. Even in my studio I don't want to have to work online unless I'm ready to go online. The whole "cloud" thing is "modern" and classy, but it's crap.
-
So, is nobody in favor of the new cloud all-in-one subscription model then? Or is it more of a price issue - not cheap enough, or not what you want, regardless of cost?
Thank you all for your feedback, really appreciate it - and will be folding it back to our call with Adobe next week. We'll also probably be writing another article about it, reflecting customer response.
For me personally I want to maintain the option of doing as we always have. But it could be useful for some professionals who always want/need the latest and greatest to have the subscription option. But the price is most certainly prohibitive. Upon first hearing about the subscription idea, I thought "cool, what a nice idea" but then I read the fine print and promptly said, "no thank you."
-
Frankly, Tools, if Photoshop in the cloud went for an annual charge of ten bucks I still wouldn't be interested. I move around too much, and I want Photoshop on my high-end laptop when I'm in a motel with less than satisfactory web access. Even in my studio I don't want to have to work online unless I'm ready to go online. The whole "cloud" thing is "modern" and classy, but it's crap.
Hmm, I guess it's still not clear... Adobe is going to have difficulty with the semantics of this new thing. It's called a cloud, but subscribers don't need to run Photoshop online, or over the web. As part of the membership, you receive access to all regular CS tools to install as usual on your desktop. It's just that those desktop products will only work so long as your membership is active.
So, the naming and branding of the new offering seems to be a stumbling block right out of the gate, is what looks evident.
-
Like in real life, there are many types of clouds. It would seem Adobe has selected the stormy version. :-)
Cloud is used in relation with very different, and not always closely related, concepts:
1. online data storage
2. application hosting - pure online applications (super web pages if you will)
3. server hosting
4. a new business model based on subscription (aka software as a service SaaS, not to be confused with Sars)
5. ...
Adobe appears to be doing a bit of everything except #3 that happens to be the most mature and useful type of cloud. I believe that #1 does also have value, but is going to be a low margin business just like web hosting.
#3 makes sense for enterprise software with mission critical stakes in cases where on premise system admin requires skills and has a high cost. This is a domain where Adobe is mostly not present but where #4 is often offered with #3 because there are real running costs associated with the hosting of the servers. It really is a service.
Adobe is trying to do #4 without bringing any of the value related to #3. Don't think they will manage to convince many people here.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hmm, I guess it's still not clear... Adobe is going to have difficulty with the semantics of this new thing. It's called a cloud, but subscribers don't need to run Photoshop online, or over the web. As part of the membership, you receive access to all regular CS tools to install as usual on your desktop. It's just that those desktop products will only work so long as your membership is active.
So, the naming and branding of the new offering seems to be a stumbling block right out of the gate, is what looks evident.
Sorry, Tools, but I think it's quite clear, and it's not a matter of semantics. The term "subscribers" is where the idea craps out. The word "membership" then dumps the whole thing into the toilet. I don't want a "membership" in the software I use, and I have no intention of "subscribing" to any software. I want to buy my software, put it on my computers, and get on with it. As I said earlier, I'm not going to make perpetual "payments" on my software. Once I buy it, it's mine -- at least the license is mine.
-
I read that more than a few here are used to upgrading every other upgrade ..like me .
For those the price will be about 100% higher if the like to continu that way.
It seems a bit unreasonable to do that (to your most loyal costumers..)
-
I have no interest in "cloud" versions under any of the definitions suggested. I will only buy the permanent license, as long as that is available. Under the new system I will be going much longer between versions than I do at present and I will definitely be looking for alternatives to Photoshop.
-
We buy Adobe products for our business ( although I also use them for none - business projects ). I generally like the products and have never had any problem with the pricing and actually thought that the 'three versions back' upgrade policy was pretty generous. I know that Adobe software costs more in the UK than in the US but so does most stuff ( however, we have an NHS which has been useful recently....). The new pricing / cloud model will be a problem for us - the Adobe software isn't central enough to our work for the new upgrade pricing to make sense. We'll probably make sure we get a lot of years of use out of Photoshop & Illustrator CS5 rather than follow our 'every other version' upgrade path. During this period we'll seek out alternative raw converters etc ( Not Aperture though - I trust Apple even less than Adobe ).
The Cloud? You'd have to be an idiot to rely on a constant internet connection if you need access to an application in order to meet a tight deadline ( which we're often given ).
Nope, we want to buy applications which become ours to use as we wish ( subject to licensing agreements of course ) and are installed on our computer.
And as for the supposed benefit of the cloud-based apps being upgraded more regularly? No thanks, I'm not a natural at computer stuff and it takes me a while to 'get into' an app - another reason for 'every other version' upgrading.
On reflection, if Adobe can make this work for themselves then good luck to them - nobody is being forced to buy their products, but I can't help thinking that they're shooting themselves in both feet. ( And I'll bet that there are independent developers out there eagerly anticipating the next five years ).
Graeme
-
I am not thrilled with this concept either and also upgrade every second version as apparently do many others.
Has Adobe stated what the new upgrade pricing will be set at for Photoshop with the perpetual license version??
Perhaps they will set the upgrade pricing at a lower price than the current $200 :o given that the current average upgrade turn is maybe on average every 2 versions and this new policy will increase (theoretically) that upgrade path to every version. That could conceivably be the plan, right? ;)
My gut tells me however that they will maintain the $200 upgrade price every upcoming version.
-
The Cloud? You'd have to be an idiot to rely on a constant internet connection if you need access to an application in order to meet a tight deadline ( which we're often given ).
Well, it is true that the Adobe's subscription versions do require Internet access once per month to (re-)validate the software, even if the programs themselves aren't running online.
On the whole, so far it sounds like folks are objecting to some of the aspects below (taken from Adobe's site), even if more applications are included in the cloud package to increase the value (if you need or use them).
Q: Do I install the subscription software on my computer, or is it a cloud-based application that I access via the Internet?
A: Subscription editions of Creative Suite software are installed locally on your computer, just like regular Creative Suite products. The functionality of a subscription edition is no different from that of the regular product. You do not need to be online constantly to use your Creative Suite subscription. However, you will need to be online when you install and license your software, and at least once every 30 days thereafter. The software will alert you when you need to connect to the Internet for a license status check.
Q: When an upgrade to my subscription product becomes available, am I required to install it?
A: No. You are not required to install any new version of the subscription software, and you have a great deal of flexibility on when you install an upgrade, should you choose to do so. You can continue using your current version of the product for one full year after the subsequent version is released.
Q: If I suspend or cancel my subscription, does that mean I can still use my software, but I just won’t receive updates for the most current version?
A: No. When you suspend or cancel your subscription you will no longer have access to any version of your Creative Suite subscription software.
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/faq.html#subscriptions
Adobe may at any time, upon notice required by applicable law, change the price of your subscription or any part thereof, or institute new charges or fees. Price changes and institution of new charges implemented during your subscription period will come into effect for any subsequent subscription periods and to all new subscribers after the effective date of the change. If you do not agree to any such price changes, then you must cancel your subscription and stop using the software prior to the commencement of the renewal subscription period for which the price change applies.
http://www.adobe.com/misc/subscription_terms.html
-
...I would be interested... but not at $600.00 per year.
For an amateur photographer like me, who uses PhotoShop but none of the other applications, this sort of pricing for a cloud subscription makes absolutely no sense. Which leaves me with the permanent license option at an (as yet) unknown cost.
Adobe made it easy for me to start using PhotoShop (back in version 6) because of a competitive crossgrade. And I'll probably get PS CS 6. But I suspect that many of us will now have a reason to actively search for a PhotoShop replacement.
Adobe, don't shoot yourself in both feet like Netflix.
-
I'm quite certain that many users of PS upgrade because they need the new bits and pieces, and I'm also sure that many are as I: I still use 6 and know that it does, and will do, more than anything that photography demands from me.
If there's a problem with it, it's that the computer with Vista won't take it, and when the one with the XP thing dies I shall be effed. Nice.
This should probably be on another thread, but let's see if anyone here has the answer: my recently bought 'phone, a Samsung Galaxy Ace (sounds like a 50s car), has a 5mp camera, but I can't discover how to get the jpegs into the computer in order to try them out. The instructions on the web tell us to buy a Samsung software thinggy; can't one simply use the USB cable supplied to do the job in PS without buying yet more junk? So far, I have a couple of family shots on the thing and there they will remain if more buying is the only route out! I did plug in that USB cable supplied, but all I received as info was that the computer was missing the appropriate software....
8-(
Rob C
-
Well, it is true that the Adobe's subscription versions do require Internet access once per month to (re-)validate the software, even if the programs themselves aren't running online.
On the whole, so far it sounds like folks are objecting to some of the aspects below (taken from Adobe's site), even if more applications are included in the cloud package to increase the value (if you need or use them).
Q: Do I install the subscription software on my computer, or is it a cloud-based application that I access via the Internet?
A: Subscription editions of Creative Suite software are installed locally on your computer, just like regular Creative Suite products. The functionality of a subscription edition is no different from that of the regular product. You do not need to be online constantly to use your Creative Suite subscription. However, you will need to be online when you install and license your software, and at least once every 30 days thereafter. The software will alert you when you need to connect to the Internet for a license status check.
Q: When an upgrade to my subscription product becomes available, am I required to install it?
A: No. You are not required to install any new version of the subscription software, and you have a great deal of flexibility on when you install an upgrade, should you choose to do so. You can continue using your current version of the product for one full year after the subsequent version is released.
Q: If I suspend or cancel my subscription, does that mean I can still use my software, but I just won’t receive updates for the most current version?
A: No. When you suspend or cancel your subscription you will no longer have access to any version of your Creative Suite subscription software.
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/faq.html#subscriptions
Adobe may at any time, upon notice required by applicable law, change the price of your subscription or any part thereof, or institute new charges or fees. Price changes and institution of new charges implemented during your subscription period will come into effect for any subsequent subscription periods and to all new subscribers after the effective date of the change. If you do not agree to any such price changes, then you must cancel your subscription and stop using the software prior to the commencement of the renewal subscription period for which the price change applies.
http://www.adobe.com/misc/subscription_terms.html
Thanks for that clarification Tools.
I just can't be bothered though. I'd rather dedicate my limited number of brain cells to tasks other than remembering to update my subscription once a month. As I said, I just want to buy the apps, install them on our computer and use them for the next few years - but not at the new pricing model. That's just my personal consumer choice.
Graeme
-
I'm quite certain that many users of PS upgrade because they need the new bits and pieces, and I'm also sure that many are as I: I still use 6 and know that it does, and will do, more than anything that photography demands from me.
If there's a problem with it, it's that the computer with Vista won't take it, and when the one with the XP thing dies I shall be effed. Nice.
This should probably be on another thread, but let's see if anyone here has the answer: my recently bought 'phone, a Samsung Galaxy Ace (sounds like a 50s car), has a 5mp camera, but I can't discover how to get the jpegs into the computer in order to try them out. The instructions on the web tell us to buy a Samsung software thinggy; can't one simply use the USB cable supplied to do the job in PS without buying yet more junk? So far, I have a couple of family shots on the thing and there they will remain if more buying is the only route out! I did plug in that USB cable supplied, but all I received as info was that the computer was missing the appropriate software....
Hi Rob
This is probably unhelpful but when I plug my cheapo Nokia into our Mac it shows up under 'Devices' ( along with the hard drive , and any connected iPods or inserted CDs ). I can then just navigate through the folders on the phone looking for 'Images'. Maybe try ignoring the'missing the appropriate software....' message and having a search around to see if the phone is showing up somewhere unexpected on your system. ( Or visit a Mac - using friend ).
Graeme
8-(
Rob C
-
This model, where subscription is purely a new form of ownership (SaaS), touches on some very interesting questions around the concept of IP ownership. I believe that the user perception is critical... and we are talking about creators here, about artists.
Renting an authoring software is very different from renting a house because it can be argued that the only thing a house helps you produce are memories and babies. Both live their own lifes independently from their origins.
On the other hand PS helps you create art, your own IP. The concept of rental means that you can be in a situation very easily where you are not able to work anymore on your creation. You are not able to edit your work...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm surprised so few are commenting on the price. With cloud/subscription you're paying the full price of the software once every year and a half. You'd have to be insane to a) do it b) think it's a good idea. What possible advantage could it have?
Yes Adobe will solve their piracy problems, but not at the expense of making me pay the equivelent of a full new license every 1.5 years. If anything I think they'll just make the piracy double as bad to be honest by pricing photoshop in the stratosphere to all but corporations.
-
I agree with Ben. The price will be a big problem. With others, the big problem will be the simple fact that you are "renting" and not owning.
It is possible that, if Adobe does in fact go this route, there will be other software companies that step up and offer serious alternatives to Adobe Products. The talent and the ability is out there, there just has not been a real demand as far as I know. Maybe Adobe will create an environment that encourages competition. That could be a good thing for us. And a stupid move for Adobe.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
-
Yes Adobe will solve their piracy problems, but not at the expense of making me pay the equivelent of a full new license every 1.5 years. If anything I think they'll just make the piracy double as bad to be honest by pricing photoshop in the stratosphere to all but corporations.
Actually, I expect that this will just increase the level of piracy by making it even more prohibitively expensive for individual users. Someone in Adobe marketing has gotten carried away with the buzz around cloud computing, subscription services and iPads (touch interfaces), without really considering what its users need.
-
Hi Graeme
Thanks for the suggestion, but zilch comes up - wouldn't have dreamed of buying this 'phone on the open market, it was only the fact that the telephone company offered a huge discount because I had so many 'points' saved up, having never used them at all in the past. Frankly, my old Nokia was infinitely more user-friendly in all respects and I have often regretted its demise, along with a lot of numbers I can no longer trace.
We are all mugs!
Rob C
-
Like many here I tend to upgrade Photoshop probably every two versions, or when a new feature looks as though it may be useful. I mainly use Photoshop to do those things I can't do in Lightroom, usually a bit of cloning and the occasional "Free Transform" to adjust perspective, plus Soft Proofing for printing.
Now I've found that I can do most of this, with the exception of soft proofing in Photoshop Elements. If we ever get soft proofing in Lightroom, then I may not need Photoshop. Will I upgrade probably. But if Adobe start opting for subscription services then I'm afraid I may start looking for other routes. I'm about to start looking at Aperture, just in case I need to jump the Adobe ship.
-
This should probably be on another thread, but let's see if anyone here has the answer: my recently bought 'phone, a Samsung Galaxy Ace (sounds like a 50s car), has a 5mp camera, but I can't discover how to get the jpegs into the computer in order to try them out. The instructions on the web tell us to buy a Samsung software thinggy; can't one simply use the USB cable supplied to do the job in PS without buying yet more junk? So far, I have a couple of family shots on the thing and there they will remain if more buying is the only route out! I did plug in that USB cable supplied, but all I received as info was that the computer was missing the appropriate software....
8-(
Rob C
Rob, you can mount the phone and use it as a mass storage device then simply drag 'n drop images from the phone to the computer. The Samsung software doesn't cost anything. It's free to download from the Samsung site. Not sure what software your phone uses but based on what I'm seeing on the Samsung Canada site, it looks like it might be Kies Air. This transfers files over a wireless network. If you don't have a wireless router then you won't be able to use it. I'm using a Galaxy S II LTE so it could be a bit different, but to mount the phone as a USB mass storage device, connect the cable to the computer, on the phone open the Settings and select 'Wireless and network' or the equivalent on your phone. Then go to 'USB Utilities' (or equivalent) and click the button to connect to the PC. You'll be prompted to connect the cable to the phone. Once that's done, you should be able to see the phone in your drive hierarchy in Windows Explorer then simply drag 'n drop. When you're done, click to Disconnect.
Actually, scratch that. I just checked again and your phone does use the Kies software (not Kies Air). If you go to the local Samsung site into the Support area, find your phone it will be in the available downloads.
-
It is possible that, if Adobe does in fact go this route, there will be other software companies that step up and offer serious alternatives to Adobe Products. The talent and the ability is out there, there just has not been a real demand as far as I know. Maybe Adobe will create an environment that encourages competition. That could be a good thing for us. And a stupid move for Adobe.
I certainly hope so. I mean, is there any mystery about what Adobe is doing here? They're jacking up the price of their software, period. They can give whatever convoluted explanation (they're good at those (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/11/14/flex))they want; it's a price increase, plain and simple. And why not? People rely on these applications and there's a real lack of serious alternatives in many cases. So sure, if the bottom line is looking a little thin, squeeze your best customers for a little extra cash. It's not like they have a choice. What's customer satisfaction and the long term viability of the company worth in the face of increased short term profits? It's no wonder Adobe has a hard time giving a straight answer about their decisions.
With this attitude towards pricing and their customers in general, there's probably more daylight for a serious Photoshop competitor than there has been in a decade. I'd love to see it. Adobe clearly needs someone to keep them honest.
-
I'm surprised so few are commenting on the price. With cloud/subscription you're paying the full price of the software once every year and a half. You'd have to be insane to a) do it b) think it's a good idea. What possible advantage could it have?
Have you got the pricing right? This announcement of $50 a month gets you the Creative Suite Master Collection (plus all these iThingy apps) which is currently $2600 to buy or currently $130 a month subscription.
Update: OK, currently Photoshop alone is $50 a month subscription, $999 new.
-
It's the oldest trick in the book, mostly used by politicians: make an outragous announcement going well beyond what you actually want, and if/when the backlash is strong enough take a step back and you end up with what you wanted in the first place. You'll look like you're listening to your customer's needs, or you might even pull off the outrageousness.
Adobe has bad timing from another perspective: GIMP 3.0 will have 16-bit editing (http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/gimp-2-8-is-getting-finalized-high-bit-depth-support-is-on-radar), and should be out around the same time as next PS. GIMP is free, so are the upgrades.
-
Actually, scratch that. I just checked again and your phone does use the Kies software (not Kies Air). If you go to the local Samsung site into the Support area, find your phone it will be in the available downloads.
Okay, I'll try that route, Bob; thanks for taking time out to help!
Rob C
-
It's been 3-4 years now that, in most business meetings I have been with software developers/publishers, I hear "we can use the cloud (any variation) to make more money, to better control our users, to smooth the revenue curve, etc..." Software as a Service is seen as the panacea that addresses both the general downtrend in software prices (except in markets where there are significant barriers to entry or a captive customer base) and the eventual piracy issue. I haven't seen a case where the motivation was "so the customer gets more for less money". The only logically reasonable argument in favour of renting is that it will cost less if you only need it for short amount of times. But while this makes sense for cameras or lighting gear, everyone knows this is not what will happen with Photoshop et al.
There are of course real advantages to "the cloud' because it allows stuff that wouldn't have been possible a while ago (dropbox, amazon ec, on-line backups, etc...) but forcefully bringing techs that are essentially identical to what they were 15-20 years ago to "the cloud" by ways of legalese and licensing changes if fishy, and always to the disadvantage of the customer.
Stuff that would make sense, especially when upstream bandwidth has made some progress, would for example be to rent a rendering cloud for a few hours. That provides a clear benefit to the user. Leveraging the "cloud" concept to enforce stricter licensing terms and higher prices does not, no matter how they spin it.
But I guess this creates jobs in marketing departments who have to be more creative than ever to implant the idea that this is of benefit to us...
-
Adobe's original blog post was very unclear and some of the intial links to FAQs were also incomplete.
So for Photoshop and other CS applications this isn't a true cloud computing environment. That obviates my previous concerns about an internet connection and speed. It also appears that users won't be forced to pay for access to applications they don't want or need. Whether that's a clarification of the previous position or a revision to reflect negative customer feedback, I'm not sure. What this move, essentially, amounts to then is a pretty massive price increase. In other words, Adobe is effectively Netflixing its customers. Trying to pass on that kind of a price increase in such a dubious economic environment isn't the smartest business move.
-
What this move, essentially, amounts to then is a pretty massive price increase.
Which, honestly, I wouldn't even have that much of a problem with. It's the fact that instead of simply raising the price, they created yet another layer of obfuscation and complexity as to what their stuff actually costs. Buying from Adobe is like walking into an Apple store and being told that an iMac starts at $3,999, but I can get an iMac bundled with a MacBook Air and an iPad and a couple iPhones and a bunch of random accessories for only $4,000! Or I could rent all this crap for yet another price... wow, what a generous offer, guys.
Hey, here's a crazy idea: make a product and sell it for an honest, consistant price, instead of using your pricing structure to coerce customers into buying a bunch of stuff they don't need or want (but hey, you're getting a great deal on it!). And to be clear, this isn't some message board bitching about how Adobe are a bunch of jerks for not pricing pro grade software for my amateur grade budget. This isn't about how I deserve to be able to buy Photoshop at whatever price I deem fair. If they want to charge a high price, well, they're the ones who invested in the software and they can charge as much as they want for it. Fine. Just don't piss down our backs as users and tell us it's raining. Or maybe more accurately, piss down our backs and tell us that it's a new miracle ointment that improves your complexion, cures the common cold, and alleviates social anxiety disorder! This isn't being done for our benefit, so please don't tell us that it is.
-
Which, honestly, I wouldn't even have that much of a problem with. It's the fact that instead of simply raising the price, they created yet another layer of obfuscation and complexity as to what their stuff actually costs. Buying from Adobe is like walking into an Apple store and being told that an iMac starts at $3,999, but I can get an iMac bundled with a MacBook Air and an iPad and a couple iPhones and a bunch of random accessories for only $4,000! <i>Or</i> I could rent all this crap for yet another price... wow, what a generous offer, guys.
Hey, here's a crazy idea: make a product and sell it for an honest, consistant price, instead of using your pricing structure to coerce customers into buying a bunch of stuff they don't need or want (but hey, you're getting a great deal on it!). And to be clear, this isn't some message board bitching about how Adobe are a bunch of jerks for not pricing pro grade software for my amateur grade budget. This isn't about how I deserve to be able to buy Photoshop at whatever price I deem fair. If they want to charge a high price, well, they're the ones who invested in the software and they can charge as much as they want for it. Fine. Just don't piss down our backs as users and tell us it's raining. Or maybe more accurately, piss down our backs and tell us that it's a new miracle ointment that's going to that improves your complexion, cures the common cold, and alleviates the social anxiety disorder! This isn't being done for our benefit, so please don't tell us that it is.
I wholeheartedly agree. Well said.
-
Except that the quantum of this price increase is pretty huge.
In June 2010, nearly 18 months ago, I paid just under $400 to upgrade from PSCS3 Extended to PSCS5 extended. I'm not exactly sure of Adobe's historic timeline for new versions of PS but let's say for argument sake that it's about 15 months. Like many who've commented here, I upgrade every other version; so every 30 months. That puts my annual cost at about $160 (excluding the original purchase price). And the actual timeline is probably a bit longer than 15 months so the actual annual cost is a bit lower still.
Under the new scheme, I have to upgrade every version. Assuming the upgrade cost remains at about $400 my annual cost is going to double to $320 for the perpetual license. A 100% increase. And I think that assumption on upgrade pricing staying steady is a pipedream. It'll likely be closer to the subscription cost. But if I want to go with the subscription version my annual cost is going to be $588 ($49/month for PS Extended). That's a nearly 300% increase in price over my current cost and an 84% increase over the perpetual license cost based on the last price I paid.
Adobe's having its problems. Stock price is down. Financial performance isn't as good. It's cutting jobs. If company management thinks these kinds of price increases are the way out of its problems..... What other enterprise, except maybe mob protection rackets, could justify that kind of price increase? Hell, even my car insurance only went up about 40% in price this year. Thing is, I can shop around for car insurance. Editing software, mmmmmm........ not so much. Sort of like mob protection. ;D
-
The releases are typically 18 months apart, so "every second" would mean 3 years between, which based on $400- an upgrade is $133.33 p.a.
If that doubles (and note the price hasn't increased, just the valid period for upgrades has reduced), then it's $266.66 p.a.
For a business, that's an operating cost and so it would typically be before tax (although I realise tax systems work differently in different parts of the world), effectively make it even cheaper. But even at $266.66 p.a., how does that compare as a total of a pro's expenses for a year? A very small part of it - even for an amateur that's a small price.
-
We don't know that the price hasn't increased. The price for an upgrade to CS6 hasn't been announced, I don't believe.
Whether it's a business expense or not isn't overly relevant. Many professional photographers are finding their margins squeezed in recent years. It still represents a massive price increase. Businesses still need to manage expenses and budgets.
-
Except that the quantum of this price increase is pretty huge.
Err, Bob, you're the one who said that the price had increased...
This may or may not be a good move by Adobe in terms of overall revenue - no one here is in a position to know the answer to that, though we're all free to theorise to our heart's content.
However, when people say it's too expensive, I think it's reasonable to put it in relative terms. What percentage of your revenue, as a pro photog, is $266.66 p.a. before tax (if applicable)? More importanly, let's look at the quantum of the increase being $133.33 p.a. Then you make a commercial decision. You can look for an alternative or your can wait longer and then pay full price to upgrade (in which case you need to work out how long you need to wait to make that worthwhile).
-
I'm reading all this with a sense of increasing bewilderment. Rather than just with reference to price, isn't there another way of looking at it? I'm the first to admit that my PS skills are minimal in that I know what I need to know in order to convert files into either print or screen images in a manner more pleasing to the eye that would otherwise be the case straight from camera, that I have very little interest in technology for its own sake and that it's important to declare that I do this mainly for 'fun' or to pass the time and prevent possible/probable mental breakdown.
My question is this: do all professional photographers really need to upgrade even after every two lots of changes to the system? Is there not some sense of the Jones's here, some kind of fear of seeming to be old-fashioned or not quite up to scratch, that even if it's not broke there's the need felt to fix it, that it's a self-driven thing rather than any actual commercial need? If the latter, then I suggest the solution is clear: keep the card firmly inside the wallet, as some already suggest.
Rob C
-
I'm sure some do upgrade for its own sake, but equally there are plenty who close their minds to real benefits because of the fear that all they would be achieving is to keep pace with the Jones's.
-
I have no interest in Cloud anything software!
I pull what remaining hair i have left when using dropbox to share files, to have to rely on the internet ....no thanks.
-
My question is this: do all professional photographers really need to upgrade even after every two lots of changes to the system? Is there not some sense of the Jones's here, some kind of fear of seeming to be old-fashioned or not quite up to scratch, that even if it's not broke there's the need felt to fix it, that it's a self-driven thing rather than any actual commercial need? If the latter, then I suggest the solution is clear: keep the card firmly inside the wallet, as some already suggest.
Rob C
But that's the worst part, isn't it? So many photographers do skip a version or two of PS, because it's cheaper and because the older versions are still extremely capable. Now, Adobe seems to be tailoring it's upgrade policy to force people to upgrade every version.
I mean, I'm on CS3. I'd been planning on getting CS6 when it came out. So now what am I supposed to do? Go out and buy CS5 so that I'll then have the privilege of being able to buy CS6 of a reasonable price in a few months, or risk being stranded? It feels like extortion. Like I said, if they want more money from me, fine. But just raise the stupid price! Don't make me buy and and install an upgrade that I don't even want just so that I can get the one I do want. It's ridiculous, and it's no way to treat your customers.
-
Yes, Farmer, it is a price increase. By requiring users to upgrade every version, those who didn't do that in the past are going to be out of pocket more money than they have been. That's a price increase. Pure and simple.
I've already stated that the argument 'well, it's a business expense so who cares' is flawed. In terms of what proportion of my revenue it represents, I already addressed that too. If you think I'm actually going to give you numbers about my business, you're seriously mistaken. ::)
Rob, sure, there are some who upgrade just because. But I think many of the people in here who skip and upgrade every other version are actually making exactly that kind of decision you reference. For me, going from CS3 to CS4 made little sense. CS5; however, had a bit improvement in HDR processing and for me that was worthwhile in combination with the other improvements. You also shoot film, correct? Digital camera users have RAW files to deal with. Adobe only updates Adobe Camera Raw till the next version of PS comes out. You buy a new camera, you need to upgrade PS. You can, of course, convert the RAW files to DNG which would allow you to use previous versions of ACR but that's a very time consuming process. If you're shooting any kind of volume, that conversion to DNG will seriously slow down the workflow. And you're left with double the hard drive space eaten up which means additional cost.
-
Adobe only updates Adobe Camera Raw till the next version of PS comes out. You buy a new camera, you need to upgrade PS. You can, of course, convert the RAW files to DNG which would allow you to use previous versions of ACR but that's a very time consuming process. If you're shooting any kind of volume, that conversion to DNG will seriously slow down the workflow. And you're left with double the hard drive space eaten up which means additional cost.
This is a big deal for me as well, I hate LR with a passion (hate library system, hate black editing space, hate having to process in ProphotoRGB for an sRGB output, hate the GUI compared to ACR, etc, etc).
-
I'd be curious to know roughly what percentage of photographers using Photoshop are professionals as opposed to serious amateurs. And of the latter, what percentage are not independently wealthy.
I suspect there are a large number of us in this last category, who can't write PS off as a business expense, and Adobe's new system is going to lose a large number of us as customers.
Eric
-
I'd be curious to know roughly what percentage of photographers using Photoshop are professionals as opposed to serious amateurs. And of the latter, what percentage are not independently wealthy.
I suspect there are a large number of us in this last category, who can't write PS off as a business expense, and Adobe's new system is going to lose a large number of us as customers.
Eric
Well, just to quickly nitpick, most people who use PS aren't photographers.
It's also just going to exacerbate the piracy problem. Back when I was in photo school, we had maybe 60 students in one of our labs. The school's IT guy is addressing the group, and he asks "how many of you have Photoshop on your personal computer?". 60 hands go up. "And how many of you PAID for the copy on your personal computer?". Two hands. Maybe three. When you establish a piece of software that's as dominant as PS is, people feel like they need it. And if it's prohibitively expensive, well, people will find other was to acquire it.
Then he told us that the school had negotiated a great price with Adobe and basically every one of us ponied up for a legit version. What lesson can we learn from this? If you're Adobe, apparently nothing.
It's a little bit like the music industry wanting to sell expensive DRM crap; if people really want music and you're not giving them a reasonable way to access it, they'll find their own way to access it and you'll be left with nothing.
-
I'd wonder at that split now. Given the other tools available now for graphic arists that weren't when PS was first introduced I wonder if the split hasn't shifted in favour of photographers as users of PS.
Adobe isn't the only company that offers educational discounts. Most software makers do. Most students don't have as much money so the discount makes it more affordable. It's also a loyalty building tool. Get 'em young and keep 'em.
-
My objections are not that the software is cloud based but that the software is offered as a subscription.
The two biggest problems I see with the subscription model are:
1. No matter how long you subscribe or how much you've paid, you lose all rights to use the software if you allow your subscription to lapse. So basically you're giving Adobe lifetime right to your bank account.
2. Adobe has the right to change terms and prices of your subscription whenever they want. If you don't like the new terms, then you lose all rights to use the software.
A third possible problem is--what happens if Adobe goes out of business? Do you suddenly find yourself without access to your software? Don't suggest that this could never happen. The software world if full of dominant companies that no longer exist.
The whole idea of subscription seems to have no value added to the user.
Now if Adobe offered short term rental so that I could rent a particular piece of software when I needed it (same as I can rent a lens, camera, etc.) then there might be some value added. However, given the steep learning curves of most software, I doubt if software rental could be useful in most situations.
Les
-
Adobe isn't the only company that offers educational discounts. Most software makers do. Most students don't have as much money so the discount makes it more affordable. It's also a loyalty building tool. Get 'em young and keep 'em.
I'm not really commenting on student pricing; I'm more just making the point that there is a limit to what Adobe can charge people before they'll seek alternate solutions. If Adobe is really going to really and truly price itself out of the amateur market, then that opens up opportunities for someone else to get 'em young... and potentially to keep them even as they graduate to the pro ranks.
-
The releases are typically 18 months apart, so "every second" would mean 3 years between, which based on $400- an upgrade is $133.33 p.a.
Actually, the Creative Suite Release Schedule (http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-creative-suite-release-schedule-cs6.html) is now public with major versions every other year, and mid-cycle releases in the years between.
We don't know that the price hasn't increased. The price for an upgrade to CS6 hasn't been announced, I don't believe.
Yes, that's correct - no other upgrade pricing has been announced yet, and likely won't until the product is released.
-
However, when people say it's too expensive, I think it's reasonable to put it in relative terms. What percentage of your revenue, as a pro photog, is $266.66 p.a. before tax (if applicable)? More importanly, let's look at the quantum of the increase being $133.33 p.a. Then you make a commercial decision. You can look for an alternative or your can wait longer and then pay full price to upgrade (in which case you need to work out how long you need to wait to make that worthwhile).
You and others are correct that PS represents a small portion of overall business expenses for any professional photographer. But Mr Fisher is right; a more appropriate question is to ask yourself "how much is PS's price increasing compared to my margin increases, and those of the overall photographic and graphics industry?" If Adobe increases their prices more than you increase your margins, you are getting squeezed - perhaps even exploited given PS's dominance.
Just because PS doesn't represent a material business expense doesn't mean Adobe should be let off the hook if they engage in capricious pricing, or abuse their near-monopoly by price gouging.
-
Price gouging? Really? What nonsense. They set a price. The market either pays it or they don't. If the product is in enough demand, it will be paid for, if it's not, it won't. That's market pricing, not gouging. You don't need to use Photoshop, but for a lot of people it is the best option. If there were no alternative at all, then perhaps you'd have a point, but there are many alternatives. That they are considered to be not as good by many people is not Adobe's fault, unless you blame them for making a superior product?
Like everyone else, I prefer to pay as little as possible for something (taking into consideration all aspects of the purchase, including after sales support and so on), but I don't begrudge anyone for charging what they think their product or service is worth. I then have the option of buying or not. Sure, it's fine to communicate to the vendor if I'm not happy with the price, but I don't believe I have any right to expect them to set the price the way I want it. The upgrade policy used to be significantly better than most of the market - now it looks like they're bringing things back to be more in line with most of the market. Such is life. But it or don't.
-
Price gouging? Really? What nonsense. They set a price. The market either pays it or they don't. If the product is in enough demand, it will be paid for, if it's not, it won't. That's market pricing, not gouging. You don't need to use Photoshop, but for a lot of people it is the best option. If there were no alternative at all, then perhaps you'd have a point, but there are many alternatives. That they are considered to be not as good by many people is not Adobe's fault, unless you blame them for making a superior product?
Like everyone else, I prefer to pay as little as possible for something (taking into consideration all aspects of the purchase, including after sales support and so on), but I don't begrudge anyone for charging what they think their product or service is worth. I then have the option of buying or not. Sure, it's fine to communicate to the vendor if I'm not happy with the price, but I don't believe I have any right to expect them to set the price the way I want it. The upgrade policy used to be significantly better than most of the market - now it looks like they're bringing things back to be more in line with most of the market. Such is life. But it or don't.
I don't really dispute any of that. It doesn't change my mind that what Adobe is doing in regards to their pricing structure is bad for their customers and ultimately it's going to be bad for them. If the stock starts recovering and they stop laying off large chunks of their workforce, I'll be wrong and that'll be great. But right now this looks to me like a company that's been going backwards and that will to continue to go backwards for the foreseeable future.
-
Price gouging? Really? What nonsense. They set a price. The market either pays it or they don't. If the product is in enough demand, it will be paid for, if it's not, it won't. That's market pricing, not gouging. You don't need to use Photoshop, but for a lot of people it is the best option. If there were no alternative at all, then perhaps you'd have a point, but there are many alternatives. That they are considered to be not as good by many people is not Adobe's fault, unless you blame them for making a superior product?
Like everyone else, I prefer to pay as little as possible for something (taking into consideration all aspects of the purchase, including after sales support and so on), but I don't begrudge anyone for charging what they think their product or service is worth. I then have the option of buying or not. Sure, it's fine to communicate to the vendor if I'm not happy with the price, but I don't believe I have any right to expect them to set the price the way I want it. The upgrade policy used to be significantly better than most of the market - now it looks like they're bringing things back to be more in line with most of the market. Such is life. But it or don't.
Go and re-read what I wrote before throwing a fit.
-
I did, and I'm not throwing a fit, but when you start tossing around terms like price gouging I think it's just silly - it's nothing of the sort.
-
I did, and I'm not throwing a fit, but when you start tossing around terms like price gouging I think it's just silly - it's nothing of the sort.
I qualified such statements with ifs and perhapses, and the mention of "near" monopoly. The world is not a black-and-white place like many darkroom guys would prefer.
-
Trust my workflow to a monthly subscription? Not a chance. Not even if it were free.
...I'd be willing to bet that if Adobe does this, Nik, or some other outfit will hustle to fill the yawning gap Adobe's going to leave behind.
Bingo. CS5 will serve us well for several years at least. More than enough time for Developer X to fill Adobe's increasingly narrow shoes.
-
Hello again everyone, thought you would be interested in the new article we just published on the policy change. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic.
Adobe’s New Upgrade Policy for CS6: What Does It Mean for You? [Poll] (http://prodesigntools.com/new-adobe-upgrade-policy-cs5-cs6-poll.html)
-
I do not like the idea at all. I also am one of the users who typically upgrade every other version. I just upgraded from CS3 to CS5 this month.
I really am against having a "subscription" to software. But, I am not a working professional. If I were a working pro, then it probably would not matter as much...or even matter at all.
I always would rather purchase something than to "rent" it. A subscription is renting.
On the contrary, a working pro is dependent on 100% up-time. Anything that requires constant connection to the network and/or periodic re-authorization represents increased risk of system failure at a crucial moment, resulting in the potential loss of the project..
-
On the contrary, a working pro is dependent on 100% up-time. Anything that requires constant connection to the network and/or periodic re-authorization represents increased risk of system failure at a crucial moment, resulting in the potential loss of the project..
I agree with you, eliminating as many loss causing valuables is paramount. Do you do agree that you always have a risk of failure at a crucial moment? The risk is always there. The loss of an internet connection would not have shut me down when I was still a working pro. I always had a plan B. I would still have my version of CS5 on my workstation. I would not depend on the internet to have Photoshop. I also would never depend on the internet for sole storage of a project.
I was not aware that the next version of Photoshop would require a constant network connection. And, how would not re-authorizing Photoshop cause an increased risk of system failure at any moment?
-
I was not aware that the next version of Photoshop would require a constant network connection.
It's FUD: it doesn't require constant network connection, and neither does the subscription model which only requires monthly online re-activation - and I wouldn't be surprised if Adobe will have phone activation soon like MS does with Windows.
-
I agree with you, eliminating as many loss causing valuables is paramount. Do you do agree that you always have a risk of failure at a crucial moment? The risk is always there. The loss of an internet connection would not have shut me down when I was still a working pro. I always had a plan B. I would still have my version of CS5 on my workstation. I would not depend on the internet to have Photoshop. I also would never depend on the internet for sole storage of a project.
I was not aware that the next version of Photoshop would require a constant network connection. And, how would not re-authorizing Photoshop cause an increased risk of system failure at any moment?
Doubtful that it will require a constant web connection but it certainly will need to be connected when the rental software performs its periodic authorization and will one be to say with any certainty exactly when that will occur? And if one is storing one's files on the Cloud, a web connection will certainly be required any time you need to access them. The Cloud model for actual software (Office 365 Live, for example, in contrast to rental such as Photoshop's licensing scheme) turns the user's PC into a mere smart terminal and in those cases the software DOES depend on having a constant internet connection, it won't function without it.
-
For me this change is infuriating. I upgraded from PS7 to CS2 and then to CS5. I was tempted to buy Lightroom by a half price offer and the fact that its cheaper than PS to upgrade, thinking in future I would upgrade LR regularly and PS when absolutely necessary. No way am I going to upgrade PS every time a new version comes out. I will either do one last upgrade to CS6, depending on price, and that's it, or stick with CS5 for good. I will probably increasingly look to other software to do specific things beyond LR capabilities e.g stitching, HDR. It will be interesting to see how far future versions of GIMP will meet the needs of those who don't need PS that often.
-
It will be interesting to see how far future versions of GIMP will meet the needs of those who don't need PS that often.
GIMP does pretty much everything PS does already, and does some things earlier and better than PS - for example, GIMP had content-aware fill years before PS did. GIMP's main shortcoming is lack of 16-bit editing, but 3.0 will fix that. Although no release date has been given, I suspect it'll be around CS 6.
-
The GIMP is still lacking in colour management, isn't it? That's a significant shortcoming. I'm guessing it probably doesn't have anything like Smart Objects or image stacks? How's the UFRaw interface compared with ACR?
-
Maybe I'm one of the few in these parts that uses Bibble Pro, but their upgrade pricing is really very reasonable. Since 2006 I've upgraded twice, from the "lite" to the "pro" version, and then from version 4 to 5. The value of doing so has been remarkable compared to Photoshop. During that time it's supported a bunch of new cameras and added a considerable number of helpful and productive features. And you can use it on more than one type of OS with the same license, which is rare.
The biggest downside is that it's hardly ever mentioned in product tutorials, like the From Camera to Print and Screen. And it lacks in some other respects too, like plugins from the big names. For instance if the Nik U-point technology were integrated into it's powerful layer feature, it would be mighty tough to beat.
-
The GIMP is still lacking in colour management, isn't it? That's a significant shortcoming. I'm guessing it probably doesn't have anything like Smart Objects or image stacks? How's the UFRaw interface compared with ACR?
I wasn't thinking of using it for raw conversion - how would lack of colour management impact on exporting a "developed" file as a TIFF (say) from Lightroom to GIMP to work on and then gonig back to LR for the print module?
-
The GIMP is still lacking in colour management, isn't it? That's a significant shortcoming. I'm guessing it probably doesn't have anything like Smart Objects or image stacks? How's the UFRaw interface compared with ACR?
I don't know, I haven't used it in a while, but looks like I will be soon. Don't know about Smart Objects or image stacks. GIMP does have color management (http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-imaging-color-management.html), though.
-
OK, that's new. It didn't the last time I looked at it. Looks like the UI has been improved a fair bit too. Nice.
-
OK, that's new. It didn't the last time I looked at it. Looks like the UI has been improved a fair bit too. Nice.
Yeah, that was other my deal breaker last time I looked at it, also. The other one was/is 16-bit editing, but thankfully that's going to be addressed.
-
Breaking (good) news! Big reversal on Adobe CS6 upgrade policy that should make everyone happy ...
Adobe Listens, Postpones CS6 Upgrade Policy Changes — CS3 & CS4 on Track (http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-cs6-new-upgrade-policy-changes-postponed-cs3-cs4.html)
-
For those who would like to read the informations directly from Adobe, see upgrade elibibility (http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/faq.html?anonymous_element_1=2.html#upgrade-eligibility) and upgrade policy (http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/faq/upgrade-policy.html).
-
Big reversal on Adobe CS6 upgrade policy that should make everyone happy ...
Except their customers who rushed out to upgrade to CS5 to keep on the upgrade treadmill.
-
Scary reading in this thread. I'm totally against the idea of working on a cloud, and I'm yet to feel limited by CS5 (or 3, for that matter), so as long as I keep a computer archaic enough to run it, I'm not too fussed about future tech making it obsolete.
It's a shame though, I hate the idea of The Cloud in ever single guise it has. It just seems like one gigantic data mine to me.
-
Scary reading in this thread. I'm totally against the idea of working on a cloud, and I'm yet to feel limited by CS5 (or 3, for that matter), so as long as I keep a computer archaic enough to run it, I'm not too fussed about future tech making it obsolete.
It's a shame though, I hate the idea of The Cloud in ever single guise it has. It just seems like one gigantic data mine to me.
I say down with The Cloud! I want all of my programs and data stored on my local machine. If they are to be backed up on a remote server, I want that to be a server I built with my own two hands, that is in a safe location which I control.