Adobe CC

[Czornyj]

I too think the photography deal is very good value. However any other variation of CC isn't such good value.

+1
I want my bygone "Design Standard/Premium" package again...

[PeterAit]

I am tempted to go down this route. I take it that CC doesn't "interfere" in any way with my set up of LR 5.7 and PSc6 which I have already purchased as a perpetual stand alone?

The old versions seem to run just fine, although I never use the old LR and rarely use the old PS.

[stamper]

Thanks,

[Jeremy Roussak]

I am tempted to go down this route. I take it that CC doesn't "interfere" in any way with my set up of LR 5.7 and PSc6 which I have already purchased as a perpetual stand alone?

Correct. Well, it didn't interfere with my LR5.7 / PS5, anyway. As ever, back up beforehand.

Jeremy

[LesPalenik]

http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/creative-cloud-2015-emerges.html

I would tend to agree with Thom here. Most of the initial promise hasn't been delivered on, additional features have been of limited value, Adobe is making less money from my business, I still hate the subscription model.

I really still wonder who came out better from CC. It still sounds like a perfect lose-lose proposition.

Cheers,
Bernard

I fully agree with both, Thom and Bernard.
Installing all those trial versions without a consent, thus cluttering the disk drives and requiring extra work to delete them, is at best irresponsible, and at worst it can render some of the computers unusable.

As to the subscription model, I would divide my circle of PS and LR users into three groups:
About one third converted to CC (and at least half of those were indirectly coerced into it just to take advantage of the "temporary PS/LR $9.99 price")
another third, myself included keep using PS CS5 or CS6, and not missing Camera Shake filter or any of the upgrade complications,
and the last group switched to PS Elements, Gimp, Instagram, iPad editors, or other simple editing programs, some using just C1, Irridient Developer, or perpetual version of LR
 
Based on the chatter in various forums, it seems, that if Adobe raises the $9.99 monthly subscription price, the exodus from the from first group would be much greater than any prospects from the second group, wishing to upgrade to CC.

Most "noncritical" users in the third group are perfectly happy with their existing tools and they are unlikely to migrate to any of the other two groups.

[Mark D Segal]

I fully agree with both, Thom and Bernard.
Installing all those trial versions without a consent, thus cluttering the disk drives and requiring extra work to delete them, is at best irresponsible, and at worst it can render some of the computers unusable.

As to the subscription model, I would divide my circle of PS and LR users into three groups:
About one third converted to CC (and at least half of those were indirectly coerced into it just to take advantage of the "temporary PS/LR $9.99 price")
another third, myself included keep using PS CS5 or CS6, and not missing Camera Shake filter or any of the upgrade complications,
and the last group switched to PS Elements, Gimp, Instagram, iPad editors, or other simple editing programs, some using just C1, Irridient Developer, or perpetual version of LR
 
Based on the chatter in various forums, it seems, that if Adobe raises the $9.99 monthly subscription price, the exodus from the from first group would be much greater than any prospects from the second group, wishing to upgrade to CC.

Most "noncritical" users in the third group are perfectly happy with their existing tools and they are unlikely to migrate to any of the other two groups.

Where does your data on market shares for these "groups" you defined come from? I'd like to see it.

There is perhaps also a 4th "group": all those who converted to CC and have no regrets and didn't/don't feel "coerced". Yes, 10 bucks a month is good incentive pricing and let us see how long it remains at that level.

[LesPalenik]

Mark,

that was no official or precise breakdown, more a very rough estimate based on the group of people I know - personally or through forum discussions.
I included your "4th" group in my first group. I don't doubt, that members of the group are quite happy with their decision, $120 annually is not much, but some people just don't feel comfortable with the "rental" arrangement.
It's not so different from buying or leasing a car. Actually, with the cars now we have even a share option. However, in the automotive world, we are not bullied into the leasing, we can also buy it.

 
 

[Mark D Segal]

Mark,

that was no official or precise breakdown, more a very rough estimate based on the group of people I know - personally or through forum discussions.
I included your "4th" group in my first group. I don't doubt, that members of the group are quite happy with their decision, $120 annually is not much, but some people just don't feel comfortable with the "rental" arrangement.
It's not so different from buying or leasing a car. Actually, with the cars now we have even a share option. However, in the automotive world, we are not bullied into the leasing, we can also buy it.

 
 

Thanks for clarifying Les. Developing comfort with major changes to how things were done can take time, the amount depending on the quality of the change. As I mentioned, I would belong to the "4th Group", but would still like to have seen a better exit strategy than now exists. But I would not characterize the current set-up as bullying. There is no compulsion to go the CC route as long as one is happy to keep using the last available "perpetual-licensed" versions. Rather than bullying, I would characterize their marketing strategy as "strongly nudging" :-).

[LesPalenik]

All I'm trying to do, is to "gently nudge" Adobe to release annually or biennially a non-CC version of their existing product for the masses who so far resisted to buy into the rental model.
Could be a sizeable market.
    

[Mark D Segal]

All I'm trying to do, is to "gently nudge" Adobe to release annually or biennially a non-CC version of their existing product for the masses who so far resisted to buy into the rental model.
Could be a sizeable market.
    

I doubt this would happen. It would distract from the model they are nudging the community into. However, I think it important for Adobe to recognize that not everyone can maintain their subscriptions forever for a variety of reasons, but would still like the ability to revert to fully functional editing of their photos with the last version they subscribed to; these people would have more comfort with the subscription model if there were an exit strategy preserving their last-used version - even if one had to pay a reasonable one-time back-end fee to maintain it indefinitely. I don't think the clientele for this option would be very large, but nonetheless comforting and useful to some.

[Otto Phocus]

Adobe might do it on a yearly basis.

If you want the latest updates the fastest, go with CC

If you are willing to wait a year, then you can go with a traditional license.

With the CC you are paying for the privilege of getting the updates first.

The question is how would Adobe release these updates to the standalone license holders?

1.  A la carte - Adobe introduced 10 updates in the past year.  The license holder would be able to pick and choose which update feature they want and pay only for those features.  Each feature may have a different price depending on the value/cost from Adobe

2. Traditional update - Adobe introduced 10 updates in the past year, the license holder would then be offered a package update of all of these features at a fixed price that will recompense Adobe for their costs and value added. 

I would like to see option 1, but I fear that Adobe might feel they can make more money by forcing the license holder to accept all updated features or no updated features.

[LesPalenik]

I'll take that deal, Otto.
The second alternative will be quite acceptable.

[chez]

I'll take that deal, Otto.
The second alternative will be quite acceptable.

The question is how much would you be willing to pay for this option. If you opt out of the subscription, Adobe would e losing your revenue stream. Would you be willing to pay say 5 years of subscription rates to obtain a perpetual license?

What Adobe really wants with the subscription model is steady and predictable revenue. With people opting in/out at will, it disrupts the revenue flow...back to the way it was before the CC version.

[jjj]

Installing all those trial versions without a consent, thus cluttering the disk drives and requiring extra work to delete them, is at best irresponsible, and at worst it can render some of the computers unusable.

On the subject of clutter, look what appeared in LR's import dialogue after a recent update of Adobe stuff.  A huge stack of mounted DMGs that are not visible as being mounted in PathFinder/Finder. Had to eject from Disk Utility.

[LesPalenik]

The question is how much would you be willing to pay for this option. If you opt out of the subscription, Adobe would e losing your revenue stream. Would you be willing to pay say 5 years of subscription rates to obtain a perpetual license?

What Adobe really wants with the subscription model is steady and predictable revenue. With people opting in/out at will, it disrupts the revenue flow...back to the way it was before the CC version.

Poor Adobe! Losing all that extra revenue stream and facing irregular disruptions in revenue flow. What will now the bean counters and shareholders say? You can look around, many other companies face really hard times in this very competitive world.

What Adobe wants is one thing, and what I want is something else. Some call it irreconcilable differences. Fortunately, we were able to part on friendly terms.
They still keep sending me various PS/LR offers and I still try to remind them that they should simplify the life for their customers, not complicate it.  

What I don't understand how close to your heart is Adobe's well-being. Or is this an extreme case of a Stockholm Syndrome?

[chez]

Poor Adobe! Losing all that extra revenue stream and facing irregular disruptions in revenue flow. What will now the bean counters and shareholders say? You can look around, many other companies face really hard times in this very competitive world.

What Adobe wants is one thing, and what I want is something else. Some call it irreconcilable differences. Fortunately, we were able to part on friendly terms.
They still keep sending me various PS/LR offers and I still try to remind them that they should simplify the life for their customers, not complicate it.  

What I don't understand how close to your heart is Adobe's well-being. Or is this an extreme case of a Stockholm Syndrome?

Since I love using their products and their products allows me to efficiently create my art...I want Adobe to survive and prosper now and into the future. My family and friends are close to my heart. Adobe and their products are just materialism to me...I don't really have any feelings other than they provide a means for me to create what I want.

Sort of like my car is just metal that gets me to where I'm going,

[LesPalenik]

What a coincidence! Likewise, I love the old Photoshop as much as you do and feel exactly the same way about my car. As it happens, I was able to purchase both outright, and plan on using them as long as they will run. I'm confident that with some new filters and plugins (plugs), I can extend its useful life beyond dealer's initial estimate.

Similar to Adobe, my car dealer keeps sending me also various special announcements, but they offer both, leasing and purchase arrangements.

[chez]

What a coincidence! Likewise, I love the old Photoshop as much as you do and feel exactly the same way about my car. As it happens, I was able to purchase both outright, and plan on using them as long as they will run. I'm confident that with some new filters and plugins (plugs), I can extend its useful life beyond dealer's initial estimate.

Similar to Adobe, my car dealer keeps sending me also various special announcements, but they offer both, leasing and purchase arrangements.

Glad you can continue using both your old PS and your old car. I just got myself a new vehicle and signed onto CC so I have the latest versions available to me. I don't have the inclination of wasting my time scrawling the Internet looking for plugins. I use LR/PS along with the NIK suite...that does me just fine.

[LesPalenik]

Congratulations to your new car! And quite right, NIK plugins really help with both PS and LR. You should try also Topaz plugins, some of theirs are newer and more powerful than NIK, especially Denoise and Clarity. To save you time scrawling the Internet looking for plugins, here is a handy link:

Topaz Labs

Interestingly, more and more often, many previously heavy PS users (even on this forum) are reporting that they can accomplish pretty much everything they need just with LR and some of afore mentioned plugins.

EDIT:
Speaking of Denoise, Topaz is currently running a promotion on this product (20% off till end of June). Based on my personal experience, for most images, Topaz Denoise is less destructive on the edges and fine details than Nik's Dfine. Below is the direct link to Denoise and when you get to the checkout, enter "JUNEDENOISE" as the coupon code to get your discount.

Topaz DeNoise

[Alan Klein]

Mark,

that was no official or precise breakdown, more a very rough estimate based on the group of people I know - personally or through forum discussions.
I included your "4th" group in my first group. I don't doubt, that members of the group are quite happy with their decision, $120 annually is not much, but some people just don't feel comfortable with the "rental" arrangement.
It's not so different from buying or leasing a car. Actually, with the cars now we have even a share option. However, in the automotive world, we are not bullied into the leasing, we can also buy it.

 
 

You also have more options as there are different manufacturers.  If you don't like Chevy's leasing or purchase plan, you can pretty much purchase or lease a car from Ford that matches in performance, quality, engineering and features.  Unfortunately in the photo world, Adobe has a better product for the most part so where do you go?  Also, with cars, you don't have to re-learn how to drive when you switch brands.  Who wants to start all over with a new PP program?  And then who wants to convert all those old edits done with PS?   And cataloguing?  These aren't problems with cars.  What someone has to come out with is a "new car smell" atomizer for Photoshop.  Just spray the screen with it and you think you just updated!