Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: johnvr on May 09, 2013, 04:56:59 pm

Title: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: johnvr on May 09, 2013, 04:56:59 pm
Michael seems to buy into Jeff Schewe's notion that PS was never developed for or aimed at amateur photographers. He also seems to believe that Adobe won't budge in its decision.

I think the rest of his piece is balanced overall, but I don't agree with those two notions.

I've always been an amateur and Adobe has marketed PS to me for years. This site, many others and numerous books have been written about PS for amateurs, with Adobe's consent. PS has an enormous amateur following. Instead of dropping all these clients, the company should have added the photography parts of PS to LR and leave the rest for the cloud.

Further, with Adobe's share price dropping since the announcement, the company must doubt the wisdom of its decision, or - at a minimum - the way it announced it. I actually think Adobe will backtrack on part of the cloud and, in the process, leave people like Schewe and Scott Kelby - defenders of mighty Adobe against us liitle people - alienated from their client base.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Gulag on May 09, 2013, 05:05:51 pm
From what I understand,  photographers represent very very small percentage in total Photoshop user base since the very beginning.  As the result, Adobe introduced Lightroom some years back exclusively for photographers, who don't do extensive retouching. In its total revenue pie, Photoshop has very small weight. Adobe's message is my way or highway. That's it.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7341/8724458350_778ca20017_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: michael on May 09, 2013, 05:08:46 pm
It isn't a question of my "buying into" anything. To my knowledge Adobe has never specifically targeted amateurs. They've been willing to sell to them, but they are not its target market for this product.

Adobe appears to be willing to sacrifice the non-pro market, and I seriously doubt that at this point they'll back-track. I could be wrong.

Michael
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: daws on May 09, 2013, 05:15:07 pm
It's not just the amateur photographers and "little people" who are saying No to Adobe's CC (Captive Customer) strategy.

From Jeff Tranberry's Adobe Photoshop blog (http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotcom/2013/05/answering-your-questions-about-photoshop-cc.html#JustPhotoshopAndLightroom):

Quote
Dave Kendall says:

Jeff,
You claim to be a nerd. That’s great. I’m a comic illustrator and general illustrator. I know many professional illustrators in the comic market. I have some news for you. The consensus is that the product guys like you and me love will not be produced on Adobe software for very much longer. I haven’t encountered any which will start to rent the tools they use every day. That’s a fact. A successful Batman artist has just downloaded a painter trial to prepare for the future without CS6. This guy has bought dozens of updates from adobe. I’ve bought 3 out of 4 since I bought my CS2 creative suite. A friend who runs a concept art studio is also opting out of subscription.

I really think you should check out Corel’s recent statement. It’s getting a great deal of interest, and it’s a far fairer and inclusive deal than anything you are offering. I found your replies to some users, that they should be more than prepared to hire their tools for 33 cents a day, while pushing the introductory price as the norm, to be utterly patronising, and downright insulting. Don’t take us for fools. We all know the real cost of this subscription model.

Creatives will find a way to create with or without Adobe. Have no doubt about that. However Adobe will not survive without us.
Dave
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jwstl on May 09, 2013, 05:19:29 pm
It isn't a question of my "buying into" anything. To my knowledge Adobe has never specifically targeted amateurs. They've been willing to sell to them, but they are not its target market for this product.

Adobe appears to be willing to sacrifice the non-pro market, and I seriously doubt that at this point they'll back-track. I could be wrong.

Michael

I agree. Photoshop and the Creative Suite have always been priced at a point that wouldn't appeal to the majority of amateurs. Sure, a large number of them (typically photographers with Photoshop) paid for it anyway but to Adobe that was just icing on the cake. I also suspect they believe the majority of amateurs using Photoshop are using pirated copies. They created Elements for amateurs, Lightroom for photographers, and the Creative Suite for graphic designers, web designers, video pros etc.
And, as Michael said, they appear to be sacrificing that icing on the cake for more of the cake itself.
Title: What most Photoshop buyers are, and CC student pricing
Post by: BJL on May 09, 2013, 05:24:04 pm
As to the amateur photographers and PhotoShop: whatever the intent, the fact appears to be that the great majority of PhotoShop and CS customers are not photographers, but instead are graphic designers and other species of "imaging professionals". More so if one weight various customer groups by the percentages of revenues they generate, because those other PhotoShop professionals more often keep the software at the latest version, and buy other parts of CS/CC besides just PhotoShop. So in terms of revenue and profits, us amateur photographers, and people who only use PS weekly or monthly rather than daily, are just not as important to Adobe as we would like to think.

As to student pricing, some details have been announced at http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/buying-guide.edu.html
In short: no discount below $20/month for PS only; a discount to $30/mo for the whole CC suite.

P. S. This could be a good time for Apple to announce Aperture 4, with a tag line like
"Just $80 down and no monthly payments."
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: davidgp on May 09, 2013, 05:24:57 pm
Hi,

Well, while I mostly agree with Michael view on the topic, I just have an small disagreement, when Michael says: "It seems to me that Adobe has decided that leaving some folks behind in the process may not be a bad thing. For example, piracy has always been a huge problem. Now, that will be much reduced." My view is that piracy will be the same.

Someone will pay one month license, download the installer, crack the app so it starts without calling the "mother ship" (as Michael defined), and they will put it in one of the many pirate sites available around internet... you will not be able to use the Cloud features, but I don't think that will worry too much to pirate users. In the dPreview interview one of the Adobe representatives already comments the same as me about this... Adobe is aware they are not fixing piracy with this.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: AFairley on May 09, 2013, 05:25:59 pm
I believe Michael is right about Adobe not backtracking.  (Remember the Netflix debacle a while back when they unbundled dvds and streaming, effectively almost doubling the cost of getting the same service and people left in droves?  Netflix now has more customers and is making more money than every.)

However, I believe Michael is wrong about piracy.  As long as there is an app that resides on the the PC and can run without realtime connection to an activation server it can be patched, and it will be by the hackers who take pride in defeating Adobe's protection schemes.  The level of piracy will either stay the same, or increase as marginal/occasional users who want PS-only features, layer masks for example, resort to piracy rather than pay subscription fees incommensurate with their actual use.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: johnvr on May 09, 2013, 05:27:21 pm
For what's it worth, I had this exchange earlier today with Jeffrey Tranberry at Adobe:

John says:
Got a question, Jeffrey, even though you have ignored me so far: on the Luminous Landscape forums, Jeff Schewe, a consultant to Adobe, says that Adobe was well aware of our coming anger, but that obviously Adobe doesnt care, because Photoshop isn’t now and never was aimed at us amateurs.
Now, I don’t know why you still have a job, seeing that you’re trying to placate an audience your company apparently couldn’t care less about, but since you are still here, is Jeff speaking the truth and nothing but the truth?
May 09, 2013 7:47 AM | Reply

Jeffrey Tranberry says:
Jeff Schewe’s views are his own. Photoshop’s strength is that is used by a wide variety of users – and I for one appreciate them all – and I know my teammates on the Photoshop and Lightroom development teams do as well. Most everyone on the development team are also users/avid photographers who use the products they create. They put a lot of love and hard work into the products they develop.
- Jeff
May 09, 2013 10:38 AM | Reply

John says:
Thank you, Jeffrey. I can only imagine the types of discussions taking place in house at Adobe right now.
May 09, 2013 11:12 AM | Reply
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: daws on May 09, 2013, 05:38:15 pm
I can only imagine the types of discussions taking place in house at Adobe right now.

Yep. And I can only imagine the number of creatives in house at Adobe who are seeing the continuing pushback from customers and another day of drop in Adobe's stock, and are thinking about updating their resumes.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: johnvr on May 09, 2013, 05:44:34 pm
Yep. And I can only imagine the number of creatives in house at Adobe who are seeing the continuing pushback from customers and another day of drop in Adobe's stock, and are thinking about updating their resumes.

If it wasn't for patents and non-compete clauses, those guys could pack up right now and get VC funding to build a comprehensive photography workflow package. You combine LR, parts of PS and some popular plugins, price it at around $300-$400 and you'd make a killing. Just listen to all of us whining about the demise of CS, we are basically begging a company we now hate to give us a chance to pay them in the future.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Alto on May 09, 2013, 05:50:04 pm
Hi All

Michael if you sell to me I,m your customer regardless of who I may be .

Jon
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: yaredna on May 09, 2013, 05:52:42 pm
How about PROs who care about $20/month, and already own CS5.5 or 6, and usually upgrade once every 18 month for $199 ? Now it is going to be $360 every 18 months, why wouldn't they be upset with a price increase of 80% overnight, and removing a choice (they were able to DECIDE when to upgrade in the past, now they will have to pay the $360 every 18 months).

Why wouldn't they be upset ?

Michael Reichmann, for the record, is a professional: he makes money out of his photography work (website, training videos, workshops, selling prints, books). If he doesn't like it, many PROs also don't like it.

Yes, Adobe can make the same amount of money by charging twice and selling only to half of their customer base. Usually, this strategy backfires, and the few left customers resent this uncalled for "price increase" of 80%-100%.

Adobe cornered themselves. Why not leave the option and let the market decide ? What was wrong with that approach ?
Title: Re: What most Photoshop buyers are, and CC student pricing
Post by: bjanes on May 09, 2013, 06:05:31 pm
As to student pricing, some details have been announced at http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/buying-guide.edu.html
In short: no discount below $20/month for PS only; a discount to $30/mo for the whole CC suite.

I just committed to a one year subscription to Creative Cloud Student and Teacher Edition for US $19.99 per month. This for the whole creative cloud suite. I thought it was a good deal since it also includes Lightroom as well as the storage space on the cloud. Also the Photoshop is the extended version.

I am a photo enthusiast who also uses photography in medical work where the extended version has some useful features.

Digital photography at the enthusiast level is not inexpensive. A few years ago I paid $5000 for the Nikon D3 and another $3300 for the D800e, which requires a couple of Ziess lenses at $2000 each. By comparison, my outlay for the CS cloud is modest, but I would not have paid the full price, since like most on the forum, I use Lightroom for the bulk of my work.

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: ButchM on May 09, 2013, 06:20:54 pm
For what's it worth, I had this exchange earlier today with Jeffrey Tranberry at Adobe:

John says:
Got a question, Jeffrey, even though you have ignored me so far: on the Luminous Landscape forums, Jeff Schewe, a consultant to Adobe, says that Adobe was well aware of our coming anger, but that obviously Adobe doesnt care, because Photoshop isn’t now and never was aimed at us amateurs.
Now, I don’t know why you still have a job, seeing that you’re trying to placate an audience your company apparently couldn’t care less about, but since you are still here, is Jeff speaking the truth and nothing but the truth?
May 09, 2013 7:47 AM | Reply

Jeffrey Tranberry says:
Jeff Schewe’s views are his own. Photoshop’s strength is that is used by a wide variety of users – and I for one appreciate them all – and I know my teammates on the Photoshop and Lightroom development teams do as well. Most everyone on the development team are also users/avid photographers who use the products they create. They put a lot of love and hard work into the products they develop.
- Jeff
May 09, 2013 10:38 AM | Reply

John says:
Thank you, Jeffrey. I can only imagine the types of discussions taking place in house at Adobe right now.
May 09, 2013 11:12 AM | Reply

FWIW Tranberry is right ... he and the great team of engineers that create Adobe software do care about their products. Those of us who are unappreciative with the CC licensing model don't have any issue with those folks. Unfortunately, they don't to make the call on how their efforts are licensed.

Now, when Tranberry can assure us that the executives that do make these sweeping and vast decisions really do care about ALL of their customers, THEN, I'll take his consolation a bit more seriously.
Title: CC student pricing, and professionals who cannot afford $1/day
Post by: BJL on May 09, 2013, 06:29:05 pm
I just committed to a one year subscription to Creative Cloud Student and Teacher Edition for US $19.99 per month. ...
Oh yes, I omitted that first year discount, after which it goes up to $30/mo. And I agree that for a sufficiently frequent user, $1/day is very manageable: remember what film and processing used to cost! Frankly, I cannot really envision people who make their living from photography being distressed by an expense of $20/month, or about $1 per working day, for an important tool --- most working people spend more than that just on the daily commute. Netflix is a great example of where this will likely turn out for Adobe.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 09, 2013, 06:37:15 pm
This debate is getting wrongly biased.

The protest against the CC model is not coming from amateurs vs professionals, it is also not coming from photographers vs graphic designers/other types of PS users. The current reaction is coming from individual users vs corporate customers.

I know many freelance pro graphic designers in Japan who use PS and Illustrator are just as outraged as I am by the decision of Adobe.

I know for a fact that those users were core targets of Adobe, and although I Adobe will probably not be willing to share their customers stats, my guess is that individual users represent a significant chunk of their user base.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Gulag on May 09, 2013, 06:40:01 pm
What Adobe didn't reveal in the first place is that they know they're running out of fresh new customers. Of course, stock market took notice  .
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: plugsnpixels on May 09, 2013, 06:57:02 pm
Re: Adobe stock. Indeed it is currently headed downward, but if you look at the wide view (http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ADBE+Interactive#symbol=adbe;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;), it's right near an all-time high, and it has seen much deeper lows. FWIW.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Dave (Isle of Skye) on May 09, 2013, 07:05:53 pm
Instead of calling it 'Photoshop', perhaps we should now call it 'Photostop' - yes folks, you heard it here first  ;D

Please forgive my corny humour during this moment of collective agony that we all seem to be going through.

::)

Dave
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Adam L on May 09, 2013, 07:11:18 pm
Someone will pay one month license, download the installer, crack the app so it starts without calling the "mother ship" (as Michael defined), and they will put it in one of the many pirate sites available around internet... you will not be able to use the Cloud features, but I don't think that will worry too much to pirate users. In the dPreview interview one of the Adobe representatives already comments the same as me about this... Adobe is aware they are not fixing piracy with this.
Adobe can make it more difficult to use by mucking with the processing algorithms if the app doesn't call in to mom periodically.  A make my picture look like crap button would do the trick.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Colorwave on May 09, 2013, 07:13:20 pm
I think that the whole pro vs. amateur argument is quite tangential to the primary debate.  It is really about perpetual license vs. rented license, and that boils down to certainty vs. uncertainty.  Talking about teaser rates, or even the current full price rates is really just a sucker move, because in five years time, when nobody wants to move backward and revert to CS6, and new computers may not even be able to run it, the ring will already be well embedded in user's noses.  Thinking about this year, next year, or even the year after is exactly what Adobe wants customers to focus on.  The scary part of the proposition is farther out, when the screws begin to tighten and the options diminish.

Don't fall into the trap about the here and now or short term future.  Think about the paradigm shift.  The rest of the argument is more appropriate to car dealerships, when the salesperson or finance manager guides the discussion to serve their purposes.  How can you afford to pass up a deal like this?  
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: djoy on May 09, 2013, 07:21:58 pm
I am one of those firmly opposed to this. It's taking the tools away from the freelancers and up-coming artists, and handing them back to corporations who can afford the new licensing terms.

One point Adobe seem to believe, and that Michael re-iterated (whether or not he personally believes it) in his article, is that this move will reduce piracy.

Not a chance.

The major reason for the considerable piracy of Adobe's products is the price. The price just went up. By a lot. Oh, and they're not selling it anymore, they're only leasing it.

The subscription binaries won't be any more difficult for the hackers to crack than the perpetual ones, and now without a buy option, those who would pirate it have even more reason to do so. Piracy of Adobe's product is going to increase significantly over this.

Stupid stupid move Adobe....

Myself, I have a perpetual license for PS CS6, I am now considering a purchase of a Creative Suite Production Premium package in addition, covering the titles I want to use ( I don't want and will never use the entire Suite, I use 3 or 4 applications, tops ), and I will be cancelling my existing CC subscription halfway through its year (I bought it on discount as an existing user as a treat to myself with the intention of cancelling after one year). Cancelling early will cost me 50% of the remaining cost, but I will save the other 50% towards buying that perpetual license for the PP Suite. I'll use that until it's no longer viable, and look at alternatives, all the while watching Adobe's stock price plummet.
Title: Re: What most Photoshop buyers are, and CC student pricing
Post by: johnvr on May 09, 2013, 07:26:41 pm
I just committed to a one year subscription to Creative Cloud Student and Teacher Edition for US $19.99 per month. This for the whole creative cloud suite. I thought it was a good deal since it also includes Lightroom as well as the storage space on the cloud. Also the Photoshop is the extended version.

I am a photo enthusiast who also uses photography in medical work where the extended version has some useful features.

Digital photography at the enthusiast level is not inexpensive. A few years ago I paid $5000 for the Nikon D3 and another $3300 for the D800e, which requires a couple of Ziess lenses at $2000 each. By comparison, my outlay for the CS cloud is modest, but I would not have paid the full price, since like most on the forum, I use Lightroom for the bulk of my work.

Regards,

Bill

The point to me is not the cost. It's the fact that you're basically locked in.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: MarkM on May 09, 2013, 07:54:23 pm
Gotta say—I mostly agree with Jeff on this one.

Smart companies will try to segment their market so they can price appropriately to each one. I do this as a photographer—most photographers do both for stock and assignment pricing. It's a little surprising that Adobe has been selling the same product at the same price to such a diverse market for all these years. They seem willing to endure a little pain to fix that now. I would expect Adobe to start beefing up Elements in the future and tailoring non-pro apps a little more accurately at the non-pro market.

For me personally, if I can't find a way to pass on an extra $50/month to clients, I have bigger issues. I'll probably raise my retouching/raw conversion rates a bit and call it good. I'm used to planning for recurring costs: insurance, utilities, web hosting, etc. Honestly, this adds certainty to my costs rather than uncertainty. It's easier to factor this charge into the cost of doing business than an occasional lump sum.

Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: johnvr on May 09, 2013, 08:07:22 pm
Gotta say—I mostly agree with Jeff on this one.

Smart companies will try to segment their market so they can price appropriately to each one. I do this as a photographer—most photographers do both for stock and assignment pricing. It's a little surprising that Adobe has been selling the same product at the same price to such a diverse market for all these years. They seem willing to endure a little pain to fix that now. I would expect Adobe to start beefing up Elements in the future and tailoring non-pro apps a little more accurately at the non-pro market.

For me personally, if I can't find a way to pass on an extra $50/month to clients, I have bigger issues. I'll probably raise my retouching/raw conversion rates a bit and call it good. I'm used to planning for recurring costs: insurance, utilities, web hosting, etc. Honestly, this adds certainty to my costs rather than uncertainty. It's easier to factor this charge into the cost of doing business than an occasional lump sum.



Couple of points:

- PS has become one piece of bloated software with many features photographers don't need. It would have made sense if they had separated the photo stuff from the rest and added it to LR or an upscale version of Elements;

- I agree that a pro should be able to deal with the pricing, but pros also shoot personal work that they might want to work on after they leave the business. Photography is a passion for many, so it's unlike a professional project where you couldn't care less after it's shipped to the client and paid for.






Title: Re: What most Photoshop buyers are, and CC student pricing
Post by: digitaldog on May 09, 2013, 08:09:26 pm
The point to me is not the cost. It's the fact that you're basically locked in.

Only if you allow yourself to be locked in, you don't have to.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Schewe on May 09, 2013, 09:09:36 pm
Got a question, Jeffrey, even though you have ignored me so far: on the Luminous Landscape forums, Jeff Schewe, a consultant to Adobe, says that Adobe was well aware of our coming anger, but that obviously Adobe doesnt care, because Photoshop isn’t now and never was aimed at us amateurs.

Just to be precise, I'm pretty sure I never said that Adobe doesn't care...can you point me to a port where I said that? What I have said is that Adobe is a developer of pro apps and that they aren't very good at dealing with amateurs. Photoshop was never really aimed at photographers specifically and photographers make up a small % of the overall user base. Does that mean I think Adobe doesn't care? Nope...just that in the past and currently, they aren't very good at dealing with photographers (I could point out some previous actions that prove that)

As for Jeff Tranberry, I know and really like Jeff T...he is doing a great job of asking as a customer advocate within Adobe...and Jeff's job is tough enough on a good day, it's miserable these days. And jeff's response was spot on...my opinions are my own. The are not approved nor sanctioned by Adobe (and likely a source of agitation)...but note, Jeff didn't say I was wrong...
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 09, 2013, 09:45:28 pm
What I have said is that Adobe is a developer of pro apps and that they aren't very good at dealing with amateurs.

As mentioned already, the decision of Adobe is also pissing off a high number of free lance professional designers who use PS and illustrator.

This really has nothing to do with pro or non pro it is about corporate or non corporate.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: johnvr on May 09, 2013, 10:02:39 pm
Just to be precise, I'm pretty sure I never said that Adobe doesn't care...can you point me to a port where I said that? What I have said is that Adobe is a developer of pro apps and that they aren't very good at dealing with amateurs. Photoshop was never really aimed at photographers specifically and photographers make up a small % of the overall user base. Does that mean I think Adobe doesn't care? Nope...just that in the past and currently, they aren't very good at dealing with photographers (I could point out some previous actions that prove that)

As for Jeff Tranberry, I know and really like Jeff T...he is doing a great job of asking as a customer advocate within Adobe...and Jeff's job is tough enough on a good day, it's miserable these days. And jeff's response was spot on...my opinions are my own. The are not approved nor sanctioned by Adobe (and likely a source of agitation)...but note, Jeff didn't say I was wrong...

Agree on Jeff. My conclusion that Adobe doesn't care is based on what you wrote in the 'Adobe misunderstood' thread. I quote the particular part below, so others can see for themselves if my take on your words is something they agree with or not:
"Did Adobe do the CC initiative purely to piss people off? Nope...they new people were gonna be pissed. They were warned by many (myself included). They knew they would be castigated by the press and the vocal non-pro market. They did it anyway because they (Adobe) honestly believes tat this is the best way of addressing their core market, professional now and in the future. I tend to agree with the decision–even if that is across party lines and I'm attacked from the "other side". Ya know what? I don't care...I say what I think and don't care what people think of me. I really, really don't. I call it as I see it and perfectly happy to live with the consequences...It would be a lot easier to just toe the party line and join with the "Adobe Haters Club". Since I've got good inside info and I know where the bodies are buried, I could do Adobe a lot of damage. But I don't because, well I've got a lot of friends who work with Adobe and I know Adobe really and truly tries to do what they think the right thing is to do. But heh, nobody is right all the time. Maybe Adobe has screwed the pooch big time...time will tell.

What they did was actually very brave...it took a lot of guts for Adobe to do what they believed was the right thing to do for Adobe and the pro marketplace. I respect them for being able to do the hard thing, draw a line in the sand and say, this is what we believe and we are gonna do what we believe regardless of how loud the opponents become.

I get that non-pros don't like the CC decision...I also get that the pros are on the fence with an attitude, prove to us that the CC will be useful and important and helps use get the job done and make more money–remember pro users are in the same boat as Adobe, it's a business and the bottom line is, well the bottom line. Pros don't work in design out of the goodness in their hearts, they do what they do to make a living–same as Adobe. That's the capitalist way.

If you are not a pro, not a capitalist in your use of Adobe software, well, let me just point something out that may not (will not) make you happy, Adobe doesn't make Photoshop for you...the fact that so many non-pros have bought Photoshop is not really Adobe's fault. It's not like they've ever really tried to go after the non-pro market. All of Adobe's marketing and advertising is directed towards the pros...because that's the market Adobe knows."
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Zeitz on May 09, 2013, 10:09:15 pm
Michael and Jeff, am I to assume that amateurs don't deserve layers?  Or will layers be added to Lightroom?  Adobe is noble about .dng being universal.  What do I do with my .psd files?  Any hope for CS6 Light that is aimed at photographers and not graphics professionsals?
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: MarkM on May 09, 2013, 10:19:31 pm
Michael and Jeff, am I to assume that amateurs don't deserve layers?  Or will layers be added to Lightroom?  Adobe is noble about .dng being universal.  What do I do with my .psd files?  Any hope for CS6 Light that is aimed at photographers and not graphics professionsals?

Where did you get the idea that you 'deserved' something. Do you also deserve f/2.8 lenses? 8 frames/second? carbon-fiber tripods? Eizo monitors?

You can open psd files in gimp, paintshop pro, Elements, and I imagine may others.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Philip Weber on May 09, 2013, 10:23:11 pm
Hi Jeff - I am copying you on a reply I just posted to a comment by Eric Chan in another LL forum. I'm posting this here, knowing it's not your call, and also cognizant of the fact you're not the one making these decisions. Still, this seems so simple to me, I must be missing something. Why couldn't the following work?

Thanks!
Phil


Hi Eric - In regards to your comment below (bold emphasis mine):

"What Adobe has committed to doing is continuing to provide ACR for CS6, as long as CS6 continues to be sold. "

This doesn't ease my concerns. When it's discontinued in 12-24 months, what then? As long as LR stays the way it is, I'm ok but if it all goes CC and PS6 is canned, what then, many of us wonder.

Eric, as a "little guy" (avid amateur photographer, who loyally purchased each new upgrade) I'd really be ok with the CC idea if ONE component changed.

Why can't folks like us commit to a 1-2 year CC subscription with the understanding that, at the end of the 1 or 2 year commitment, whatever we've "rented" we keep?

Knowing that would make all the difference to me and many who might worry about their income changing, Adobe prices going up, lack of use/need, etc. If that could happen, I'd sign up ASAP. Without it, I don't think it makes sense (for me) to rent an app knowing there's no way out and, possibly, nothing to return to after a few years.

I'm not asking Adobe to change their decision...just amend it to make this possible and I'd bet most of the angst would evaporate.

Thanks for considering this suggestion and for all you do (and people like Jeff Schewe do, who's seemingly at war over this with 1/2 the forum!) for the photographic community.

Phil Weber
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Peter McLennan on May 09, 2013, 11:34:27 pm
Why can't folks like us commit to a 1-2 year CC subscription with the understanding that, at the end of the 1 or 2 year commitment, whatever we've "rented" we keep?

Let's see...  Two years at $50 a month is about $1200.  Not a bad price for the entire suite of programs.

Ain't never gonna happen.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Schewe on May 09, 2013, 11:39:52 pm
Hi Eric - In regards to your comment below (bold emphasis mine):

"What Adobe has committed to doing is continuing to provide ACR for CS6, as long as CS6 continues to be sold. "

This doesn't ease my concerns. When it's discontinued in 12-24 months, what then? As long as LR stays the way it is, I'm ok but if it all goes CC and PS6 is canned, what then, many of us wonder.

Look, Photoshop CS6 going forward, I honestly think nobody inside or outside of Adobe can know that far out. It's an unusual policy change to make ACR 8.x work in CS6. After CS6, who knows? I suspect nobody at this stage...

However, the free DNG Converter is a promise of long term new camera support...
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: JhnMhn on May 09, 2013, 11:45:44 pm
There are a plethora of reasons to reject Adobe's phenomenally ill-conceived move. I've made comments on other threads and won't repeat them. A very good summation of the reasons to object can be found here: http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130509_3-AdobeCloud-summary.html.

Especially disturbing is the legal agreement that Adobe apparently hopes we don't read with intellect engaged, for more on that: http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html

I have made my living from photography for several decades and always read contracts carefully, this is the worst one I have ever come across. I would never agree to it.

For a growing number of us, the post photoshop era is now irreversibly here.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: MarkM on May 10, 2013, 12:10:23 am
Especially disturbing is the legal agreement that Adobe apparently hopes we don't read with intellect engaged, for more on that: http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html

I have made my living from photography for several decades and always read contracts carefully, this is the worst one I have ever come across. I would never agree to it.


I think if you compare Adobe's terms to something like Photoshelter  — you'll find very similar language: no objectionable material, they can change the terms, they can't guarantee uptime, etc. Most of this is boilerplate. The blogger is really stretching for something to object to.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: daws on May 10, 2013, 12:14:40 am
Especially disturbing is the legal agreement that Adobe apparently hopes we don't read with intellect engaged, for more on that: http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html

It's inconceivable that the legal departments of the corporate users Adobe is targeting would allow their companies to enter into such an agreement.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: plugsnpixels on May 10, 2013, 12:17:21 am
A visual for photographers.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Colorwave on May 10, 2013, 12:18:58 am
I think if you compare Adobe's terms to something like Photoshelter  — you'll find very similar language: no objectionable material, they can change the terms, they can't guarantee uptime, etc. Most of this is boilerplate. The blogger is really stretching for something to object to.

What point is there in comparing the language of an online photo storage and marketing service with the terms of a ubiquitous, near monopoly digital content creation suite that no longer offers perpetual licenses?  

You mentioned the trivial nature of the monthly cost as being a non-issue for you earlier.  Does nothing about putting your work in the hands of a company that has no practical competition worry you, even a little bit?  You truly have no concerns about what they might do to change the terms in five or ten years, once they have established a irreversible dependency that you are unable to break?
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: MarkM on May 10, 2013, 12:31:54 am
What point is there in comparing the language of an online photo storage and marketing service with the terms of a ubiquitous, near monopoly digital content creation suite that no longer offers perpetual licenses?  

You mentioned the trivial nature of the monthly cost as being a non-issue for you earlier.  Does nothing about putting your work in the hands of a company that has no practical competition worry you, even a little bit?  You truly have no concerns about what they might do to change the terms in five or ten years, once they have established a irreversible dependency that you are unable to break?

My point was, that despite the shock displayed by that article, these terms of service are neither unusual nor shocking. You'll find similar language with all software and services.

Exactly what kind of agreement do you think they should write? "We will never change our terms of service" "We guarantee this service will be around until the sun explodes" Doesn't every company on earth have terms that reserve the right to change them?

Whatever dependency I may have in the future I already have now. These tool are integral to my business. I have to stay up to date with them. If something better comes along, or I have to switch it doesn't make much difference whether it's the creative cloud or perpetual license. Switching will be painful either way. It's true with my camera gear too.It was true moving from film to digital.


Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Isaac on May 10, 2013, 01:09:57 am
Or will layers be added to Lightroom? ... What do I do with my .psd files?

Photoshop Elements / Creating layers (http://help.adobe.com/en_US/photoshopelements/using/WS287f927bd30d4b1f-f216bde12e28ad1224-7fff.html#WS287f927bd30d4b1f-f216bde12e28ad1224-7ffc)

.PSD File and Photoshop Elements (http://forums.adobe.com/message/4451508)


Any hope for CS6 Light that is aimed at photographers and not graphics professionals?

"Adobe® Photoshop® Elements 11 — the #1 selling consumer photo editing software (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements.html)"

Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Dave (Isle of Skye) on May 10, 2013, 06:47:13 am
You know I was thinking about this last night, and I actually think the issue is far bigger than corporate Vs amateur user, or perpetual Vs rented licensing etc. I think this will affect the WHOLE photography and camera market around the world, from camera sales, computer sales and laptops, external storage etc, right through to book sales and website advertising revenues.

Lets imagine some time in the not to far distant future, I already own a camera such as the 5d Mk III, I am running CS6 (which is now no longer supported by Adobe) and I don't want/can't afford to sign up to the cloud, as I am a small business or amateur photographer and need to keep costs to a minimum.

Canon then releases the 5D Mk IV, which has a couple more mega pixels of photo sites on the sensor and a few more bells and whistles added, as they did last time from Mk II to the Mk III. But what may have been an obvious upgrade route to me, has now become a dilemma, because as I already own a camera in the Mk III that works with CS6 just how I want it to and with my preferred workflow and I am happy with the situation, or I can forego all that and choose to buy the new Canon and try to find a fudged way around to accessing every single image that I create on it, as that upgrade will necessitate a complete change to my preferred workflow or the cost of buying into the cloud and all that entails - so the choice boils down to this - do I upgrade to the new camera, or do I stick with what I have already got, for both camera, software, computer system and manuals, guides and plug-ins etc?

I would most likely stick with what I have got and Canon loses a sale, as well as all the small businesses and training companies and book sellers and software developers etc., as do the computer manufacturers and O/S developers, that I would have also spent money with and who rely on me upgrading my camera and computer system and plug-ins every few years or so, they have all now lost sales.

Fair enough, I know that at some point in the future when something that cannot be replaced has broken, that I would be forced into some kind of an upgrade, but assuming the above scenario is correct, this would be postponed until I absolutely had to and not before.

I think this scenario is not going to be far from reality for many thousands of photographers around the world and as such, Adobe are going to put quite a few people out of business with this move, so even though it may be good for them, in the long run, a significant section of the smaller associated businesses will surely suffer.

Dave
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 10, 2013, 07:07:16 am
"Adobe® Photoshop® Elements 11 — the #1 selling consumer photo editing software (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements.html)"

It came preinstalled on my Dell laptop, unavoidable, I never used it.
Also, don't forget; There are lies, damned lies, and statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics).

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on May 10, 2013, 07:33:09 am

"Adobe® Photoshop® Elements 11 — the #1 selling consumer photo editing software (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements.html)"


When I first made the move to digital some years ago, I started off with Elements (I forget which version # it was).  Isn't the major question that WE should all be asking is whether Elements will be upgraded to include the PS features that we all regularly use and that it is coupled seamlessly with LR.  There are so many PS things (and I do own PS CS6) that I will never use and yes it is a bloated piece of software.  There are some editing tools and approaches that are better handled by PS than LR which I suspect is why there is so much outrage from the photography community.  An expressed commitment to improving Elements would probably satisfy the vast majority of the advanced amateur and semi-professional photographers.

I'm totally agnostic about Adobe's decision.  They are a corporation and the primary responsibility is to the shareholders.  Obviously dissatisfied customers will impact a company's bottom line but I cannot see much of that happening here.  The far greater impact is on all the third parties who develop software add ons or training and education programs.  If the user base shrinks these folks will be looking for another line of work.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Zeitz on May 10, 2013, 08:01:12 am
So I understand from the response that layers won't be added to Lightroom.  Will Elements to linked to Lightroom the way CS is linked to Lightroom?
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Ken Richmond on May 10, 2013, 08:15:48 am
"...Exactly what kind of agreement do you think they should write? "We will never change our terms of service" "We guarantee this service will be around until the sun explodes" Doesn't every company on earth have terms that reserve the right to change them?"

Are you kidding here?  The agreement they should write is: #1  "We agree that we will meet the expectations and reliability as set forth and created by our advertising."   #2.  We agree, and have stipulated to the US Federal Trade Commision and in the Federal District Courts of California that we have monopoly control over graphics software worldwide and like any public utility, we voluntarily submit our pricing schedule and business practices to the FTC for review of the industry wide negative impact our monopolistic enterprise might have on society as a whole."

For the second time I see the bland acceptance of the "click through" waivers that software purchasers have to acknowledge before using software as though that somehow established a standard of acceptable conduct.  Get it right, the industry does not establish it's own "acceptable practices" or it's own "standard of care" for the performance.

I would not be the least surprised that Mr. David Bois, Esq. has already dispatched the legal grunts and is assembling coherts with funds sufficient to undertake a class action.  Adobe has created a watershed moment that, up until now, lacked a large enough class, and sufficient reward to break up the graphics monopoly.  Just because you were made to agree to the non negotiable harsh terms, and lacked financial resources to challenge software companies that imposed them, doesn't mean that they cannot be challenged.  You read it and were discouraged by the language and the potential costs.  But if you want, I can list the jurisdictions/states where Adobe's warranty is void ab initio.  For the CC one must agree to the warranty terms before the purchase. In New York, warranty waivers after the sale are not enforced.  Other states listed below have various requirements for consumer sales that restrict sellers from disclaiming suitability for the purpose it was sold for.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/ucc.html#a2

Thanks,

Ken Richmond
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jrsforums on May 10, 2013, 08:18:59 am
PS Elements

I must admit, I have only spent about "30 seconds" playing in Elements 11. 

However, my takeaway was that the bulk of it only worked in 8bit mode.  Did I miss something?  Can you fully process 16bit tiffs?

John
Title: Re: What most Photoshop buyers are, and CC student pricing
Post by: bjanes on May 10, 2013, 08:37:28 am
The point to me is not the cost. It's the fact that you're basically locked in.

Maybe so, but not going with the cloud means being locked out. If I choose not to renew the subscription, the question is, "Do you prefer to be locked out now or later?"

Bill
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: sniper on May 10, 2013, 08:42:14 am
If photoshop is aimed at graphic designers rather than photographers why are almost all the updates and improvments photography related?
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: ButchM on May 10, 2013, 08:55:05 am
If photoshop is aimed at graphic designers rather than photographers why are almost all the updates and improvments photography related?

Indeed ... I recently watched Terry Whites "My 5 Favorite New Features in Photoshop CC" video (actually he shared 6 items) four of his favorites were in Camera RAW ... only two were actual Ps only features ... Does a graphic artist really need ACR?

Of the two in Ps were the Camera Shake tool ... why would a professional graphic designer (or even worse a professional photographer) want to waste time with an image that suffered from camera shake? I sorta take pride in the fact that I invest as much care during the capture phase so I don't introduce camera shake ... after all that's what I get paid for ... Terry's other fav Ps CC feature was the new scaling tool where you could take a low res image and upscale it so it would print better ... that's a great feature for stealing all those images off the web and making them better for printing ... Adobe just made pirating their client's works even easier ... sounds like a win-win for everyone ... After looking around at these wonderful new "features" ... I'm not quite so disappointed if I don't board the perpetual merry-go-round rental scheme ...
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: s4e on May 10, 2013, 09:13:23 am
You know I was thinking about this last night, and I actually think the issue is far bigger than corporate Vs amateur user, or perpetual Vs rented licensing etc. I think this will affect the WHOLE photography and camera market around the world, from camera sales, computer sales and laptops, external storage etc, right through to book sales and website advertising revenues.

Lets imagine some time in the not to far distant future, I already own a camera such as the 5d Mk III, I am running CS6 (which is now no longer supported by Adobe) and I don't want/can't afford to sign up to the cloud, as I am a small business or amateur photographer and need to keep costs to a minimum.

Canon then releases the 5D Mk IV, which has a couple more mega pixels of photo sites on the sensor and a few more bells and whistles added, as they did last time from Mk II to the Mk III. But what may have been an obvious upgrade route to me, has now become a dilemma, because as I already own a camera in the Mk III that works with CS6 just how I want it to and with my preferred workflow and I am happy with the situation, or I can forego all that and choose to buy the new Canon and try to find a fudged way around to accessing every single image that I create on it, as that upgrade will necessitate a complete change to my preferred workflow or the cost of buying into the cloud and all that entails - so the choice boils down to this - do I upgrade to the new camera, or do I stick with what I have already got, for both camera, software, computer system and manuals, guides and plug-ins etc?

I would most likely stick with what I have got and Canon loses a sale, as well as all the small businesses and training companies and book sellers and software developers etc., as do the computer manufacturers and O/S developers, that I would have also spent money with and who rely on me upgrading my camera and computer system and plug-ins every few years or so, they have all now lost sales.

Fair enough, I know that at some point in the future when something that cannot be replaced has broken, that I would be forced into some kind of an upgrade, but assuming the above scenario is correct, this would be postponed until I absolutely had to and not before.

I think this scenario is not going to be far from reality for many thousands of photographers around the world and as such, Adobe are going to put quite a few people out of business with this move, so even though it may be good for them, in the long run, a significant section of the smaller associated businesses will surely suffer.

Dave


With a new camera you can use DNG converter (and getting more locked into Adobe). A bigger problem is new OS versions - no options there...
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: tom60634 on May 10, 2013, 09:18:34 am
It isn't a question of my "buying into" anything. To my knowledge Adobe has never specifically targeted amateurs. They've been willing to sell to them, but they are not its target market for this product.

Adobe appears to be willing to sacrifice the non-pro market, and I seriously doubt that at this point they'll back-track. I could be wrong.

Michael

As a registered owner of Photoshop since CS2, I wish I had archived all the email marketing and sales messages that adobe had directed towards my in-box.
 
As a matter of fact the only reason I invested in Photoshop was an offer that was hard to resist i.e. as a registered owner of Photoshop Elements adobe allowed me to purchase Photoshop at Photoshop's upgrade price. I then joined NAPP and received an additional 15-20% (can't remember the exact percentage) NAPP discount on top of adobe's offer. I dutifully purchased each incremental upgrade up till CS6.

I have eventually become  adept using Photoshop and some of its non-adobe plugins. I personally feel insulted regarding the way adobe lied (yes it was a lie) about the future upgrade policy. CS6 was going to be the first upgrade that I would have skipped since it didn't offer any essential upgrades to CS5, but I upgraded to keep my options open if CS7 offered some must have features.
Adobe betrayed my trust.
I can't say that I'll ever respond to any of their marketing ploys again. I have started unsubscribing to every email that touts any adobe product, I won't renew my membership to the NAPP.
That's my vote regarding adobe's cloud rental scheme.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 10, 2013, 09:34:04 am
Why can't folks like us commit to a 1-2 year CC subscription with the understanding that, at the end of the 1 or 2 year commitment, whatever we've "rented" we keep?

For the same reason that no matter how many times you rent a car from Budget, you don't get to keep it.

CC is a subscription. What about the subscription model isn't clear here? It isn't a lease to own. It isn't an anything to own (which is what upsets people and that's understandable).
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 10, 2013, 09:35:24 am
With a new camera you can use DNG converter (and getting more locked into Adobe).

That statements might be true if only Adobe software dealt with DNG but that's not the case.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 10, 2013, 09:40:09 am
For the same reason that no matter how many times you rent a car from Budget, you don't get to keep it.

If you paid say 10+% of the purchase price each time, you probably would ... ;)

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on May 10, 2013, 09:50:47 am
How big of a problem is the operating system lock in? I'm using CS6 on XP64 bit and it works on XP fine. You can even make a small change in the registry to allow GPU. Assuming that Windows 7 will last as long as XP did and given the fiasco with Win 8, probably will do, are we not talking about 5-7 years until this begins to be a problem? Longer even if windows is as backwards compatible as it is today. We should be able to use CS6 for 'photoshop' type stuff for over 5 years (and I doubt that any upgrades will be that missed) by which time there will be a viable alternative. Raw processing will just have to migrate to a more trustworthy company in the meantime.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on May 10, 2013, 09:51:52 am
When you lease a car you a) get a huge choice of cars to lease b) get a buy out option at the end.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 10, 2013, 09:57:55 am
If you paid say 10+% of the purchase price each time, you probably would ... ;)

I don't think so. There's no reason Budget would or should do this, just like Adobe. The price you pay to rent or subscribe to something doesn't and never did guarantee you don't have to return the product when the subscription or rent is over. Doesn't matter if renting that car 2 times paid for the price, if you're dumb enough or rich enough to spend that kind of money, fine. There's a model here. It doesn't deviate unless both parties agree and the party that own the item to rent falls into the label or winner of "the golden rule".

Adobe can setup any model at any price they wish. What we consumers do is a different story.

Now Rent to Own is a different model and one I think could work here since I seriously doubt Adobe is going to back down on a subscription model. They could allow someone who rents (subscribes) to CC for a minimum of 1 year to buy out that version (locked, no updates) for what I suspect would be a pretty high fee. Like $20 per month for 12 months then buy out at $699. Now before you say "but Andrew, that's a lot more money than just buying Photoshop today" and you'd be right, Adobe isn't going to change anything to end up where they were before the CC debacle in terms of generating the same amount of cash. A buy out would at least give people an end point and option for a perceptual license and, if they want to get back onto the subscription train, they start over again at $20 per month for one year plus.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jrsforums on May 10, 2013, 10:03:11 am
For the same reason that no matter how many times you rent a car from Budget, you don't get to keep it.

CC is a subscription. What about the subscription model isn't clear here? It isn't a lease to own. It isn't an anything to own (which is what upsets people and that's understandable).

POOR ANALOGY.

A car from Avis or Hertz will provide the same result if Budget is not available.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Oldfox on May 10, 2013, 10:03:20 am
You know I was thinking about this last night, and I actually think the issue is far bigger than corporate Vs amateur user, or perpetual Vs rented licensing etc.
You are right. If Adobe is succesful in this, Microsoft and Apple will follow. And in few years time we have to rent OS's as well.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jrsforums on May 10, 2013, 10:06:04 am
That statements might be true if only Adobe software dealt with DNG but that's not the case.

Adobe's marketing sense is not THAT bad...!!  :D
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on May 10, 2013, 10:06:29 am
You are right. If Adobe is succesful in this, Microsoft and Apple will follow. And in few years time we have to rent OS's as well.
I doubt it, they can't play the 'we only want a certain segment of customers' card, they have to work with the entire planet.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: kers on May 10, 2013, 10:10:47 am
Say I am a professional user - depending on Adobe CC
If adobe will raise the price of CC in the future what can i do?
Nothing- i will need it to open my existing files....
They can ask what they want...
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 10, 2013, 10:10:56 am
POOR ANALOGY.
A car from Avis or Hertz will provide the same result if Budget is not available.

This isn't an analogy, it is a description of what is expected in a rent/subscription model.

This has nothing to do with competition (Avis or Hertz), it's about a pricing model. It's call renting (or subscription). This has nothing to do with the results, it's about how one company decides to sell a service and how the customer has to behave in terms of the 'contract' (at the end of the rent/subscription, you return the product or we throw you in jail). Of course, the customer can decide not to rent/subscribe.

Some people discussing this issue don't get it. Maybe you're one <g>. Currently Adobe has setup a new model between itself and customers. There's no "I want to subscribe for a year then own" option. It's purely a subscription meaning you pay Adobe a fee, Adobe lets you use a software product. You stop paying, you stop getting access to the software.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jrsforums on May 10, 2013, 10:11:44 am
I don't think so. There's no reason Budget would or should do this, just like Adobe. The price you pay to rent or subscribe to something doesn't and never did guarantee you don't have to return the product when the subscription or rent is over. Doesn't matter if renting that car 2 times paid for the price, if you're dumb enough or rich enough to spend that kind of money, fine. There's a model here. It doesn't deviate unless both parties agree and the party that own the item to rent falls into the label or winner of "the golden rule".

Adobe can setup any model at any price they wish. What we consumers do is a different story.

Now Rent to Own is a different model and one I think could work here since I seriously doubt Adobe is going to back down on a subscription model. They could allow someone who rents (subscribes) to CC for a minimum of 1 year to buy out that version (locked, no updates) for what I suspect would be a pretty high fee. Like $20 per month for 12 months then buy out at $699. Now before you say "but Andrew, that's a lot more money than just buying Photoshop today" and you'd be right, Adobe isn't going to change anything to end up where they were before the CC debacle in terms of generating the same amount of cash. A buy out would at least give people an end point and option for a perceptual license and, if they want to get back onto the subscription train, they start over again at $20 per month for one year plus.

I could go for that....one change.  

A fair buy out would be similar to the upgrade cost, not the 'buy new' price.  

Adobe could set the term to qualify a bit longer, if necessary, to keep them "whole".

Edit...as I think about it, this is how most Rent-to-Own situations work.  Some part of your rental reduces the sales price.  Adobe could set this up on a sliding scale where, if you rent long enough, the buyout is zero
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jrsforums on May 10, 2013, 10:14:20 am
This isn't an analogy, it is a description of what is expected in a rent/subscription model.

This has nothing to do with competition (Avis or Hertz), it's about a pricing model. It's call renting (or subscription). This has nothing to do with the results, it's about how one company decides to sell a service and how the customer has to behave in terms of the 'contract' (at the end of the rent/subscription, you return the product or we throw you in jail). Of course, the customer can decide not to rent/subscribe.

Some people discussing this issue don't get it. Maybe you're one <g>. Currently Adobe has setup a new model between itself and customers. There's no "I want to subscribe for a year then own" option. It's purely a subscription meaning you pay Adobe a fee, Adobe lets you use a software product. You stop paying, you stop getting access to the software.

OK...said differently you cannot compare the driving a car situation with the situation Adobe places us in of not being able to get back to our work product.  I am sure you can see that...the rest of your points on Budget are just muddying the discussion.

Everyone understands renting.  That is not the concern being voiced here.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 10, 2013, 10:24:20 am
I could go for that....one change.  
A fair buy out would be similar to the upgrade cost, not the 'buy new' price.

Don't believe that's going to happen. Why would Adobe allow that? Yes, the buy new price is gouging and half price would be better. But if we have any chance of Adobe changing their mind and offering a 'rent to own' we should prepare ourselves for a fee that's got to be higher than an upgrade.

Quote
Everyone understands renting.  That is not the concern being voiced here.

Thanks again for speaking for everyone, however, if you were to spend any time reading the FUD about this move by Adobe, you'd see lots of people don't understand renting or subscription.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Stephen Girimont on May 10, 2013, 10:25:58 am
Now Rent to Own is a different model and one I think could work here since I seriously doubt Adobe is going to back down on a subscription model. They could allow someone who rents (subscribes) to CC for a minimum of 1 year to buy out that version (locked, no updates) for what I suspect would be a pretty high fee. Like $20 per month for 12 months then buy out at $699. Now before you say "but Andrew, that's a lot more money than just buying Photoshop today" and you'd be right, Adobe isn't going to change anything to end up where they were before the CC debacle in terms of generating the same amount of cash. A buy out would at least give people an end point and option for a perceptual license and, if they want to get back onto the subscription train, they start over again at $20 per month for one year plus.

I'd actually really feel better about CC if they offered this. What scares me the most is the thought of no longer being able to use the software AT ALL if something happened to Adobe or if I stopped the subscription. Having the option to buy a locked version at some point would eliminate that fear.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 10, 2013, 10:27:07 am
OK...said differently you cannot compare the driving a car situation with the situation Adobe places us in of not being able to get back to our work product.  

Nothing Adobe has done places us in a position of not being able to get back to our work product. But again, you don't seem to get it. I'm referring to a business transaction.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: WaitingForAnR10 on May 10, 2013, 10:30:49 am
For the same reason that no matter how many times you rent a car from Budget, you don't get to keep it.

You're comparing tangible and intangible goods, which is a poor analogy.  If you keep the car, no one else can rent or use it.   With software, you have one copy of the product, which doesn't affect anyone else's ability to use theirs, of Abobe's ability to sell one.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jrsforums on May 10, 2013, 10:37:00 am
Don't believe that's going to happen. Why would Adobe allow that? Yes, the buy new price is gouging and half price would be better. But if we have any chance of Adobe changing their mind and offering a 'rent to own' we should prepare ourselves for a fee that's got to be higher than an upgrade.

Thanks again for speaking for everyone, however, if you were to spend any time reading the FUD about this move by Adobe, you'd see lots of people don't understand renting or subscription.

Jeez, Andrew....when you "talk for Adobe", I know it is your opinion.  Please allow me the benefit of not having to include "IN MY OPINION" in every comment I post.

And again, IN MY OPINION, most (if not everyone) understands rental and subscription....they are just not happy with the change....and, more importantly, how the change will possibly affect them in the future.

This is driven by a shrinking trust is what Adobe may do in the future....whether it is within Adobe's control or outside influences (Kodak-like)
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jrsforums on May 10, 2013, 10:40:28 am
Nothing Adobe has done places us in a position of not being able to get back to our work product. But again, you don't seem to get it. I'm referring to a business transaction.

We can get back to our FINAL work product, if we save as flattened TIFF.  We cannot be assured to get back to our WIP and be able to modify it...which is what Adobe and most instructors have telling us our workflow should be....nondestructive.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 10, 2013, 10:46:17 am
We can get back to our FINAL work product, if we save as flattened TIFF.  We cannot be assured to get back to our WIP and be able to modify it...which is what Adobe and most instructors have telling us our workflow should be....nondestructive.

Yup, as I said, nothing Adobe has done places us in a position of not being able to get back to our work product. Only dumb users can insure that.

IF you're dumb enough to add a proprietary processing (say a Shake Reduction Smart Object) in CC, then think you can go back to CS6, you're not understanding a lot about software, workflow and how Photoshop works!

You can make as many layered images in Photoshop 3 (the first version that supported layers) and if your dumb enough to expect them to be accessible in version 2, you probably shouldn’t have a copy of either product!

Want to keep editing that SO that is unique to CC? Don't let the subscription lapse OR be aware enough about the tools you use to fix that one layer.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: kers on May 10, 2013, 10:47:27 am
I'd actually really feel better about CC if they offered this. What scares me the most is the thought of no longer being able to use the software AT ALL if something happened to Adobe or if I stopped the subscription. Having the option to buy a locked version at some point would eliminate that fear.

I guess (hope) Adobe will come with a    read only- save as..   option of adobe CC to avoid not being able to open your old files without subscription...
nevertheless if their service goes down for more than a month all people depending on the programs are left off...
Also they have the power to shut you off - by accident or for 'some good reason'
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jrsforums on May 10, 2013, 11:03:16 am
Yup, as I said, nothing Adobe has done places us in a position of not being able to get back to our work product. Only dumb users can insure that.

IF you're dumb enough to add a proprietary processing (say a Shake Reduction Smart Object) in CC, then think you can go back to CS6, you're not understanding a lot about software, workflow and how Photoshop works!

You can make as many layered images in Photoshop 3 (the first version that supported layers) and if your dumb enough to expect them to be accessible in version 2, you probably shouldn’t have a copy of either product!

Want to keep editing that SO that is unique to CC? Don't let the subscription lapse OR be aware enough about the tools you use to fix that one layer.


STOP ATTACKING....can't you have a dialog?

What you are saying, I think, is that we are DUMB to use any new PS CC functions, if we do not want to fear losing the ability to rework them.  

Is that what you are trying to say?  Stop using PS.....if you have any intention of working nondestructively and possibly have used new or changed function....the change, possibly, being under the covers and unknown to us.

You did not cover the Kodak-like situation....which I know you are more than aware of from you comments about PhotoCD and early Kodak RAWs relative to DNG
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: s4e on May 10, 2013, 11:32:25 am
Nothing Adobe has done places us in a position of not being able to get back to our work product. But again, you don't seem to get it. I'm referring to a business transaction.

Andrew,

You seems to find no problem or issue with this new model??? In Photoshop and especially in Lightroom your put a tremendous amount of work in parameter and metadata. I think everybody understand you will have the raw file and the final result if you stop renting but you will in loose the ability to use this working data in the future.  

What is your opinion if Adobe in a few year move to rent model only with Lightroom? You have to pay each month forever or loose all your parametric work and metadata... OK with that?

What if Adobe triple the monthly rent or stop evolving the product and you still have to pay or loose all your work? Or you get into financial trouble and are not able to pay. OK with this model?

The key difference between this and other rental models (like a car) is in this case you loose the ability to enjoy all your working data. And you have not the option to buy. And it's no cost involved for Adobe if a user continue to use the existing version like it is with a car. So please don't compare this to a car hire.

Sverre
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 10, 2013, 11:52:41 am
What you are saying, I think, is that we are DUMB to use any new PS CC functions, if we do not want to fear losing the ability to rework them.

Nope. What I'm saying is, if you use newer functionality in a piece of software (Photoshop 3 layers) then decide to go back a version (Photoshop 2), that new stuff will not work. So, either don't go back OR handle the incompatibility in versions you yourself inflicted on yourself properly.

Quote
Is that what you are trying to say?  Stop using PS
No, I didn't say that. You have a few options: Keep subscribing (OK, you don't want to, fine). Rectify the issues with the new processing you yourself decided to apply to your data. Flatten the ONE layer that is incompatible.

You do realize that lots of people are saying they are jumping ship and will find another image processing product. That's fine IF they understand the ramifications of doing this AND the ramifications of buying into what has always been proprietary image processing (e.g. Layers as a single example). IF you jump ship and you have an archive of PSD or TIFF files with layers, even those made in CS1, what do you think that 3rd party product is going to do when it encounters data it didn't create nor understands?

The day you decided to use an Adobe image processing product (and you can fill in another manufacturer's name), you decided upon a proprietary process. That didn't seem to bother anyone for the last 23 years of Photoshop use, but NOW that they have decided they may never use this process again, they spread some FUD about not having access from their data. This is true for virtually every software product (note: yes you can export data from many app's and use that data elsewhere, just as you can save a flattened TIFF from your layered doc and use that data in other products).

What *some* people are saying is: now that I want out of the Photoshop CC processing workflow, I want all the same functionality be accessible either in an older version or a different product. That request illustrates their misunderstanding of a number of ideas about how software works.

Quote
You seems to find no problem or issue with this new model???
I'm glad you put ??? because I find a number of problems and issues with the new model. No sir, don't like it. But there are factual issues and there are non factual issues here. The idea that Adobe has placed us in a position of not being able to get back to our work product isn't true. So let's not muddy the issues with such nonsense.

Quote
What is your opinion if Adobe in a few year move to rent model only with Lightroom?
I'd be as unhappy about that as I am about CC. It wouldn't change the other facts a lick.

Quote
What if Adobe triple the monthly rent or stop evolving the product and you still have to pay or loose all your work?
First, I'd probably have to pay, that's my livelihood. I'd try to pass additional costs onto my customers, maybe absorb some. That's how all business operate when their costs go up. But this has zero to do with losing my work. It's backed up in multiple locations and stopping a CC subscription doesn't alter that one bit! IF I knew I was moving from newer to older version of Photoshop, I'd fix the issues whereby I'd deal with layers that have incompatible data. NO, it's not ideal and hence, the prospect for me would be to continue to use Photoshop.

Quote
The key difference between this and other rental models (like a car) is in this case you loose the ability to enjoy all your working data
How? Based on the facts presented here, how do I loose the ability to enjoy all my working data when I went out of my way to stop using the newer processing? The option to stop using this processing is the customers alone. Shouldn't they deal with the repercussions of this act, just like someone with Photoshop 3 documents that demands they go back to Photoshop 2?
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Isaac on May 10, 2013, 12:00:28 pm
Isn't the major question that WE should all be asking is whether Elements will be upgraded to include the PS features that we all regularly use and that it is coupled seamlessly with LR.

I think the relevant question is whether PS Elements now includes the features that you personally use on a regular basis.

The most obvious to me is 16 bit versus 8 bit processing, and then CMYK.

How much difference that makes to your personal use a more difficult question to answer.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jwstl on May 10, 2013, 12:02:09 pm
Shouldn't they deal with the repercussions of this act, just like someone with Photoshop 3 documents that demands they go back to Photoshop 2?

The difference is there was never really a reason to go back from 3 to 2. Once 3 was owned, I could stay there and enjoy the benefits of it. Now there's a possibility of being forced to go back. If you subscribe for a couple of years and are using version CC 2 or 3 and decide to stop there's no staying where you are as in the previous model. I'm forced to go back to CS6.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 10, 2013, 12:08:38 pm
The difference is there was never really a reason to go back from 3 to 2. Once 3 was owned, I could stay there and enjoy the benefits of it. Now there's a possibility of being forced to go back. If you subscribe for a couple of years and are using version CC 2 or 3 and decide to stop there's no staying where you are as in the previous model. I'm forced to go back to CS6.

True, there IS the difference but only because of the sales model, nothing more. So Adobe has you by the balls.They did from the day you decided to build layers or other proprietary functionality in their software. But that doesn't mean your data ceases to exist, that's just FUD. No one forces you to go back from CC either, you made that decision. I understand why you'd want to (I don't want to pay anymore). And if you do, just understand the ramifications of this and fix the issues before you pull the plug. Or don't pull the plug. This is now a business decision. Once you make that decision, if you decide to move back, it's a technical issue you better understand and rectify if necessary. The workflow options today are no different than my analog of Photoshop 3 to Photoshop 2, the differences are, now people are actually considering such a move. Let them. But let them do it with a cool head and an understanding of what they are doing to themselves.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Isaac on May 10, 2013, 12:14:26 pm
It came preinstalled on my Dell laptop, unavoidable, I never used it.

I don't see how that anecdote helps answer Zeitz's questions?


Also, don't forget; There are lies, damned lies, and statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics).

"After all, facts are facts, and although we may quote one to another with a chuckle the words of the Wise Statesman, 'Lies--damned lies--and statistics,' still there are some easy figures the simplest must understand, and the astutest cannot wriggle out of." Leonard Henry Courtney, 1895
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Isaac on May 10, 2013, 12:18:16 pm
If Adobe is succesful in this, Microsoft and Apple will follow.

"All Office 365 products, such as Office 365 Home Premium, Office 365 University, and Office 365 Small Business Premium, are paid for on a subscription (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/office-frequently-asked-questions-FX102926087.aspx?CTT=3) basis. Subscription terms vary by product."
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jwstl on May 10, 2013, 12:22:35 pm
True, there IS the difference but only because of the sales model, nothing more. So Adobe has you by the balls.They did from the day you decided to build layers or other proprietary functionality in their software. But that doesn't mean your data ceases to exist, that's just FUD. No one forces you to go back from CC either, you made that decision. I understand why you'd want to (I don't want to pay anymore). And if you do, just understand the ramifications of this and fix the issues before you pull the plug. Or don't pull the plug. This is now a business decision. Once you make that decision, if you decide to move back, it's a technical issue you better understand and rectify if necessary. The workflow options today are no different than my analog of Photoshop 3 to Photoshop 2, the differences are, now people are actually considering such a move. Let them. But let them do it with a cool head and an understanding of what they are doing to themselves.

I agree. This new business model has caught everyone unaware and unprepared. No one expected the day to come where they would have to make a decision that could affect everything they've done and could do. Photographers have become so dependent on Adobe and the previous model and just assumed it would also be that way. Now you want to ditch Adobe but look at what could happen. By the balls indeed.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 10, 2013, 12:45:53 pm
No one expected the day to come where they would have to make a decision that could affect everything they've done and could do.

I'd say it affects everything they could do. What's done is done, I'd assume those people have some copy of Photoshop that created or edited all previous documents and CC doesn't change that. So stick with what you have, as long as you can. Now that could affect Adobe's bottom line!
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jwstl on May 10, 2013, 12:58:57 pm
I'd say it affects everything they could do. What's done is done, I'd assume those people have some copy of Photoshop that created or edited all previous documents and CC doesn't change that. So stick with what you have, as long as you can. Now that could affect Adobe's bottom line!

I was thinking of those that are considering ditching Adobe entirely by stopping use of Lightroom etc. That could affect everything you've done. As for me, I'm sticking with what I have as long as I can. I just purchased the CS6 Suite a few weeks ago so that will hold me for awhile.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: daws on May 10, 2013, 01:14:09 pm
...What's done is done...

In fact it's only beginning. The explosion from the bomb that Adobe dropped on its customer base is only just beginning to rip through the fabric of a company/customer relationship that has existed for years.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Gothmoth on May 10, 2013, 01:59:02 pm
In fact it's only beginning. The explosion from the bomb that Adobe dropped on its customer base is only just beginning to rip through the fabric of a company/customer relationship that has existed for years.

look at this and your trust in adobe will be completely destroyed:

http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Isaac on May 10, 2013, 02:02:45 pm
... what I actually want is support for a reasonable period, say 18-24 months of updates including new camera support.

"Today’s Photoshop CC announcement requires a modest change in our camera raw support policy.  Because Adobe is still selling Photoshop CS6, those customers will continue to receive updated camera raw file format compatibility via Adobe Camera Raw 8.  When we update ACR8 with new camera support, Photoshop CS6 customers can work with the new version of the Camera Raw plug-in.  No new features or functionality will be available in ACR to Photoshop CS6 customers as part of those updates. (No Upright, advanced healing brush or radial filter, etc.)  I don’t have a timeline for how long this camera raw support will continue for Photoshop CS6 but I want to be consistent with our past policy of providing raw support for currently shipping products (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/adobe-camera-raw-8-support-for-photoshop-cc-and-photoshop-cs6.html)."
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jrsforums on May 10, 2013, 02:06:05 pm
Andrew,

You seems to find no problem or issue with this new model??? In Photoshop and especially in Lightroom your put a tremendous amount of work in parameter and metadata. I think everybody understand you will have the raw file and the final result if you stop renting but you will in loose the ability to use this working data in the future.  

What is your opinion if Adobe in a few year move to rent model only with Lightroom? You have to pay each month forever or loose all your parametric work and metadata... OK with that?

What if Adobe triple the monthly rent or stop evolving the product and you still have to pay or loose all your work? Or you get into financial trouble and are not able to pay. OK with this model?

The key difference between this and other rental models (like a car) is in this case you loose the ability to enjoy all your working data. And you have not the option to buy. And it's no cost involved for Adobe if a user continue to use the existing version like it is with a car. So please don't compare this to a car hire.

Sverre

I essentially agree with you.  However, LR going rental only would be much worse than PS.  

When we finish processing in PS we save the image, hopefully as a TIFF.  If we lose PS, other products will be able to open and work with the TIFF.

With LR, the adjustments are just stored in the catalog (and XMP/DNG if you choose).  There is no "rendered" finished product.  This is only created if you print or export...and most instruction is to not store the end product as it can be recreated if needed.  If we lose LR, the XMP is still there, but the software/algorithms are not available to rendered what we created.

While I might accept PS CC, LR CC would probably drive me to buy a MAC and Aperture.....disappointing as that would be to me....actually, further thought....it would be devastating...!!
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: kers on May 10, 2013, 02:12:29 pm
another negative aspect of adobes new business model

the need for Adobe to be innovative has gone....
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Philip Weber on May 10, 2013, 02:19:00 pm
"Let's see...  Two years at $50 a month is about $1200.  Not a bad price for the entire suite of programs."


Peter - I don't know where the $50 per month you mentioned came from.

I was thinking the price structure they've announced for Photoshop...which comes in approx. 360 dollars for 24 months if I understand it correctly. It's still an increase for them over the 200 dollars every 18 months and they keep the CC business model, but users would at least walk away with something if/when they had to quit.

Neither Eric or Jeff addressed this idea so it's either too stupid or too close to a fall back option from the original plan for Adobe.

Ok, like Michael, I'll just hang in there with what I have and see how it all shakes out. I have a life and this isn't the end of it.

Phil
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Isaac on May 10, 2013, 02:24:11 pm
With LR, the adjustments are just stored in the catalog (and XMP/DNG if you choose).  There is no "rendered" finished product.  This is only created if you print or export...and most instruction is to not store the end product as it can be recreated if needed.

Just make an export user-preset that will export a full resolution TIFF without output sharpening to the folder that contains the RAW files.

It's really really easy to maintain both LR catalog and TIFF work products.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jrsforums on May 10, 2013, 02:28:55 pm
Just make an export user-preset that will export a full resolution TIFF without output sharpening to the folder that contains the RAW files.

It's really really easy to maintain both LR catalog and TIFF work products.

With all due respect....I do not think you have thought through this completely
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 10, 2013, 02:32:01 pm
I essentially agree with you.  However, LR going rental only would be much worse than PS.

Wow, you agree with me and I agree with you (above), the planets must be aligning!

Quote
With LR, the adjustments are just stored in the catalog (and XMP/DNG if you choose).  There is no "rendered" finished product.  This is only created if you print or export...and most instruction is to not store the end product as it can be recreated if needed.  If we lose LR, the XMP is still there, but the software/algorithms are not available to rendered what we created.

Yes, it's a more troubling situation. But maybe someone from Adobe is watching so we shouldn't say much more.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jrsforums on May 10, 2013, 02:33:17 pm
Thanks, Isaac, yes I've seen that statement.

The problem is how much longer will CS6 be shipping, a week, a month... We need clarity.

Pure guess....the earliest we will get any clarity will be CC availability....or the July 31 (?) date to sign up for the special CC offering.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jrsforums on May 10, 2013, 02:43:34 pm
Wow, you agree with me and I agree with you (above), the planets must be aligning!

Yes, it's a more troubling situation. But maybe someone from Adobe is watching so we shouldn't say much more.

Well, actually I was agreeing with Sverre.

However, it is true....I do agree with you on most things.  To an extend, our dialog is over what could potetially be nits.

I think, if you are going to rent PS CC, it is to take advantage of the new function and/or code changes.  If I am going to avoid them, I might as well stay on PS CS6....of course, this is relative to WIP, not TIFF

Andrew, help me save time testing or looking this up....if I save a layered TIFF is the "final render" available...or is that only if I save a flattened TIFF?
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 10, 2013, 02:55:33 pm
Andrew, help me save time testing or looking this up....if I save a layered TIFF is the "final render" available...or is that only if I save a flattened TIFF?

Not sure I understand. IF you are in CC and apply a new feature, like Shake Reduction to a layer, save as a layered TIFF, open in CS6, you have access to that layer. It looks and acts identically as you saw in CC. But of course, you can't call up Shake Reduction there again, it doesn't exist. And you could of course save a flattened TIFF (a version of that should be inside the Layered TIFF too).

Now, suppose you make a Smart Object in CC and apply that Shake Reduction. It will not be editable as well in CS6 and further, CS6 should pop a warning and allow you to flatten that layer (no more SO support).
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: pfigen on May 10, 2013, 03:53:20 pm
I'm with Gothmoth on this one. For the couple of people who are vigorously defending Adobe on this without referencing the most odious, biased and one sided licensing agreement I've ever see - one that makes the debacle that X-Rite tried to foist on us a couple of years ago, childlike in comparison - I'm wondering how you are reconciling that in your own mind. I'm only halfway okay with the new licensing scheme, but when you factor in the licensing agreement, the insult is almost too much to bear. That you're given no choice in the matter and half to agree to odious terms in order to proceed should have everyone, especially those photographers and former photographers who purportedly care about individual rights, scurrying towards the door. I really don't see how anyone, for or against this argument can read those terms and say they're okay with them, but I might be wrong.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jrsforums on May 10, 2013, 03:56:05 pm
Not sure I understand. IF you are in CC and apply a new feature, like Shake Reduction to a layer, save as a layered TIFF, open in CS6, you have access to that layer. It looks and acts identically as you saw in CC. But of course, you can't call up Shake Reduction there again, it doesn't exist. And you could of course save a flattened TIFF (a version of that should be inside the Layered TIFF too).

Now, suppose you make a Smart Object in CC and apply that Shake Reduction. It will not be editable as well in CS6 and further, CS6 should pop a warning and allow you to flatten that layer (no more SO support).

Yeah...I wasn't clear.  Meant non-Adobe products.

Got off my lazy butt and pulled down a couple layered TIFFs and opened them in Irfanview.  

What I had long 'ass-u-me-d' appeared true...i.e. the TIFF displays, just as if I had saved a flattened TIFF.

Since I only did a small sample, I gotta ask....would this be true for all cases?

Reason I ask, I always save the layered TIFF, just in case I may want to go back at some later date.  Would rather not have to also save a flattened version, just in case.

Thanks...John
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: daws on May 10, 2013, 03:56:52 pm
How  long was "raw support for currently shipping products" in the past -- months not weeks?

You're citing Adobe's past practices as an indicator of what they will do in the future. In fact, this week has made it clear that what Adobe did in the past absolutely cannot be relied upon as an indicator of what they will do in the future.



Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jrsforums on May 10, 2013, 03:59:20 pm
I'm with Gothmoth on this one. For the couple of people who are vigorously defending Adobe on this without referencing the most odious, biased and one sided licensing agreement I've ever see - one that makes the debacle that X-Rite tried to foist on us a couple of years ago, childlike in comparison - I'm wondering how you are reconciling that in your own mind. I'm only halfway okay with the new licensing scheme, but when you factor in the licensing agreement, the insult is almost too much to bear. That you're given no choice in the matter and half to agree to odious terms in order to proceed should have everyone, especially those photographers and former photographers who purportedly care about individual rights, scurrying towards the door. I really don't see how anyone, for or against this argument can read those terms and say they're okay with them, but I might be wrong.

Don't take this wrong...it is totally tongue-in-cheek....it could be worse, they could claim to own the copyright for all the images processed by PS-CC......oops....they probably missed that... ::)
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jrsforums on May 10, 2013, 04:03:56 pm
With all due respect....I do not think you have thought through this completely


With all due respect, you have done nothing to show why you think so.

Look, I do not mean to demean you.   However, if you do not know, then I suspect that you either do not use Lightroom or are not taking full advantage of it.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: schaubild on May 10, 2013, 04:09:48 pm
Well, Adobe already prepares the ground for some more entertainment:

http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html

Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 10, 2013, 04:10:22 pm
Yeah...I wasn't clear.  Meant non-Adobe products.

Got to send either a flattened TIFF or one that has the flattened data inside it. Any 3rd party product can't understand the layers, that's proprietary Adobe stuff.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Justan on May 10, 2013, 04:15:02 pm
Well, they already prepare the ground for this:

http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html



Thanks for the post.

Parts of their licensing terms are nothing short of outrageous.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: MarkM on May 10, 2013, 04:40:58 pm
Quote from: pfigen
without referencing the most odious, biased and one sided licensing agreement I've ever see
Thanks for the post.
Parts of their licensing terms are nothing short of outrageous.

Specifically, which part do you find so outrageous and odious?
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: pfigen on May 10, 2013, 05:11:05 pm
Have your read those terms and conditions yet? There's so much that is patently offensive that it would take up way too much space here. Any photographer or creative who knows anything about and/or values his own rights will find it that way. That so many appear to have not read through it is a shame and especially those who are vociferously defending the what, with this language, becomes indefensible. I think folks are too wrapped up in the shock of the original announcement and are now only getting to the nitty gritty details now. The backlash against X-Rite with their restrictive language forced them to modify. Unfortunately with Adobe, this is nothing new. When Adobe upgraded their User to User forums, they also upgraded their terms and conditions relating to posting images and content in a way that pretty much makes it stupid to post anything there, much like Facebook.

Rather than ask me what I find odious, why don't you point out all the things you love about the terms.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Dustbak on May 10, 2013, 05:12:00 pm
Perhaps I'm being unreasonable, but having just spent £630 on PS CS6 just a few weeks ago what I actually want is support for a reasonable period, say 18-24 months of updates including new camera support. What I don't want is to have to give Adobe even more money for CC and the support I should be receiving with my new product.

Thoughts anyone?



Same here, at least I would expect Adobe to solve the annoying bugs like the disappearing cursor. It now feels I have never owned a complete normally working product and Adobe is forcing me to buy into a subscription model. I alread have little faith in their ability to solve bugs... I wish I could deliver an incomplete product to my clients and force them into buying more for higher prices from me. I have no confidence in Adobe they will fix current bugs in CS6, especially the disappearing cursor is annoying and has been in CS6 from the beginning.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Colorwave on May 10, 2013, 05:14:04 pm
Hey, at least our cursor eventually returns, unlike our option for a perpetual license.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Dustbak on May 10, 2013, 05:17:53 pm
Yeah, but you do need to Tab out of the program each time.

BTW, What is in it for me as a customer of Adobe?? What is my advantage?

The updating thing is no issue to me. I am alway online and can update instantly. Faster bug fixes?  after Adobes performance on CS6 I have no faith in that. But honestly, what is the real gain for Adobe customers?? I don't see it.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jrsforums on May 10, 2013, 05:23:43 pm
With all due respect, you have still done nothing to show why you think so.

I don't give LR lessons, talk to Jeff  :)
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: MarkM on May 10, 2013, 05:38:33 pm
Have your read those terms and conditions yet? There's so much that is patently offensive that it would take up way too much space here. Any photographer or creative who knows anything about and/or values his own rights will find it that way. That so many appear to have not read through it is a shame and especially those who are vociferously defending the what, with this language, becomes indefensible. I think folks are too wrapped up in the shock of the original announcement and are now only getting to the nitty gritty details now. The backlash against X-Rite with their restrictive language forced them to modify. Unfortunately with Adobe, this is nothing new. When Adobe upgraded their User to User forums, they also upgraded their terms and conditions relating to posting images and content in a way that pretty much makes it stupid to post anything there, much like Facebook.

Rather than ask me what I find odious, why don't you point out all the things you love about the terms.

That's what I thought. You have nothing specific. It's pretty easy to be shocked, SHOCKED, at the things you find in TOS agreements, but when it comes down to it, it's boiler plate that you find in just about every software and service TOS agreement you read. The writer of that blog is clearly pissed at Adobe and is looking for anything to mad about—it's almost all hyperbole. Or he's never looked at another TOS agreement before today. So that's what I asked: what is in there that is so outrageous and unusual? That they can change their terms? That they can object to objectionable material? That they might show advertisements when you use their service. I'm not defending them, I don't love anything there, I'm just sincerely curious what specifically you object to.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 10, 2013, 05:41:54 pm
Rather than ask me what I find odious, why don't you point out all the things you love about the terms.

Come on Peter, you can do better than that can't you?

Got to agree with Mark, that's not a useful reply. If there's some nasty bits there, let's see em. Since I don't play a lawyer on TV, I'd appreciate too, having someone point out something I should be pissed about.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: AFairley on May 10, 2013, 06:06:47 pm
There is nothing really unusual about the TOS.  Some of the terms likely are not enforceable if push came to shove. 
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Ken Richmond on May 10, 2013, 07:30:19 pm
"Got to agree with Mark, that's not a useful reply. If there's some nasty bits there, let's see em. Since I don't play a lawyer on TV, I'd appreciate too, having someone point out something I should be pissed about."

See my post at #46, but I'll take a stab at what should cause mild disappointment in the TOS.

1. No refunds, never, no matter what even if it crashes.

2. No requirement for support, never. 

3. Adobe can cancel your subscription for a reason or for no reason.

4. If, Shudder/Shake and Content Aware doesn't quite operate the way it's advertised and destroys the 15 layers you've been working on Tough Sh..  Ain't Adobe's problem.

5.  If you are rude with support because you can't understand the dialect, you can be permanently cut off from support with no recourse with a permanent license and no refunds if you're in the "Cloud" rent mode.  Nevertheless, your credit card will be wacked for 50% of the amount remaining unpaid on a one year subscription.

6.  Adobe says SantaClara county is the only venue for litigation, and if you commence an action against them for a warranty breach, you must first pay them $1000 because you have agreed that they have given you no warranty of any kind for any purpose.

So there you are, on a deadline for delivery of of your product and, as we have experienced, CS 6 won't launch because of the most recent "update" that requires me to pay attention to the days remaining.  If I don't, Adobe program manager self-destructs and I can't even download a copy from my own account because it tells me I have to contact support.  I wait for 45 minutes, and then get told to leave a phone number and someone will contact me within 48 hours.   What's my recourse?

Well for example, if I'm a New York resident and have the bucks to pay a lawyer, that Adobe Warranty Waiver is null and void unless it was signed before the purchase.  There are other escapes from the Warranty Waiver in almost every other state, but Adobe's legal "beagles" as Mr. Schewe likes to refer to them, have placed some discouraging language and threatening financial penalties in the Purchase/TOS agreement.  Unfortunately, there are, as Mr. Schewe has characterized them, snakes who, like Adobe's beagles, like to eat and therefore have to charge a fee that will easily exceed the purchase price of your Adobe software.

Other than these minor objections, I see nothing wrong with Adobe's agreement


Ken Richmond

Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 10, 2013, 07:48:14 pm
Thanks Ken, interesting.

While none of the bullet points are something to applaud, most don't seem too surprising. Certainly not #1 or #3, I'd kind of expect that from most companies. #5 seems weird to me but not a deal breaker. #6 is standard stuff and understandable. #2 of all seems a bit out there. I might not fully understand the fine points.

I don't see anything from your fine paraphrase that is outrageous and odious. I was expecting something akin to "we own your images" or something really over the top.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Ken Richmond on May 10, 2013, 08:04:45 pm
The reality is that Adobe's counsel KNOWS that the Warranty Waiver terms are not enforcible in most jurisdictions.  They put the language in there to actively discourage someone from taking justified action.  There is a terse acknowledgement that the  waiver of "Warranty of Merchantability and Fitness for a Particular Purpose may not be applicable in 'some' states.  See post #46 and the link there.  

Here is the point:  You, as a well know photographer and having excellent blog on color management obviously work for clients.  Would you
give your client a purchase agreement with Adobe's terms?

I really want to know?

Thanks,

Ken Richmond
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 10, 2013, 08:12:30 pm
Here is the point:  You, as a well know photographer and having excellent blog on color management obviously work for clients.  Would you
give your client a purchase agreement with Adobe's terms?

Don't know, really. Probably not.

I have two kinds of clients. One group (other photographers and such) no contracts (I've yet to be screwed but don't tell anyone).

The other client is pretty big companies who send me their contracts and I'm back in the camp of "little guy photographer who wants the job <g>. Again, I've yet to be screwed by them ether. Like I said, I don't play a lawyer on TV.

I've clicked YES to a lot of EULA over the years. I've read a few as best I can.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: johnvr on May 10, 2013, 08:35:15 pm
As much as I'm upset about Adobe's CC move, or at least the lack of choice given to us, I don't think the terms are much different from the terms of most services we use. That's a dead end to me.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Ken Richmond on May 10, 2013, 08:52:58 pm
I've clicked through as many "waivers" as the rest, and because I'm held to a higher standard, my waivers are really "waivers". The software consumer contract practices are detestable from an ethics standpoint.  They could never get away with the EULA with the government or any enterprise wide software sale.  I've seen many web design firms attempt to impose what some here mis-characterize as "boilerplate".  It reflects very negatively on the "character" of those who adopt it.  No client of mine will ever agree to such terms.  "Boilerplate" is language that has survived and withstood court challenge successfully.  Adobe's EULA has not been challenged simply because it's not economical to do so.  

Ken Richmond
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: AFairley on May 10, 2013, 09:19:31 pm
Adobe's EULA has not been challenged simply because it's not economical to do so.

And there's your opportunity to get into class action ligitation.  It's insanely lucrative for the winning lawfirm.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: BrianWJH on May 10, 2013, 10:39:37 pm
More concerning to me is this exclusion that implies that your agreement (as 'The parties') to their EULA also agrees to the following condition, which attempts to put Adobe outside international conventions:

"23.1 Venue. ...The parties specifically disclaim the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods."
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: rogan on May 11, 2013, 12:04:11 am
If any pro who makes his/her money of of usage has a problem with this they are a hypocrite. This is exactly how I make my money off of photos so it make sense to me. I have zero problem with it and think the $19 and $49 monthly deals are totally fair.
And imagine you are an ad agency that has 300 employees and your freelancers vary between 10 and 200. You can turn of licenses and back on month to month as needed.

The only thing that bothers me about this at all is that I actually agree with Schewe on something.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Schewe on May 11, 2013, 02:29:10 am
The only thing that bothers me about this at all is that I actually agree with Schewe on something.

OMG...I am so sorry if agreeing with me is causing you discomfort.

:~)
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Justan on May 11, 2013, 10:03:28 am
Specifically, which part do you find so outrageous and odious?

Mark,

I did not state "and odious." You did that.

I usually don't respond to this kind of question but I have some free time this morning, so here is a partial listing. The most outrageous of their terms is that Adobe grants itself permission to use your content, without notice or compensation. But read on. Comments come from the source quoted. I encourage all to actually read the terms.

The following content is from: http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html


First: The renter must agree in advance to any changes Adobe makes. You may not read the changes in advance.

3.3 Adobe may require you to provide consent to the updated Terms before further use of the Services is permitted. Otherwise, your continual use of any Service constitutes your acceptance of the changes.
---------------------------


Second: Adobe has no obligation to provide services or materials, even after it's paid for. They can charge you for nothing, and they have no liability if they decide to discontinue software without notice.

6.5 Adobe may modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the Services or Materials, or any portion thereof, with or without notice. You agree that Adobe shall not be liable to you or anyone else if we do so.
---------------------------


Third: Adobe can make arbitrary demands for arbitrary information at any time for any reason of their choice. All they have to do is add it under "Account Information."

Adobe may require that you change your Account Information or certain parts of your Account Information at any time for any reason.
---------------------------

Fourth: Anything Adobe arbitrarily determines to be objectionable, “otherwise objectionable” is required to be available to them.

a) Make Available any Material that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, tortious, defamatory, libelous, vulgar, obscene, child-pornographic, lewd, profane, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable;
---------------------------

Fifth: termination or content removal for “no reason” or “any reason”.

Adobe can shut off your account and shut you out, and you’ll have no way to open those files you created.

15.1 Adobe, in its sole discretion, may (but has no obligation to) monitor or review the Services and Materials at any time. Without limiting the foregoing, Adobe shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to remove any of Your Content for any reason (or no reason), including if it violates the Terms or any Law.

19.3 Termination or Suspension of Services. Adobe may also terminate or suspend all or a portion of your account and/or access to the Services for any reason (subject to Additional Terms for certain Services). Except as may be set forth in any Additional Terms applicable to a particular Service, termination of your account may include: (a) removal of access to all offerings within the Services; (b) deletion of Your Content and Account Information, including your personal information, log-in ID and password, and all related information, files, and Materials associated with or inside your account (or any part thereof); and (c) barring of further use of the Services.

19.4 You agree that all terminations for cause shall be made in Adobe’s sole discretion and that Adobe shall not be liable to you or any third party for any termination of your account (and accompanying deletion of your Account Information), or access to the Services and Materials, including Your Content.
---------------------------

Sixth: No choice and no notice on software updates.

11.4 The Software may automatically download and install updates from Adobe. These updates are designed to improve, enhance and further develop the Services and may take the form of bug fixes, enhanced functions, new Software modules, and completely new versions. You agree to receive such updates (and permit Adobe to deliver these to you with or without your knowledge) as part of your use of the Services.
---------------------------

Seventh: You give Adobe access to your content for their advertising and you get nothing for it.

17. Advertising and Your Content.

You agree that Adobe may display advertisements adjacent to Your Content, and you agree that you are not entitled to any compensation.

The manner, mode, and extent of advertising or other revenue generating models pursued by Adobe on or in conjunction with the Services and/or Your Content are subject to change without specific notice to you.
---------------------------

Anyone who considers the kind of terms noted above, as example, to be acceptable practice, would benefit themselves by studying what is commonly referred to as Stockholm syndrome.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: MarkM on May 11, 2013, 03:19:08 pm
Thanks Justan, I read the blog post. I was hoping you would explain which part was patently offensive rather than simply reproducing the post. So let's just take the first point:

"Adobe may require you to provide consent to the updated Terms before further use of the Services is permitted. Otherwise, your continual use of any Service constitutes your acceptance of the changes."

If that's where we draw the line in the sand then I have to cancel:
AT&T service (http://www.att.com/gen/general?pid=11561): "AT&T may change or modify the Terms from time-to-time without notice other than posting the amended Terms on the Site."
Netflix (https://signup.netflix.com/TermsOfUse): "Netflix reserves the right, from time to time, with or without notice to you, to change these Terms of Use"
Wordpress (http://en.wordpress.com/tos/): "Automattic reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to modify or replace any part of this Agreement. It is your responsibility to check this Agreement periodically for changes"

You get the point—I didn't have to search for these, I just randomly picked services I use. Ken Richmond is probably right that boilerplate is the wrong word, but it is certainly ubiquitous. To single out Adobe and cry foul is simply confirmation bias—the writer of that post is upset with Adobe and seeking anything that will support his/her feelings.

If you have a problem with this, you have a problem with most of corporate America. And you might have point, these really aren't great terms. As Ken mentions above, I would never try to get a client to sign this. But you have to pick your fights and this one is a little quixotic at best. You can choose to not ever sign a user agreement with this language, but that will leave you with very few tools and services to choose from. There are reasons to be upset with changes Adobe is making, but this at the far periphery.

The same argument is possible with every one of these points.

Also, the one you pointed specifically as "Adobe grants itself permission to use your content, without notice or compensation" is a misreading and an exaggeration in my opinion. It sounds like they will have an online service where you can see your content. They will also have ads on this service. There are ads on this page next to your content. To read this as a rights grab—as using your content—I think is a stretch.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 11, 2013, 04:16:10 pm
You get the point—I didn't have to search for these, I just randomly picked services I use. Ken Richmond is probably right that boilerplate is the wrong word, but it is certainly ubiquitous.

Agreed (although 10 wrongs don't make a right) <g>.

Wonder about iTunes, of course, I've never looked.

It should make us ponder just how many EULA's or whatever you want to call them we have agreed to without reading.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: ButchM on May 11, 2013, 04:47:46 pm
If any pro who makes his/her money of of usage has a problem with this they are a hypocrite.

Only, and I repeat, if they only sell their wares through a time limited usage agreement. If they sell prints, is that not a perpetual license? Adobe's clients really aren't upset with the cloud concept or because they can't grasp the concept of licensing terms ... they are pissed that Adobe will no longer sell us "prints" or an infinite usage rights like we have become accustomed to buying in the past. There's really no hypocrisy.  It would be the same if any photographer who has been selling prints, albums, etc. for decades then overnight changed their policies in such a drastic fashion ... they too would face some disgruntled customers ... though photographers actually have to face very real competition and can't dictate the fortunes of an entire industry.

Regardless of the semantics over who is and who is not a hypocrite, if the executives at Adobe had though this through and included photographers' concerns in the process or offered an amicable and equitable exit strategy in the mix ... even though apparently we should never had been using Photoshop in the first place ...this would all be a non-issue ... perpetual licensing would have been dropped due to a lack of interest ... not because it was too difficult to support.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: robgo2 on May 11, 2013, 04:49:05 pm

Now Rent to Own is a different model and one I think could work here since I seriously doubt Adobe is going to back down on a subscription model. They could allow someone who rents (subscribes) to CC for a minimum of 1 year to buy out that version (locked, no updates) for what I suspect would be a pretty high fee. Like $20 per month for 12 months then buy out at $699. Now before you say "but Andrew, that's a lot more money than just buying Photoshop today" and you'd be right, Adobe isn't going to change anything to end up where they were before the CC debacle in terms of generating the same amount of cash. A buy out would at least give people an end point and option for a perceptual license and, if they want to get back onto the subscription train, they start over again at $20 per month for one year plus.

I don't see why rent to own could only work if the buy out price is exorbitant.  Presumably, there will be some, perhaps many, CC users who decide that they actually prefer the subscription model with its continuous updates.  Adobe could continue to draw steady revenue from them while also selling perpetual licenses at reasonable prices to those who prefer to own the software outright.  That way, most people will be happy, and Adobe will avoid pissing off a sizable proportion of their customers.

Adobe may have a virtual monopoly on the image editing market for now, but the door to the vault has been cracked open ever so slightly, and I expect that there are any number of developers feverishly seeking levers, large and small, to pry it open further.  Nothing lasts forever, and great companies sometimes overreach.

Rob
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on May 11, 2013, 04:53:35 pm
It should make us ponder just how many EULA's or whatever you want to call them we have agreed to without reading.
99.99% probably.  I think I've read maybe two or so completely but the others I just look at the headers and click on accept.  My computer is still running fine. ;D
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Ken Richmond on May 11, 2013, 05:14:25 pm
..."If you have a problem with this, you have a problem with most of corporate America."  Not so fast on that statement.  Let's take Canada and Pratt and Whitney, could they sell a turbine with that warranty waiver language (Mr. Segal?)  Could Gulfstream (Mr. Segal?), Honda, General Motors?  Appliance Division or Aerospace divisions of General Electric, Boeing, Ford, Amana, Levi, Canon, Nikon, Hasselblad, Phase, Toyota, Met Life, (or any other life or casualty company) Epson,  Hewlett Packard, or any pharmaceutical firm or medical appliance manufacturer that you care to mention.  As for telecommunications, and Cable, interruption in services have to be credited under FCC and other regulations.  How about vacuum cleaner manufacturers?

There's no particular bias as far as Adobe is concerned except for their consumer promotional efforts.  Not one industry (corporation) would stoop the the level of "consumer bias" that Adobe does as an unregulated monopoly.  At least Microsoft guarantees support within a "reasonable" amount of time.

Ken Richmond
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Ken Richmond on May 11, 2013, 05:23:31 pm
And BTW,  I actually applaud the concepts and integration that Adobe is attempting and will be joining CC because two clients are being serviced by site developers who will be providing progress updates using Be as a contract requirement.   Just because we've become accustomed to the miserable performance, early releases, insufficient testing and specification by software companies, does not mean they should continue to get away with it.   

Ken Richmond
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: robgo2 on May 11, 2013, 05:31:15 pm
Just make an export user-preset that will export a full resolution TIFF without output sharpening to the folder that contains the RAW files.

It's really really easy to maintain both LR catalog and TIFF work products.
Assuming that Lightroom also goes to a subscription model and I were a Lightroom user, that is not what I would do.  If I had an image previously edited in LR/ACR that I wanted to revise, I would take the original raw file, re-edit it from scratch in another raw convertor and almost certainly come up with a better result.  (ACR is a mediocre raw convertor IMO, but that is beside the point.)  Realistically, this not likely to be a frequent problem, but when it arises, there are simple solutions.  For images that are "perfect" as is, convert to TIFF or JPEG and use them as you please.  As with CS6, the day will come when the latest version of Lightroom will not run on future operating systems.  Then users will face the big conundrum.  All of their LR edits will be beyond reach without signing up for a subscription.  Perhaps now is the time for people to wean themselves off of Adobe completely. 

Of course, there is no guarantee that other software companies will not eventually adopt the subscription model as well.  It will all depend on how profitable it turns out to be.  As long as Adobe has a near monopoly on the image editing market, they can probably make it work.  If serious competition develops, they may have to change their imperious ways. 

Rob
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 11, 2013, 05:32:24 pm
If they sell prints, is that not a perpetual license?

License for what?
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 11, 2013, 05:38:48 pm
I don't see why rent to own could only work if the buy out price is exorbitant.
Rob

Doesn't have to be exorbitant although that what constitutes exorbitant is anyone's opinion. It has to be more than what Adobe was getting in the past, or they have no reason to consider it. One year subscription plus full price might, one year subscription plus 50% of what the original perceptual license might lure them. One year plus $79 isn't going to fly. I have no idea what price Adobe feels the market should pay for this and I have no idea what the market will consider exorbitant or not. The alternative, what we have now is they can just ignore any option for a perceptual license. Those that don't think any of the options above are exorbitant have one less option.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jrsforums on May 11, 2013, 05:48:03 pm
License for what?

Andrew...maybe license is the wrong term. 

You buy a print.  You "own" that print....have the right to view it forever, sell it, will it to your heirs.  You cannot copy or reproduce it in any form. 

What would you call it?  Simple term, please.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jrsforums on May 11, 2013, 05:53:01 pm
Doesn't have to be exorbitant although that what constitutes exorbitant is anyone's opinion. It has to be more than what Adobe was getting in the past, or they have no reason to consider it. One year subscription plus full price might, one year subscription plus 50% of what the original perceptual license might lure them. One year plus $79 isn't going to fly. I have no idea what price Adobe feels the market should pay for this and I have no idea what the market will consider exorbitant or not. The alternative, what we have now is they can just ignore any option for a perceptual license. Those that don't think any of the options above are exorbitant have one less option.

 :) Actually, it has to be more than what they will get if people are really unhappy with the CC concept/pricing....which, in reality, could be on a dive to zero.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: robgo2 on May 11, 2013, 06:04:36 pm
:) Actually, it has to be more than what they will get if people are really unhappy with the CC concept/pricing....which, in reality, could be on a dive to zero.
This will be absolutely true only if viable alternatives to Photoshop become available.  Then Adobe will have to compete for business that they have always taken for granted.  And I expect it to happen.  Most photographers do not need or use much of the functionality contained in the software behemoth that is Photoshop.  A simpler platform that allows for the liberal use of third party plug-ins will suffice for the vast majority of users and almost all photographic purposes.  Some such programs already exist, but there will be more, and they will get better.

Rob
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: ButchM on May 11, 2013, 06:14:57 pm
Andrew...maybe license is the wrong term.  

No, "license" is the correct term ... Every product I sell or service I provide also includes a written license agreement. Whether the job is a portrait print package, wedding package that includes prints, albums and digital files, commercial shoot where only digital files are provided or a job for publication delivered electronically. Each type of job has it's own set of license requirements and limitations as required that is amicable to all parties concerned. I don't offer a one-size-fits all license because my client's needs are different. Thus I accommodate them, for which they compensate me based upon those accommodations ...

Even without the existence of a written license, photographers who sell prints still have copyright license enforcement opportunities although they would be more limited. But it is still a "license" nonetheless. Because the sale of a print is not only the sale of a piece of paper, it is the sale of the intellectual property on that paper.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Gulag on May 11, 2013, 06:16:55 pm
Again, Photoshop has very small tiny weight in Adobe's overall revenue pie, and photographers are actually very very small percentage of Photoshop user base.  Adobe correctly foresaw the big change, and has positioned itself for massive revenue rainfalls in this historical switch from paper to screen. What Adobe says basically it's our way or highway. Get used to it.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: robgo2 on May 11, 2013, 06:42:11 pm
Again, Photoshop has very small tiny weight in Adobe's overall revenue pie, and photographers are actually very very small percentage of Photoshop user base.  Adobe correctly foresaw the big change, and has positioned itself for massive revenue rainfalls in this historical switch from paper to screen. What Adobe says basically it's our way or highway. Get used to it.

If that is the case, then Adobe won't mind losing the patronage of tens of thousands of photographers to alternative programs, once they are developed.  So then everyone can be happy again.  But I can already envision Lightroom's sales starting to plummet, as the photographic community loses confidence in the manufacturer.  Do you think that Adobe will be OK with that as well?

Rob
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Gulag on May 11, 2013, 07:03:35 pm
If that is the case, then Adobe won't mind losing the patronage of tens of thousands of photographers to alternative programs, once they are developed.  So then everyone can be happy again.  But I can already envision Lightroom's sales starting to plummet, as the photographic community loses confidence in the manufacturer.  Do you think that Adobe will be OK with that as well?

Rob

It seems like Adobe *believes* it's a TINA world as Margaret Thatcher used to preach. How many photographers don't rely on any third-party plugins/filters/actions in their LR/PS workflow? If the number is more than 80%,  Adobe wouldn't dare to roll out its rentier plan because the switching cost would be far lower.  But, if you can visit those so-called *Creative* workplace, and every desktop has Adobe Creative Suite installed. Adobe seemingly also believes in 80/20 rule in this case.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: digitaldog on May 11, 2013, 07:34:01 pm
Because the sale of a print is not only the sale of a piece of paper, it is the sale of the intellectual property on that paper.

I agree. Thanks for clarifying.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 11, 2013, 07:47:06 pm
Because the sale of a print is not only the sale of a piece of paper, it is the sale of the intellectual property on that paper.

Hi,

Whoa, one doesn't automatically sell the IP, one sells a copy of a print (unless you stipulate the transfer of the copyright to a single new owner, who can then exclusively exercise his acquired Copy Rights, locking you out).

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: ButchM on May 11, 2013, 07:56:29 pm
Quote
Hi,

Whoa, one doesn't automatically sell the IP, one sells a copy of a print (unless you stipulate the transfer the copyright to a single new owner, who can then exclusively exercise his acquired Copy Rights, locking you out).

Cheers,
Bart

Agreed. I should have said the routine sale of a print is actually an implied limited personal use licensing. The courts have upheld in many cases the implied limited personal use licensing in the absence of a written agreement that stipulates otherwise in specific detail.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: jrsforums on May 11, 2013, 07:59:45 pm
No, "license" is the correct term ... Every product I sell or service I provide also includes a written license agreement. Whether the job is a portrait print package, wedding package that includes prints, albums and digital files, commercial shoot where only digital files are provided or a job for publication delivered electronically. Each type of job has it's own set of license requirements and limitations as required that is amicable to all parties concerned. I don't offer a one-size-fits all license because my client's needs are different. Thus I accommodate them, for which they compensate me based upon those accommodations ...

Even without the existence of a written license, photographers who sell prints still have copyright license enforcement opportunities although they would be more limited. But it is still a "license" nonetheless. Because the sale of a print is not only the sale of a piece of paper, it is the sale of the intellectual property on that paper.

Thanks, Butch.

You said what I was stretching towards much better than I could....with the update on "personal license"
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 11, 2013, 08:13:41 pm
Agreed. I should have said the routine sale of a print is actually an implied limited personal use licensing. The courts have upheld in many cases the implied limited personal use licensing in the absence of a written agreement that stipulates otherwise in specific detail.

Hi,

But don't forget that, e.g. a banknote, just like a print, remains to have the copyrights of the original IP holder, which also means that others are not allowed to reproduce it, alter it, or even purposely damage it!

So, the absent written agreement is already very much part of the original Copyright.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: John Camp on May 11, 2013, 08:57:47 pm
I don't much care about the cost, I care about the control. If I edit photographs in a post-CS6 cloud-based Photoshop, and if I then do something that seriously annoys Adobe, they can turn me off. I no longer have access to what could be thousands of hours of my own work -- not Adobe's work, but mine. I suspect that right now, somebody somewhere is planning to do just that -- annoy Adobe, get turned off, and then sue, not to be turned on again, but with a claim that they were irrevocably damaged by Adobe's action, that no EULA can apply to somebody else's *work* (not the software, but the *work.*) If just one photo geek somewhere wins, say, $100K with such a suit, I think many, many people might pile on.

I think the Adobe EULA has a lot of stuff in it that is designed to frighten people, and that Adobe wouldn't even attempt to enforce a lot of it, but suppose there was one thing that would really piss Adobe off, and cause them to shut you down? Well, there is. Suppose you lost your job and temporarily couldn't pay the fees? They wouldn't want to hear that, at all. They would quickly stop supporting your software, like, tomorrow. And this is not some random annoyance that some evil guy at Adobe uses to turn you off...this will be a common, routine occurrence and I suspect over the years would cause them to turn hundreds or thousands of people off...and those people would then lose access to their past work.

Let's take this out of the photography realm for a moment. Suppose I am a professional writer who specializes in writing software tutorial books; let's say my name is Shoey.  I go to a cloud-based Microsoft Word where I write a complete how-to book, and I'm negotiating the sale of the book for a very large sum of money, but something I say really pisses Microsoft off -- like, "I'm broke, and I temporarily can't pay the license fee until I sell my book." So they turn off my Word, and refuse to give me access to my own work. Would I sue? You bet I would. And I would sue for a screamingly large amount of money, not only the loss of the sale of the book, but the loss of opportunity -- the momentum that book would have given other books, to my career, etc. Microsoft may have the right to control its software, but they have no right to deny me access to my work.

How is that different than if you find you can't pay Adobe to continue the license, they then refuse to let you have access to your past work? Answer: it isn't.

Adobe could largely protect itself, IMHO, if they added a facility that would "freeze" Photoshop CC at any given point that would allow the users full access to export functions for his stored images and the image modification files, so that while you might lose access to Photoshop, you wouldn't lose your own work. 

I think they could do that, but I doubt that they will.
My feeling is, this is going to end badly.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Colorwave on May 11, 2013, 10:50:27 pm
... if I then do something that seriously annoys Adobe, they can turn me off...

I wonder is a suitably acerbic forum post on a prominent site would suffice.  ;-)
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on May 11, 2013, 11:29:26 pm
To get back to the original topic, I noted that Michael said
Quote
Now, of course if you want to continue using CPM and WordPerfect, that's your right. Just don't expect to run it on a present-day CPU.

To set the record straight, WordPerfect runs just fine on Windows 7 (but not CPM) on my present-day Intel Core I7 CPU.

And if you want to run WordStar on CPM, I have a working Kaypro in my cellar that can still do it.

(So, Take That, Adobe!!!)    ;D
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Schewe on May 11, 2013, 11:55:26 pm
Let's take this out of the photography realm for a moment. Suppose I am a professional writer who specializes in writing software tutorial books; let's say my name is Shoey.  I go to a cloud-based Microsoft Word where I write a complete how-to book, and I'm negotiating the sale of the book for a very large sum of money, but something I say really pisses Microsoft off -- like, "I'm broke, and I temporarily can't pay the license fee until I sell my book." So they turn off my Word, and refuse to give me access to my own work. Would I sue? You bet I would. And I would sue for a screamingly large amount of money, not only the loss of the sale of the book, but the loss of opportunity -- the momentum that book would have given other books, to my career, etc. Microsoft may have the right to control its software, but they have no right to deny me access to my work.

Hum...you are an excellent fiction writer John...but like all fiction, one must, as a reader, be willing to suspend disbelief and overlook reality.

First off, I use Word but if Word was removed from my system by the evil MSFT, I would open that Word doc in OpenOffice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice) and keep writing. Yes, I would loose my formatting macros (my Word specific text adjustments), but I would could add styles that would tell production what needs to be a Head 1, or 2 and what's a caption and a callout. Bold in Word is essentially the same as Bold in Writer and save text out as .rtf.

So, would OpenOffice work exactly like Word? Nope...but I could get access to my text (image) and redo formatting (image adjustments) but the essence of my work would remain assessable so I could finish my book on time (highly unlikely since I'm terrible at deadlines). In your fictional; scenario, you better believe I would have some choice words about Word & MSFT :~)

Going away from the analogy (fiction) and back to digital imaging (reality), image file formats have enough compatibility outside of Photoshop to allow access to my images outside of Photoshop. Would a different app maintain things like Smart Objects? Nope...would other apps support all of the Photoshop adjustment layers? Nope. But I would still have access to my images and could do digital imaging with any other apps like Corel PaintShop Pro X5 (http://www.corel.com/corel/product/index.jsp?pid=prod4900069&cid=catalog20038&segid=8100006) for $69.99 sadly, Windows only) or GIMP which is cross platform and free. Would I lose work? Yep, Would I lose images? Nope...

As it relates to raw images and ACR/LR, yes, things are more complicated and would be problematic. Yes, the raw edits would be lost if you couldn't get at the raw images with Adobe software because only ACR/LR can read and process those settings. But you would sill have your original raw file. There are plenty of other 3rd party raw processing options–some darn near as good as ACR/LR (some people might say better than ACR/LR but that is a debatable point).

Look, these are the early days of this sea change...we've yet to see the real impact of these changes over time. The CC announcement was less that 1 week ago, and Photoshop CC hasn't even shipped yet. There will be a 30 day demo of Photoshop CC to allow people to see whether or not the new features and functionality is a worthwhile update over CS6. Adobe will have to work hard to keep adding new features t keep subscribers who do buy in happy. For the foreseeable future, photographers still have the CS6 option. How long will Adobe keep selling CS6? I don't know...I'm not sure Adobe knows at this point. Will photographers leave Photoshop in droves? I don't know, neither is Adobe. Will a bunch of competitors be born to pick up where Adobe left off? I don't know, we'll see. The gate has been opened, we'll see what happens. What I suggest people do is wait and see what transpires...and resist doing anything irrational now that makes your life miserable in the future. YMMV!
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Chris Pollock on May 12, 2013, 12:09:34 am
Again, Photoshop has very small tiny weight in Adobe's overall revenue pie, and photographers are actually very very small percentage of Photoshop user base.
What about the non-photographers? Don't they have exactly the same objections to the rental model that the photographers do?

Quite frankly, Adobe's customers should be able to survive with older versions of Adobe software, or with non-Adobe software. Adobe will not be able to survive long without customers. I think people need to vote with their wallets and remind Adobe of this fact.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Morris Taub on May 13, 2013, 03:15:44 am
This debate is getting wrongly biased.

The protest against the CC model is not coming from amateurs vs professionals, it is also not coming from photographers vs graphic designers/other types of PS users. The current reaction is coming from individual users vs corporate customers.

I know many freelance pro graphic designers in Japan who use PS and Illustrator are just as outraged as I am by the decision of Adobe.

I know for a fact that those users were core targets of Adobe, and although I Adobe will probably not be willing to share their customers stats, my guess is that individual users represent a significant chunk of their user base.

Cheers,
Bernard


same here Bernard, I know people using one or two programs that won't be happy...the amateur vs. pro stuff is secondary...a diversion at best...
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: bns on May 13, 2013, 05:54:17 am
Isn’t it funny, sort of. Many very different users of Adobe products all of a sudden realize that their work is heavily dependent on the stability of Adobe. Don’t even people who approve of the CC scheme – photographers, designers, in fact any user - now think a moment longer about "do I/we have an adequate escape scenario just in case Adobe fumbles". Too little competition for too long.

To me it seems that Adobe has made that very clear to the world. The situation can only improve from now on.

In the meantime, for me personally, LR is all I need.

Boudewijn Swanenburg
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Ronny Nilsen on May 13, 2013, 09:46:48 am
Getting the CC for $20/month seems like a fair deal from Adobe, but her in Norway the price of CC is about $90/month, and $36 for a single app. That is not such a great deal.  :(

All the other issues aside, the price alone is hard to justify for somebody that have this as a hobby...

Ronny
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: thierrylegros396 on May 13, 2013, 10:17:59 am
Yes the price for Europe are really to much higher than US prices !!

The difference is even more higher than the ever existing ones for perpetual licenses.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: SeanA on May 16, 2013, 04:42:07 pm
The people that should really be worried about this are the gurus Like Schewe, Kelby, Caponigro, it aint the pros taking their seminars and buying their books. Heck most of the high end pros are selling themselves as Photoshop gurus now to us amatuers. No Photoshop for us amateurs no need for courses and workshops, maybe the odd lightroom book and that's it.   hell this is probably going to save me a fortune.  Thanks adobe.  no more napp thats $80 , no more kelby training, that's 180$ the savings are adding up already.

Sad though I have spent a small fortune of my discretionary income with the "hobby".  But then again I'm loving capture one these days.

Sean
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 16, 2013, 05:09:57 pm
The people that should really be worried about this are the gurus Like Schewe, Kelby, Caponigro, it aint the pros taking their seminars and buying their books. Heck most of the high end pros are selling themselves as Photoshop gurus now to us amatuers. No Photoshop for us amateurs no need for courses and workshops, maybe the odd lightroom book and that's it.   hell this is probably going to save me a fortune.  Thanks adobe.  no more napp thats $80 , no more kelby training, that's 180$ the savings are adding up already.

Sad though I have spent a small fortune of my discretionary income with the "hobby".  But then again I'm loving capture one these days.

Sean

Was thinking just the same.

However, I've been saving going on a decade by teaching myself what I need to know about image editing apps and reading quite a few of the digital imaging support forums like this one to weed out any snags like what I'm just experiencing right now with my new intro into LR4 and the Raw Engine mismatch with the current flavor of photoshop.

And I remember reading something about this a year or so ago which scared me away from upgrading and now forgot about it. Try figuring out XMP, EXIF, IPTC metadata entry and embedding into images to discover a new level of exhausting complexity.
Title: Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
Post by: Gulag on May 16, 2013, 05:31:51 pm
The people that should really be worried about this are the gurus Like Schewe, Kelby, Caponigro, it aint the pros taking their seminars and buying their books. Heck most of the high end pros are selling themselves as Photoshop gurus now to us amatuers. No Photoshop for us amateurs no need for courses and workshops, maybe the odd lightroom book and that's it.   hell this is probably going to save me a fortune.  Thanks adobe.  no more napp thats $80 , no more kelby training, that's 180$ the savings are adding up already.

Sad though I have spent a small fortune of my discretionary income with the "hobby".  But then again I'm loving capture one these days.

Sean

My take is that many of us who have learned Photoshop will like need to unlearn it, and perhaps to learn something else. Adobe doesn't put a gun to everyone's head, and I know it's hard but you've got to make your choice.