Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: yaredna on September 11, 2013, 06:07:19 PM

Title: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: yaredna on September 11, 2013, 06:07:19 PM
I get it: Adobe is finally recognizing that the photographer market, pro  and amateur, is a business segment that is worth throwing a bone to.

I read their PR. I read their blog. I read the experts' opinion. I watched the video interview of Thomas Knoll (thank you Michael for the informative interview... And thank you Thomas for being our advocate internally).

All points to the fact that Adobe is structuring a deal for photographers. Thank you.

I am eligible. Many are. Because we own PS CS3 or beyond.

Many are not, and many more will not be. Think of new photogaphers graduating this year, new retirees jumping into commercial portrait photography, egineers tired of writing code in cubicles jumping into a photography business.

If Adobe is truly honest to their word, they should not price this as an "upgrade" , but rather as a photographer price to a limited set of tools (PS + LR). Kind of a-la carte pricing, if you will. Ad why this limit of having to start by december? What if a student is graduating in June next year?

My interpretation: Adobe is not yet coming clean with this. It is a stopgap to limit the uproar, but not a solution that is sustainable for fellow photographers.

Nadim

Ps - although i am eligible, I am Will probably not jump in. I already purchased alternative tools and i started using them (aperture, ...). I don't like subscription or rentals in general. I think the model optimizes profits for Adobe (good for them) but hurts consumers on the long run. For me, The train has left the station, and i cannot bet the future of my photography on the whimsical zig-zag of few Adobe executives.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Steve Weldon on September 11, 2013, 06:43:47 PM
 Good points.  The first views I've seen even somewhat similar to my own which I wrote about here: 
"Betcha Adobe Didnít Think of That.. Photoshop CC Subscription Model (http://www.bangkokimages.com/Articles/Software/entryid/1224/Betcha-Adobe-Didn-t-Think-of-That-Photoshop-CC-Subscription-Model.aspx)
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: yaredna on September 11, 2013, 07:06:07 PM
Steve, thank you for pointing to your blog. Very interesting blog.

I totally agree with your article. Short term view hiding the long term. They simply opened the door to a more robust competitive landscape, after they owned the digital photography market.

Competition is good. Corel is jumping in. I hope Apple will at some juncture. Google started with Picasa (img management ) and Nik for processing. Microsoft should re-awaken its own efforts (photo editor? ICE?). All these are formidable competitors.

For, Aperture + Pixelmator are satisfying 95% of my needs. For the remaining 5%, i fire up my old PC and photoshop them. Hoping soon to become 100% independent from Adobe.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: W.T. Jones on September 11, 2013, 08:14:55 PM
Nice article Steve, I liked your take on it. As do I like the OP's. This may be the first post I have made regarding this whole CC thing

Like many things happening these days, the whole thing is perplexing, but I cannot shake the feeling that other software companies are going to jump on the band wagon and do the same thing very soon. It also appears that the days of the PC are coming to an end, where all we will have is a terminal and an internet connection. Renting, just like cable TV boxes. It is all very disheartening really. I like to own things & have control over how I use them. 

I have no idea what I will do once once CS-6 fails to work for me, or LR becomes a CC only thing. Will I get on the bus? Dunno. By then perhaps an alternative solution will present itself. Where will still imaging be when that time comes? Maybe I will just say Screw it and be happy with my Fuji Jpegs or quit photography all together? I know one thing for certain, I am not going to spend countless hours fretting over it or complaining on internet forums. I also doubt Adobe is going to change their minds about this. I'll keep an eye on things & see where the whole thing goes. Making adjustments as things progress. I don't see any other option.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Simon Garrett on September 12, 2013, 09:28:03 AM
Interesting article, Steve. 

I think few amateur photographers (or professionals with intermittant income) like the rental model.  And I get rather fed up reading patronising posts explaining it all, and saying how it's really in our best interests, and "proving" that it's such good value.  I just don't like renting software.  When I stop paying, I want something still to be there.  End of.  As Steve says, I don't want to pay Nikon to stop them taking my camera away, and I don't want to pay Adobe not to take my software away.  Call that an emotional, irrational view: I don't care.  It's my hobby, and dammit, I'll think about it however it pleases me. 

Given that I have CS5 and LR5, I might (just might) take out the offer, on the basis that I can revert to those perpetual licences later.  But I'm not happy about it. 

I was on a customer visit once, and my colleague started to say "you have to see it from our point of view..." and the customer cut him off: "Listen, pal: me customer, you supplier.  You have to see it from my point of view, I don't have to see it from your point of view." 

'Nuff said?
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: SunnyUK on September 13, 2013, 11:30:44 AM
I was on a customer visit once, and my colleague started to say "you have to see it from our point of view..." and the customer cut him off: "Listen, pal: me customer, you supplier.  You have to see it from my point of view, I don't have to see it from your point of view." 

'Nuff said?


Unless they're tied in to a single customer, suppliers most certainly also have a choice to take their business elsewhere.  Good business deals come from win/win situations, and win/win situations come from both parties understanding each other. I'm sure the customer in your anecdote found it satisfying to demean his supplier, but if that's how he treats all his suppliers, he might not be in business for very long.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Simon Garrett on September 13, 2013, 12:55:53 PM
Unless they're tied in to a single customer, suppliers most certainly also have a choice to take their business elsewhere.  Good business deals come from win/win situations, and win/win situations come from both parties understanding each other. I'm sure the customer in your anecdote found it satisfying to demean his supplier, but if that's how he treats all his suppliers, he might not be in business for very long.
I don't think we're talking about business deals of the sort you describe.  What you say is true for relatively symetrical deals with two knowledgeable parties to a deal, the way ideal markets work in Economics 101. 

That's not how it works, in my view, for mass-market suppliers, especially in the consumer market.  This is the situation where there are multiple suppliers (not a monopoly supply), but many more customers than suppliers. 

In these circumstances, customers choose suppliers (given the choice), suppliers don't choose customers.  Suppliers want every customer they can get without too much trouble, leisure customers are often buying exactly once (on any particular occasion), and (if there's a choice) will shop around.  Suppliers need to be reasonably nice, rational and predictable to customers (obviously this doesn't apply to de facto monopoly suppliers) but customers don't need to be nice, and can be irrational, awkward and quixotic.  (Obviously, the supplier will walk away if the customer is too awkward.) 


Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: SunnyUK on September 13, 2013, 03:03:08 PM
You're absolutely right in a mass market situation. I just don't normally see suppliers sitting down with customers and explaining themselves in such situations. So I assumec(maybe wrongly) that we were talking about a B2B deal rather than B2C
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Steve Weldon on September 13, 2013, 07:17:51 PM
Steve, thank you for pointing to your blog. Very interesting blog.

I totally agree with your article. Short term view hiding the long term. They simply opened the door to a more robust competitive landscape, after they owned the digital photography market.

Competition is good. Corel is jumping in. I hope Apple will at some juncture. Google started with Picasa (img management ) and Nik for processing. Microsoft should re-awaken its own efforts (photo editor? ICE?). All these are formidable competitors.

For, Aperture + Pixelmator are satisfying 95% of my needs. For the remaining 5%, i fire up my old PC and photoshop them. Hoping soon to become 100% independent from Adobe.
1.  Thank you.  9 of my 11 blogs are geared towards people new to photography or old film guys wanting to get their feet wet with digital. The other 2 are more for fun and to provoke thought. 

2.  Absolutely.  There's no doubt Adobe is huge and they make great software.  But each and every time a manufacturer forgets there is competition right outside their door waiting for a way in.. they pay a heavy price.  Often complete loss.   And really, I can't think of a more prefect "open door" to other manufacturers than this subscription model.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Steve Weldon on September 13, 2013, 07:40:44 PM
Nice article Steve, I liked your take on it. As do I like the OP's. This may be the first post I have made regarding this whole CC thing

Like many things happening these days, the whole thing is perplexing, but I cannot shake the feeling that other software companies are going to jump on the band wagon and do the same thing very soon. It also appears that the days of the PC are coming to an end, where all we will have is a terminal and an internet connection. Renting, just like cable TV boxes. It is all very disheartening really. I like to own things & have control over how I use them. 

I have no idea what I will do once once CS-6 fails to work for me, or LR becomes a CC only thing. Will I get on the bus? Dunno. By then perhaps an alternative solution will present itself. Where will still imaging be when that time comes? Maybe I will just say Screw it and be happy with my Fuji Jpegs or quit photography all together? I know one thing for certain, I am not going to spend countless hours fretting over it or complaining on internet forums. I also doubt Adobe is going to change their minds about this. I'll keep an eye on things & see where the whole thing goes. Making adjustments as things progress. I don't see any other option.

This might be because we've lived with subscription models our entire lives.  Ma-bell might have been the first for many of us.  One fee for all your local calls?  Then cable tv, bug spray services, virus software subscriptions?  They're everywhere.   AAA auto club?  Internet access.  Insurance?  Music clubs? Monthly account fee for your bank?  Your mortgage?  Everywhere we look there are more.  And more are coming.  In the business world fresh monthly fees coming in are the gold standard or holy grail of business.  Icing on the cake is being granted access to your bank account or credit card so they can automatically debit your account.  The less you have to do to pay for your subscription, the higher chances for them to keep it going.

Every business, each one out there, dreams about getting a subscription with an automatic debit agreement.  It's golden.. glows.  So sure, all companies want this.    But, only a relatively few reach this level.

Me?  Years ago I saw  this happening and have made an active effort to keep all subscription models out of my finances if at all possible.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: RFPhotography on September 13, 2013, 07:44:26 PM
Why only CS3 and above?  Why do only owners of previous versions of PS get to pay just the upgrade fee?  Same principle, really.  It's a reward for loyalty.  It's the same principle for any software, really.

WRT the 'used' software market, there really isn't a comparison to the used gear market.  I've never bought software second-hand but I do buy a lot of gear that way.  There just isn't the same market for used software.  The linked article posited the idea that Adobe would he hurt by the idea of a drop in the, virtually non-existent, used software market.  How?  How does Adobe benefit from it now?  Adobe doesn't make any money when software trades between users.  Upgrade fees?  How many people who buy used software, of the few who do already, are going to then upgrade via Adobe rather than wait for someone to offer up the next version on the second-hand market?

I'm certainly not a fan of this shift in practice by Adobe, although I did eventually sign on; but the lack of logic and reasoning that so many display in their opposition is astounding. 
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Wayne Fox on September 13, 2013, 09:46:58 PM


I was on a customer visit once, and my colleague started to say "you have to see it from our point of view..." and the customer cut him off: "Listen, pal: me customer, you supplier.  You have to see it from my point of view, I don't have to see it from your point of view." 

'Nuff said?

While business talk and act that way, certainly if a business listened to and did only what it's customers wanted they may find themselves in financial ruin.  Sometimes a business does something some customers don't like because they have to (been there, done that), and they lose some customers. Some time in the future it can be determined if management did the right thing.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Steve Weldon on September 13, 2013, 11:21:52 PM
Why only CS3 and above?  Why do only owners of previous versions of PS get to pay just the upgrade fee?  Same principle, really.  It's a reward for loyalty.  It's the same principle for any software, really.

WRT the 'used' software market, there really isn't a comparison to the used gear market. I've never bought software second-hand but I do buy a lot of gear that way. There just isn't the same market for used software.  The linked article posited the idea that Adobe would he hurt by the idea of a drop in the, virtually non-existent, used software market.  How?  How does Adobe benefit from it now?  Adobe doesn't make any money when software trades between users.  Upgrade fees?  How many people who buy used software, of the few who do already, are going to then upgrade via Adobe rather than wait for someone to offer up the next version on the second-hand market?

I'm certainly not a fan of this shift in practice by Adobe, although I did eventually sign on; but the lack of logic and reasoning that so many display in their opposition is astounding.  

1.  So, because you never have personally or seen it personally, then it doesn't exist?  I love it when someone uses the word "logic" while breeching a couple fallacies in the process.  It pretty much sets the table.

2.  If the software market were non-existent than you wouldn't see millions of copies being sold on Amazon, about the same on Ebay, and used software stores near every college campus.  You might want to consider visiting one for your next software purchase.

3.  I was shocked by your apparent inability to connect the dots.  My bad..    Anyway, upgrade fees as you mention would be one t though you must be careful the copy you're buying hasn't already been upgraded from.  But mostly people starting out with an old bike often graduate to new bikes as they become more successful.  Old cars to new cars.  Small houses to big houses.  It's a way IN that gives people a chance to love photography and prioritize it in their expenditure lists.  It's also a smart buy for those who are otherwise strapped and buying new now.. they could have saved enough for a new lens or strobe or whatever.  Software is a necessary piece of equipment just like a camera, computer, or anything else you use for business.

4.  That sir is just plan rude..
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: RFPhotography on September 13, 2013, 11:43:07 PM
1.  So, because you never have personally or seen it personally, then it doesn't exist?  I love it when someone uses the word "logic" while breeching a couple fallacies in the process.  It pretty much sets the table.

I didn't say it didn't exist at all.  I didn't say I'd not seen it.  Read what was written. 

Quote
2.  If the software market were non-existent than you wouldn't see millions of copies being sold on Amazon, about the same on Ebay, and used software stores near every college campus.  You might want to consider visiting one for your next software purchase.

What you see is software being offered.  And yes, I'm aware of it.  Again, I didn't say completely non-existent.  But just because software is being offered, doesn't mean it's being sold.  Frankly, I wouldn't buy used software.  There is no way to know if it's legitimate or not.  Or if the seller has, as is often required, properly deregistered the copy being sold so that the new user can properly register it.  And before you respond I'm not saying all are like that. 

Quote
3.  I was shocked by your apparent inability to connect the dots.  My bad..    Anyway, upgrade fees as you mention would be one t though you must be careful the copy you're buying hasn't already been upgraded from.  But mostly people starting out with an old bike often graduate to new bikes as they become more successful.  Old cars to new cars.  Small houses to big houses.  It's a way IN that gives people a chance to love photography and prioritize it in their expenditure lists.  It's also a smart buy for those who are otherwise strapped and buying new now.. they could have saved enough for a new lens or strobe or whatever.  Software is a necessary piece of equipment just like a camera, computer, or anything else you use for business.

No, I did address it.  Your shock is entirely misplaced.  I posed a question which you did not answer.  Probably because you don't have an answer.  I wouldn't expect you would.  I don't either.  Which makes your old to new argument quite a bit weaker and your 'often' supposition just that, a supposition.  There are also people who also always buy a used car.

Quote
4.  That sir is just plan rude..

Oh bloody hell.  "Betcha didn't think of that Mr. I Want A Steady Income Stream so badly I didn't even see that coming..  "  That's a pretty rude comment.  As is this, "Betcha never saw it coming because your eyes were only looking ahead to your next annual investors report,"
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Rhossydd on September 14, 2013, 03:13:02 AM
Quote
How many people who buy used software, of the few who do already, are going to then upgrade via Adobe rather than wait for someone to offer up the next version on the second-hand market?
Most of my Adobe licences started as second hand purchases. Photoshop 4 which I continued to upgrade until CS4, Creative Suite I bought as a s/h Mac version CS2 then did a cross platform upgrade to CS3 and finished at CS4, Premiere Pro I bought s/h at version 1.5 and upgraded to CS5.
Yes, Adobe had lots of cash out of me for upgrades, even though the only product I bought from new was LR1.

It made lots of sense to buy an old copy then upgrade to the latest version as required. That option has gone now and I won't be giving them anything for CC.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Wayland on September 14, 2013, 05:15:38 AM
I started with shareware like PSP then made the change to a used copy of PS5 long ago it seems. Over the years I have worked my way up to the latest software.

Although the new offer is very attractive I still have reservations and I am building my own exit strategy through alternative software like PhotoLine ( Not widely known but very powerful and excellent value.)

I'm not a wealthy man, never have been, probably never will be. I made choices that lead towards quality of life rather than a fat bank balance. I have no problem with my choices but it does mean I have no wish to be tied into a perpetual drain on my financial resources in the future.

One of the many things that I do is teach a diverse range of people how to get more out of their photography. Up till now that has largely involved PSE, LR AND PS with a bit if PSP and Gimp as a side order. Now I am structuring my lectures towards more affordable, perpetual licence software and my principal recommendation to people starting on the editing path is now PhotoLine with PS near the bottom of the list.

Small beans perhaps but how many of those people are customers that Adobe will never see? I don't know.

My initial anger at Adobes decision has abated somewhat since the announcement but I still cannot see my future with Adobe products beyond the licences I hold now. I understand that I am not part of their core customer base. That's unfortunate for me but no skin off Adobes corporate nose.

It's a shame, I love PS and I have invested a lot of time learning it's ways but I cannot tell what my future will bring and I cannot commit to such a subscription no matter how paltry some may feel that cost to be.

Eric Chan posted very reassuring words on another thread about preserving backward file compatibility with CS6 and the like which calmed some of my fears but the problem still remains that ten years down the line the computers we use then will probably not run such ancient software.

I need a product that will grow with me and my hardware but not vanish when I am no longer able to pay the rent. Is that too much to ask?

Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Steve Weldon on September 14, 2013, 06:54:25 PM
I didn't say it didn't exist at all.  I didn't say I'd not seen it.  Read what was written. 

I did.  I think my response was fair given what  you wrote.

Quote
What you see is software being offered.  And yes, I'm aware of it.  Again, I didn't say completely non-existent.  But just because software is being offered, doesn't mean it's being sold.  Frankly, I wouldn't buy used software.  There is no way to know if it's legitimate or not.  Or if the seller has, as is often required, properly deregistered the copy being sold so that the new user can properly register it.  And before you respond I'm not saying all are like that. 


Sorry, but when used software is being offered in such huge markets as Ebay, Amazon, used books stores worldwide, not to mention LARGE stores set up just to sell used software.. you just can't say their products aren't being sold.  They're at least being sold enough to make them worth these rather large venues.  Which would be considerable.  I'm happy for you that you never needed to buy used software, but there are an awful lot of people out there who do either because they cant afford it.. or only because its a smart business move. 

Quote
No, I did address it.  Your shock is entirely misplaced.  I posed a question which you did not answer.  Probably because you don't have an answer.  I wouldn't expect you would.  I don't either.  Which makes your old to new argument quite a bit weaker and your 'often' supposition just that, a supposition.  There are also people who also always buy a used car.

To be honest I don't usually don't honour a rude response by responding to their answer to my question with a question of their own.   It wouldn't matter anyway as I can see from the rest of your responses, you would just deny deny deny anyway..  which is fine, you're entitled to your opinion.. even if it is misplaced.

Quote
Oh bloody hell.  "Betcha didn't think of that Mr. I Want A Steady Income Stream so badly I didn't even see that coming..  "  That's a pretty rude comment.  As is this, "Betcha never saw it coming because your eyes were only looking ahead to your next annual investors report,"

And now you can't see the difference between responding to a large corporation via editorial and responding directly to a person because you didn't agree with them.  More of your "logic" via convoluted syllogism at work.  Hint:  "Reasoning" is different than "logic."  It's okay to reason all you want, it only shows an individuals train of thought, right, wrong or different.  But when you label it "logic" then it needs to follow the rules.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Schewe on September 14, 2013, 07:08:28 PM
Sorry, but when used software is being offered in such huge markets as Ebay, Amazon, used books stores worldwide, not to mention LARGE stores set up just to sell used software.. you just can't say their products aren't being sold.  They're at least being sold enough to make them worth these rather large venues.  Which would be considerable.  I'm happy for you that you never needed to buy used software, but there are an awful lot of people out there who do either because they cant afford it.. or only because its a smart business move.

Sorry...but the odds are real good in the case of Ebay and Amazon (not Amazon direct) the "used" or OEM software you buy is bogus and pirated...

To be clear, it's real difficult to buy legit used software...the seller has to jump through hoops and sign a "letter of destruction" (LOD) and the new buyer needs to register the software to be able to move forward with upgrades. Many users sell off an upgrade as a full version or sell their full version after upgrading their license. Both of which are bogus...

Yes, there was a market for used software, but by and large it was grey or black market and resulted in the buyer getting burned...

And, yes, that will be irrevocably changed with Adobe selling subscriptions...personally, I have no problem with bogus and pirated software getting screwed by the subscription model.

Software is, at it's root, intellectual property and as an author of IP (photos, software and books) illegal pirating is a scourge...

Buying "used software" is nowhere close to buying tangible personal property...it's far more complicated and more likely to be a shady deal.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: yaredna on September 14, 2013, 11:29:51 PM
Sorry...but the odds are real good in the case of Ebay and Amazon (not Amazon direct) the "used" or OEM software you buy is bogus and pirated...

To be clear, it's real difficult to buy legit used software...the seller has to jump through hoops and sign a "letter of destruction" (LOD) and the new buyer needs to register the software to be able to move forward with upgrades. Many users sell off an upgrade as a full version or sell their full version after upgrading their license. Both of which are bogus...

Yes, there was a market for used software, but by and large it was grey or black market and resulted in the buyer getting burned...

And, yes, that will be irrevocably changed with Adobe selling subscriptions...personally, I have no problem with bogus and pirated software getting screwed by the subscription model.

Software is, at it's root, intellectual property and as an author of IP (photos, software and books) illegal pirating is a scourge...

Buying "used software" is nowhere close to buying tangible personal property...it's far more complicated and more likely to be a shady deal.

Jeff is right here. Often, You cannot re-sell your "purchased" software because it was not "purchased" technically, rather "licensed for a specificuse". These EULA areso well writtenthese days. Furthermore, reselling hardware that has embedded software follow the same rules. Technically, Apple can issue a cease-and-desist for every reseller of iPhones, for example. Users have the right to resell the hardware, but not the accompanying software (iOS).

That said, we expect businesses to do the "right" thing, and not alienate their user base. Adobe can't miss a beat these days, they keep alienating their base. Even when trying to "do it right" with the $9.99 offer for "photographers".  We later learned that it is not for photographers technically, but rather for previous owners of PS (CS3 and above). Not all photographers own PS. Many will become photogaphers in the near future. They cannot use the "photographer offer".

Bottom line: Adobe still can't figure out how they grow without alienating their base. We've all seen how this play in the long run.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: RFPhotography on September 15, 2013, 01:01:49 AM
I did.  I think my response was fair given what  you wrote.

No, not really.
 

Quote
Sorry, but when used software is being offered in such huge markets as Ebay, Amazon, used books stores worldwide, not to mention LARGE stores set up just to sell used software.. you just can't say their products aren't being sold.  They're at least being sold enough to make them worth these rather large venues.  Which would be considerable.  I'm happy for you that you never needed to buy used software, but there are an awful lot of people out there who do either because they cant afford it.. or only because its a smart]
business move. 

OK, don't believe me.  Believe Jeff, who responded after me.  Or not.....

Quote
To be honest I don't usually don't honour a rude response by responding to their answer to my question with a question of their own.   It wouldn't matter anyway as I can see from the rest of your responses, you would just deny deny deny anyway..  which is fine, you're entitled to your opinion.. even if it is misplaced.

Obfuscation.

Quote
And now you can't see the difference between responding to a large corporation via editorial and responding directly to a person because you didn't agree with them.  More of your "logic" via convoluted syllogism at work.  Hint:  "Reasoning" is different than "logic."  It's okay to reason all you want, it only shows an individuals train of thought, right, wrong or different.  But when you label it "logic" then it needs to follow the rules.

Heavy sigh.  More obfuscation.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: chez on September 15, 2013, 09:24:12 AM
Jeff is right here. Often, You cannot re-sell your "purchased" software because it was not "purchased" technically, rather "licensed for a specificuse". These EULA areso well writtenthese days. Furthermore, reselling hardware that has embedded software follow the same rules. Technically, Apple can issue a cease-and-desist for every reseller of iPhones, for example. Users have the right to resell the hardware, but not the accompanying software (iOS).

That said, we expect businesses to do the "right" thing, and not alienate their user base. Adobe can't miss a beat these days, they keep alienating their base. Even when trying to "do it right" with the $9.99 offer for "photographers".  We later learned that it is not for photographers technically, but rather for previous owners of PS (CS3 and above). Not all photographers own PS. Many will become photogaphers in the near future. They cannot use the "photographer offer".

Bottom line: Adobe still can't figure out how they grow without alienating their base. We've all seen how this play in the long run.

I don't see this $10 offer as alienating their user base, but rewarding their loyal customers with a discounted offer. New photographers still can get on the CC for PS, they'll just have to pay a little more. They are not alienated at all. Some people view this world through a half full cup I guess.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: michael on September 15, 2013, 10:04:44 AM
Why can't we just accept that different people have differing needs, wants and abilities.

As I noted in my recent essay Won Over the The Cloudy Side (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/won_over_to_the_cloudy_side.shtml), I bought the $29.95 bundle because I decided to switch from Final Cut X to Premiere Pro 6 for my video editing. This means I got Premiere for just $20 more than the "photographers" bundle, which gave me Photoshop and Lightroom.

But now a week has gone by and my dock also has Prelude, Supergrade, and Audition, three powerful and useful programs that I can use, and which I know I would have been reluctant to buy. And for when there's the time and the need, there'll be Illustrator and InDesign (which I haven't upgraded in years, and now I get the latest "free").

By coincidence, as I was writing this I got an email asking for an important legal document to be sent as a signed PDF. So I simply downloaded Acrobat Xi Pro Ė a few hundred dollars saved, that I would otherwise have to have spent this morning.

So for me, having access to all of Adobe's 25 or more professional imaging apps looks like a total no-brainer. No regrets whatsoever.

The whole issue of "I'll lose access to my files" is a red herring of the first magnitude. No one is going to come and pull the plug overnight. There's time to plan, if one finds oneself in the position that $30 is beyond one's means it likely isn't going to happen overnight.

My stills images, when I'm done working on them, are backed up regularly to DNG, and also to TIFFs. My video projects are saved as full resolution .MOV files. I really don't go back often and change things months or years later, but when I do there are countless ways to do so with other software products.

I have many subscriptions that cost far more than Adobe CC. My cell phone bill, regularly in the hundreds. My cable bill, regularly in the hundreds, my car insurance...don't ask. My home insurance, XM Satellite in the car, and so on and so on. (The only bargain subscription in my life at the moment seems to be Netflix. The deal of the century.)

$30 or even $50 per month is a minor cost of doing business for anyone in image processing professionally, and, I would argue, a relative bargain given that there are some of the best and most expensive production tools available in the CC offering if and when one needs them.

For the amateur on a budget and with limited needs, it's likely not a good idea. So don't do it!!! Find inexpensive software tools that you like and can use.

End of story, at least to my limited imagination. The arguments are really tedious and likely unnecessary. Just get on with your lives.

Michael
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Manoli on September 15, 2013, 10:56:16 AM
.. a minor cost of doing business for anyone in image processing professionally, ..
For the amateur on a budget and with limited needs, it's likely not a good idea. So don't do it!!! Find inexpensive software tools that you like and can use.

Excellent summation.

End of story, at least to my limited imagination. The arguments are really tedious and likely unnecessary. Just get on with your lives.

That the arguments are tedious, they now are.
But no-one, I repeat no-one has ever benefited from a de-facto unregulated monopoly, in the long-term.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: jjj on September 15, 2013, 02:58:31 PM
$30 or even $50 per month is a minor cost of doing business for anyone in image processing professionally, and, I would argue, a relative bargain given that there are some of the best and most expensive production tools available in the CC offering if and when one needs them.
In one of the other threads on CC pricing, someone who runs a small design studio did an interesting breakdown of the costs of his firm moving to CC and it was markedly more expensive to do so when compared to buying perpetual licences by need.
BTW here in the UK it's $75 for CC or $103 for team licences.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Damon Lynch on September 15, 2013, 02:59:59 PM
This means I got Premiere for just $20 more than the "photographers" bundle, which gave me Photoshop and Lightroom.

Another way of looking at it is that you got it for 5 times the price of the photographer's bundle, from next year onwards. But given how many applications you'll be using, it seems like a good deal financially for you in any case. For me as a (graduate) student, it's just the opposite, because for us the price has immediately double or tripled. Horses for courses.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Steve Weldon on September 15, 2013, 05:37:21 PM
Sorry...but the odds are real good in the case of Ebay and Amazon (not Amazon direct) the "used" or OEM software you buy is bogus and pirated...

To be clear, it's real difficult to buy legit used software...the seller has to jump through hoops and sign a "letter of destruction" (LOD) and the new buyer needs to register the software to be able to move forward with upgrades. Many users sell off an upgrade as a full version or sell their full version after upgrading their license. Both of which are bogus...

Yes, there was a market for used software, but by and large it was grey or black market and resulted in the buyer getting burned...

And, yes, that will be irrevocably changed with Adobe selling subscriptions...personally, I have no problem with bogus and pirated software getting screwed by the subscription model.

Software is, at it's root, intellectual property
and as an author of IP (photos, software and books) illegal pirating is a scourge...

Buying "used software" is nowhere close to buying tangible personal property...it's far more complicated and more likely to be a shady deal.

1.  This will be a fun one to respond to..   especially given your noted  take on the subject.    To be clear "real good" is not a tangible nor specific hook to hang your hat on.  Amazon and Ebay both have published policies against such software and while we all know pirated and grey/black/green software is a problem, this doesn't take away from the huge amount of legit used software being sold.  It's like saying fake Ferrari's with MR2 chassis are a known problem selling on ebay, all the used Ferrari's aren't selling.   We could then explore black/grey market cameras and equipment.. doesn't take away from the new gear selling.  In short Mr. Shewe, you cannot claim one thing is not happening by claiming another thing is.  Even if it is.   But still, it's a good thing both Amazon and Ebay protect their sellers from such things. providing they follow the rules.

2.  Agreed, Adobe and some others have made these letters "policy", very few other software makers go to that extent and Adobe is really not the only software title sold.  As a buyer you educate yourself and then go shopping.  Not everyone registers their software.  I'd guess until "activation" became mandatory very few did as registering was just another way for developers to collect marketing information on their clients.  Shady practice IMO.  But activation gave them a legit reason to collect this information and a way to enforce new policies on used software.  I think if you're even halfway fair you'll find Adobe has been the market leader in abusive and shady software practices.. some of which we've mentioned here and others such as selective enforcement and actually promoting piracy I won't go into here though others might remember me mentioning it before.

3.  No no.  You're not going to convince anyone "by and large" all used software is grey or black market and the buyer gets burned.  I'm surprised you'd try and get away with that comment. Well.. unless you've never been in a used software store?  Bought legit used software? Been buying too much software from your email junk box advertising?  I've been in far too many used software stores being run as legit businesses to fall for that one.  But sure, if you're buying software from shady sources you're 'by and large' going to end up with black/grey software.

4.  Sorry Mr Shewe.  It will only change with Adobe. Providing Adobe is successful with this model which I don't believe it will be. Only time will tell. 

And please, stop throwing "pirated software" against the way on every point you make to see if it sticks.  It's not.  It just slides down obfuscating the paint underneath.  Virtually everything is pirated these days, memory cards, camera accessories, cars, baseball cards, sports memorabilia, old Coca Cola products, clothes, handbags, car parts, hybrid seeds, bull sperm, horse zygotes, coffee, Viagra, condoms, coca cola itself, tires, clothes, shoes, CPU's, RAM,  and pages and pages more.  But each and every one of these products being pirated.. have legit markets.  AS DOES used software.

5.  There you go with pirating again.. geez.  Let's take your own examples, books, photos and software.. wait a minute.. SOFTWARE.  Yes.  It's a legit market, you sell it yourself.  Used software is too.   

6.  Actually Mr. Shewe it's very similar.  There are grey and black camera and lens an accessory sales going on right now.  Every reputable camera store I know of sells at least the grey versions.  Doesn't mean they're getting screwed or that it's a shady deal.  B&H would have a problem if you categorized their grey market products as such.. wonder if the sell software.. uhmm.. 


You entire post is just a rant against piracy and had very little to do with the used software market at all.  If you would have stopped trying to show there was some difference between used software and used everything else as it relates to piracy I'd have been jumping on your wagon.  All of us here agree.. or we should.. piracy is bad.  What we all won't agree on is what constitutes piracy because copyright is very much an evolving definition being battled in the courts as we speak.. because some big businesses and small time thugs lack morals and to them the only crime is not making every dollar they can. 
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Steve Weldon on September 15, 2013, 05:38:59 PM
No, not really.
 

OK, don't believe me.  Believe Jeff, who responded after me.  Or not.....

Obfuscation.

Heavy sigh.  More obfuscation.

1.  See my response to Jeff.

2.   Yes, answering a question with another questions is a great example of obfuscation.  Thank you.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Steve Weldon on September 15, 2013, 05:57:14 PM
Another way of looking at it is that you got it for 5 times the price of the photographer's bundle, from next year onwards. But given how many applications you'll be using, it seems like a good deal financially for you in any case. For me as a (graduate) student, it's just the opposite, because for us the price has immediately double or tripled. Horses for courses.

Exactly.. and this is the point I was making in my article.  There are segments of our profession getting whacked in the hienie (in my example I argued for those just getting into the business who would benefit from used software) so that others such as Michael's self-example.. can benefit from.

NOTHING in the business world is free.  Adobe didn't wake up yesterday and say "let's make LESS money, so let's go to a subscription model."  Anyone believe different?   No, they woke up and said "we can make MORE money by using a subscription model" and I'm sure they argued most aspects of who would benefit and who would get hurt as they developed their subscription model.

The bottom line is some will get hurt and it's always the guys who are at the bottom struggling to get started.  Michael states that "$30 or even $50 per month is a minor cost of doing business for anyone in image processing professionally,"  and I'd agree it is.  But for those starting out and those still struggling how do we get by and continue on?  Yep, we cut costs.  Even minor costs.  Is ANYONE here going to tell me they didn't decide to not take advantage of an Adobe update because they they could use the money better elsewhere?  That was a choice we used to have.  It has been taken away.  And it won't be the guys who think $30 - $50 is a minor cost either..
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Steve Weldon on September 15, 2013, 06:14:35 PM
Why can't we just accept that different people have differing needs, wants and abilities.

I think most of us do.  But forums such as these are both educational and a way to hear different views.  I thank you for providing the opportunity.

Quote
As I noted in my recent essay Won Over the The Cloudy Side (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/won_over_to_the_cloudy_side.shtml), I bought the $29.95 bundle because I decided to switch from Final Cut X to Premiere Pro 6 for my video editing. This means I got Premiere for just $20 more than the "photographers" bundle, which gave me Photoshop and Lightroom.

So you based your decision for the cloud, at least in a large part, by choosing Premiere?  Sounds like a good deal.  For now.  What happens when/if.. say Adobe falls back on it's video development a bit, after all now that they're in the subscription model one could argue they're better positioned to do so.. and Final Cut XX comes out and is significantly better than Premiere?  Buyers remorse?  And how easy will it be overall cost wise to rectify your position?

Quote
I have many subscriptions that cost far more than Adobe CC. My cell phone bill, regularly in the hundreds. My cable bill, regularly in the hundreds, my car insurance...don't ask. My home insurance, XM Satellite in the car, and so on and so on. (The only bargain subscription in my life at the moment seems to be Netflix. The deal of the century.)

This doesn't scare you?  My position as a consumer is it should.  Greatly. 

Quote
For the amateur on a budget and with limited needs, it's likely not a good idea. So don't do it!!! Find inexpensive software tools that you like and can use.

I think this attitude is felt loud and clear.  And for those, even the small time guys getting by on used software or not upgrading every new version.. but who has invested their greatest asset (time) in the learning curve.. this doesn't go over well and is the source of most of our discussions.

Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: RFPhotography on September 15, 2013, 06:32:06 PM
1.  See my response to Jeff.

I did.  Your anti-Adobe stance is so skewed that your commentary really can't be taken seriously.

Quote
2.   Yes, answering a question with another questions is a great example of obfuscation.  Thank you.

Indeed.  You have yet to answer the original question I posed.

As I said previously, I'm not a fan of the subscription model but I bit the bullet.  My rationale is similar to Michael's.  I substituted PPro/AE/Speedgrade for Sony Vegas.  Having needed InDesign for my first book and now working on a second, it makes sense from that standpoint as well.  When I went to the Adobe Canada site the $19.99 offer for the first year of the entire CC suite wasn't available, so I went back to the U.S site, upgraded through there and got the deal.  At $240 for the first year I'm already well ahead taking into account what the upgrade costs would have been for PS, LR and Sony Vegas.  If Adobe cranks up the price after the first year, I have options.  I can amortise the first year savings over future years, I can revert back to Vegas for video editing, I can revert to PS CS6 if I want.  Yes I'd lose the benefit of any new PS feature, but I don't anticipate being a heavy user of many of the new features Adobe has introduced, so likely little loss.  Adobe has indicated that Lightroom will remain a license-based package, so I can revert to that and have the functionality for any new RAW formats that may be required.

So there are options and the 'chicken little' approach is little more than fear-mongering.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: jjj on September 15, 2013, 07:26:49 PM
And, yes, that will be irrevocably changed with Adobe selling subscriptions...personally, I have no problem with bogus and pirated software getting screwed by the subscription model.
I just did a search and apparently CC was cracked almost as soon as it was launched (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2276670/adobe-creative-cloud-suite-cracked-within-24-hours) [I didn't realise The Pirate Bay  was still going after the law suits a while back]. I didn't think subscription would have any effect on piracy as how you pay won't be relevant to those cracking software. Really useful services you get via the Cloud will be more of an incentive to buy than use a dodgy copy, that is if you are daft enough to risk malware on your system in first place.
I also seem to recall when Adobe first introduced product activation to prevent piracy, some people bought legit software and then used a crack rather than go through the pain of activation and the issues when activation went squiffy.

Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Steve Weldon on September 21, 2013, 01:55:48 AM
I did.  Your anti-Adobe stance is so skewed that your commentary really can't be taken seriously.

Again, you make a statement and fail to support it.  Think about why this pleases me.


Quote
As I said previously, I'm not a fan of the subscription model but I bit the bullet.  My rationale is similar to Michael's.  I substituted PPro/AE/Speedgrade for Sony Vegas.  Having needed InDesign for my first book and now working on a second, it makes sense from that standpoint as well.  When I went to the Adobe Canada site the $19.99 offer for the first year of the entire CC suite wasn't available, so I went back to the U.S site, upgraded through there and got the deal.  At $240 for the first year I'm already well ahead taking into account what the upgrade costs would have been for PS, LR and Sony Vegas.  If Adobe cranks up the price after the first year, I have options.  I can amortise the first year savings over future years, I can revert back to Vegas for video editing, I can revert to PS CS6 if I want.  Yes I'd lose the benefit of any new PS feature, but I don't anticipate being a heavy user of many of the new features Adobe has introduced, so likely little loss.  Adobe has indicated that Lightroom will remain a license-based package, so I can revert to that and have the functionality for any new RAW formats that may be required.

So there are options and the 'chicken little' approach is little more than fear-mongering.

1.  Or one could say you "bent over."  Either phrase shows you didn't go into this with even a small degree of enthusiasm, but rather regret.  Different from Michael in that he saw a clear price advantage and was happy to take advantage of it.  You comment "bit the bullet" suggests you were in fact bitter about your choices.  I can relate.

2.   So you are a dual  UK/US resident paying taxes in both countries?  If not, and I'm not saying this for anything other than another interesting point to discuss and because as an long term expat I'm often faced with the same choices, isn't this another form of piracy?    Adobe lists a price for your location, and if you travel outside of this location/price to obtain a less expensive, it seems like a form of piracy.

I've asked Adobe about this several times and as you'd expect the different representatives gave different responses.  I finally figured if I'm living,working and paying taxes in both countries I should be okay.  But should I then look at how many months of each  year, etc..  It's a bit of a sticky wicket no?

3.  As I said above, I'm not entirely comfortable with the "option" you chose.. it feels a bit  slimy.  Maybe like sneaking drinks and candy into a movie theatre.   

4.  You don't appear to have a sound understanding of the chicken little theory, or fear mongering.  But it does seem to be a popular term slung about when the other side has nothing to go on or lacks the ability to articulate that which they do.

It's been fun.  Thank you.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Steve Weldon on September 21, 2013, 02:08:57 AM
I just did a search and apparently CC was cracked almost as soon as it was launched (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2276670/adobe-creative-cloud-suite-cracked-within-24-hours) [I didn't realise The Pirate Bay  was still going after the law suits a while back]. I didn't think subscription would have any effect on piracy as how you pay won't be relevant to those cracking software. Really useful services you get via the Cloud will be more of an incentive to buy than use a dodgy copy, that is if you are daft enough to risk malware on your system in first place.
I also seem to recall when Adobe first introduced product activation to prevent piracy, some people bought legit software and then used a crack rather than go through the pain of activation and the issues when activation went squiffy.



Adobe imo has a long history of questionable practices on this subject.  I think their new model will result in record setting piracy, not reduce it.

I've been busy the last few days building some custom systems and bought a lot of software for each as requested by my clients.  Nothing but negative comments towards Adobe from both clients with one I think trying to hint around at me installing a pirated copy for him.  That will never happen. Both made mention how easy the pirated versions were to find.  I checked, they are.

But the really interesting part was buying software from the Mcrosoft site.  They also have a new subscription model they're pushing and like Adobe they're the market leader in their field with great software.  The difference is Microsoft offers a series of perpetual licence packages.  No one was complaining or feeling negative.  They had choices.  Well thought out choices IMO. 
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: mistybreeze on September 21, 2013, 09:59:38 AM
End of story, at least to my limited imagination.

A photographer stuck with a limited imagination is not a good thing.

There's time to plan, if one finds oneself in the position that $30 is beyond one's means it likely isn't going to happen overnight.

Tell that to all those NYC photographers who are officially dropped from their Healthy NY insurance and now have to wonder what the "exchanges" hold for their future.

$30 or even $50 per month is a minor cost of doing business for anyone in image processing professionally

This justification, or sales pitch, reminds me of what every photographer receives while shopping for a needed tool of the trade. "You'll pay for this item with just three shoots!" Or that ubiquitous HSN/QVC seduction: "Just 12 easy payments of $50 (for the rest of your life), and this great deal can be yours."

In my world, everything depends on everything else, and every expense always seems to depend on how much income your business brings in.

I ran into a talented old friend at Fashion Week recently. He said his photography business grossed $175,000 last year, but he's two months late on his studio rent, and he owes his rental house $20,000. They just notified him, no more rentals until a $5,000 payment is made. On paper, he barely netted $30,000, and his longtime girlfriend is pregnant. And yes, he loses his health care Dec 31 and must face the uncertainty of the "exchange." For those who don't know what it takes to survive in NYC, $30,000 barely pays for food and a roof over your head.

I realize he's one photographer out of many, but in this economy, I'm finding almost every self-employed photographer has a story.

Michael, I'm glad you found happiness, but I think I liked you more when you didn't take a stand. In my imagination, you had more compassion.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Isaac on September 21, 2013, 12:03:59 PM
"More than 200,000 small businesses closed between 2008 and 2010, and 3 million jobs disappeared (http://www.businessinsider.com/small-business-owners-are-optimistic-2013-6), according to U.S. Census figures."
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Steve Weldon on September 21, 2013, 11:59:43 PM

Michael, I'm glad you found happiness, but I think I liked you more when you didn't take a stand. In my imagination, you had more compassion.
There's another aspect to consider.  Many of the longer time photographers have been hit, some hard, by the new guys who slash prices and make it difficult to earn a decent living.  Most of this type have other jobs and  photography is part time so they can afford to offer $500 weddings or $50 portraits.. but it really sucks for the established full time pro.  So when a significant policy comes along that tips the tables in their favour a bit I'm not surprised they'd support it.  Even at the cost of the long term health of the profession overall.

Everyone has their own interests and take on this and I'm no different.  But I do to maintain a sense of fairness, even when it hurts me. 
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: Steve Weldon on September 22, 2013, 12:04:53 AM
"More than 200,000 small businesses closed between 2008 and 2010, and 3 million jobs disappeared (http://www.businessinsider.com/small-business-owners-are-optimistic-2013-6), according to U.S. Census figures."


Ouch.. I don't think many really understand how this bodes for our country.   But to put it simply it's not good at all.  There are tens of thousands of reasons or more responsible for this trend.  When we have a chance to support small business (like hiring me for instance.. ;o)) we should.
Title: Re: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?
Post by: yaredna on November 22, 2013, 07:37:06 AM

I am eligible. Many are. Because we own PS CS3 or beyond.

Many are not, and many more will not be. Think of new photogaphers graduating this year, new retirees jumping into commercial portrait photography, egineers tired of writing code in cubicles jumping into a photography business.

If Adobe is truly honest to their word, they should not price this as an "upgrade" , but rather as a photographer price to a limited set of tools (PS + LR). Kind of a-la carte pricing, if you will. Ad why this limit of having to start by december? What if a student is graduating in June next year?

My interpretation: Adobe is not yet coming clean with this. It is a stopgap to limit the uproar, but not a solution that is sustainable for fellow photographers.

Nadim

Ok, so it took Adobe a while to admit the inconsistency between their previous offer, and their language (offer to photographers). Today's news is about a limited offer for photographers not owning CS3 or above.

Good. A bit late maybe? Sign of despair? Thanksgiving sales? I am still not jumping in. I am All for choices, give us back the option to purchase perpetual access to the software (like before). How complicated is that decision? Call it "perpetual subscription with upfront payment", to save face with Wall Street... Or whatever...