Escaping from Adobe's Creative Cloud

[Lundberg02]

Me?

I am pretty careless about health, safety and security issues of all kinds because I find restrictions and being excessively cautious exceedingly tiresome!
Perhaps I just like living dangerously and am bound to come unstuck one day.

But what is the point of worrying about what might happen (because it probably won't!).

I prefer to simply deal with fixing any issue when and if it ever happens.

You're Ann Shel------ from the old Photoshop Forum, right? Nice to see you again after several years.

[Ann JS]

That's me!
Nice to see you here too!

[Simon Garrett]

Andrew and Mark, if you read the OP's blog it's clear what his concerns are.

Indeed:

...the internet is becoming a scary place ...

Well, I'm totally convinced. 

By the way, little if any of his explanation applies to CC more than to any other downloaded software, or to any PC connected to the Internet, and I think he misunderstands the nature of the CC authentication process.  Now I know some photographers live in cloistered cells free of all Internet connections.  For the rest of us Koolaid drinkers (many of us working in IT all our careers, but what do we know about the demons lurking out there) we live connected to the Internet most of the time (at least once a month, which is all CC requires). 

There may be many reasons for disliking CC, but security or Internet connectivity considerations would not be top of my list. 

[rdonson]

I think there are some CC subtleties missed in the article that was posted on the blog.

The CC Desktop app has Preferences
- you can choose NOT to launch it at login
- you can choose NOT to always update the CC desktop app

In my experience CC has never forced an update to apps like PS, Lr, etc.  It's always been up to me to select when this happens.  I do get notified of the availability of the updates though.

I doubt anyone who has used Reader or Flash will ever confuse Adobe with a very security conscious company.  It is wise to be wary of their offerings from a security perspective. Enabling the security features of the Mac will help but are not foolproof.  As usual, the best security is an informed, cautious user.

[Simon Garrett]

I doubt anyone who has used Reader or Flash will ever confuse Adobe with a very security conscious company.  It is wise to be wary of their offerings from a security perspective...
As usual, the best security is an informed, cautious user.

I quite agree.  I don't trust either Adobe's motives or their competence in implementing secure systems, but as an "informed, cautious user" I don't consider these issues on are sufficient to reject CC. 

[IanSeward]

Indeed:

Well, I'm totally convinced. 

By the way, little if any of his explanation applies to CC more than to any other downloaded software, or to any PC connected to the Internet, and I think he misunderstands the nature of the CC authentication process.  Now I know some photographers live in cloistered cells free of all Internet connections.  For the rest of us Koolaid drinkers (many of us working in IT all our careers, but what do we know about the demons lurking out there) we live connected to the Internet most of the time (at least once a month, which is all CC requires). 

There may be many reasons for disliking CC, but security or Internet connectivity considerations would not be top of my list. 

Thom Hogan has a pertinent article here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/the-thunderstorm-in-adobes.html

Ian

[rdonson]

Thom Hogan has a pertinent article here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/the-thunderstorm-in-adobes.html

Ian

The only totally secure computer is one that is not connected to a network, has no users and is not powered on.

[Mark D Segal]

What bothers me a lot more than any security risks - perhaps because (rightly or wrongly) I don't perceive them having that high a probability of occurrence - is what looks to be, emerging quite recently, a sheer lack of adequate product QC and process bullet-proofing before they release new updates; this is a concern, because I expect resulting impacts to have a much higher probability of occurrence that will affect me. Thom's article is very pointed on this matter and deserves attention in Adobe. Looking from the outside in, one gets the impression that the finance managers and marketing folks are fully in control there, while the developers/engineers are doing their level best pushing the leading edge of very complex software, but gasping for breath. Technically, LR remains a brilliant application. Again, this would appear to be less of a specific CC matter - rather more a broader corporate problem manifesting itself in various ways, including the management of the latest CC release. That said, I found the 2014 release came off without a hitch, but I did wait a while before installing that one too. I am still waiting for the dust to settle before upgrading to the 2015 package. I've lived without Dehaze and B&W sliders in the localized adjustment panels up to now and my photos tell me I can keep waiting. Don't need the aggravation - stress control is key to maintaining good health and good health is useful for making good photographs.

[Paul2660]

What bothers me a lot more than any security risks - perhaps because (rightly or wrongly) I don't perceive them having that high a probability of occurrence - is what looks to be, emerging quite recently, a sheer lack of adequate product QC and process bullet-proofing before they release new updates; this is a concern, because I expect resulting impacts to have a much higher probability of occurrence that will affect me. Thom's article is very pointed on this matter and deserves attention in Adobe. Looking from the outside in, one gets the impression that the finance managers and marketing folks are fully in control there, while the developers/engineers are doing their level best pushing the leading edge of very complex software, but gasping for breath. Technically, LR remains a brilliant application. Again, this would appear to be less of a specific CC matter - rather more a broader corporate problem manifesting itself in various ways, including the management of the latest CC release. That said, I found the 2014 release came off without a hitch, but I did wait a while before installing that one too. I am still waiting for the dust to settle before upgrading to the 2015 package. I've lived without Dehaze and B&W sliders in the localized adjustment panels up to now and my photos tell me I can keep waiting. Don't need the aggravation - stress control is key to maintaining good health and good health is useful for making good photographs.

+ 1 well said.  For sure the 2015 upgrade could have been handled a bit better. 

Paul

[aderickson]

Yes. Photoshop Elements 13 required a patch right away to correct issues after it was released.

[rdonson]

Looking from the outside in, one gets the impression that the finance managers and marketing folks are fully in control there, while the developers/engineers are doing their level best pushing the leading edge of very complex software, but gasping for breath.

Adobe is a for profit corporation that MUST meet Wall Street expectations or be skewered.  Quarterly results are the measurements from Wall Street.  Their market cap is $40B.  Of course, they are ruled by finance and marketing as is every other publicly held company with the possible exception of Google and Apple. 

Look through the list of executives and tell me who is responsible for software development and security.
https://www.adobe.com/leaders.html

Adobe has 12.5K employees with 2.2K working in application development according to this site.
https://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/ADBE--Number-of-Employees

This is NOT a huge corporation with unlimited resources.

[Mark D Segal]

I have absolutely no problem with Adobe being very profitable; on the whole they produce excellent software that underlies just about everything we do with digital imaging, and we are where we are in large measure because of the ingenuity and dedication of thousands of their staff the world over. Let us not lose sight of that. The ship just needs to be steered a bit in the direction of a bit more caution to avoid the headwinds, and I think they are eminently capable of doing what their customers obviously expect of them. There isn't a company I know of that doesn't dig itself into the occasional pothole. It isn't the end of life as we know it and problems will be cured having learned a thing or two. So let's keep it all in perspective.

[Chris Kern]

The only totally secure computer is one that is not connected to a network, has no users and is not powered on.

Indeed.  Or as Bob Morris (senior) put it—some of the old-timers here with IT backgrounds will know who he was—"The three golden rules to ensure computer security are: do not own a computer; do not power it on; and do not use it."

[Mark D Segal]

As a photographer that's a great solution if you want to revert to the chemical darkroom - tanks, liquids, enlargers, trays, washers, dryers - remember all that? Enjoy :-)

[Chris Kern]

As a photographer that's a great solution if you want to revert to the chemical darkroom - tanks, liquids, enlargers, trays, washers, dryers - remember all that? Enjoy :-)

Sigh.  The fumes are indelibly burned into my olfactory memory.

[Mark D Segal]

Well indeed, there you have it. We'll just need a more targeted approach to the security and reliability issues while we continue to be creative in our clouds. :-)

[Schewe]

Look through the list of executives and tell me who is responsible for software development and security.
https://www.adobe.com/leaders.html

Actually, from what I know, none of them. The closest "leader" would be Bryan Lamkin but he's not really part of product management. The fellow that has the most influence over engineering is Winston Hendrickson who is in charge of DI engineering (which includes all of the CC apps).

Most people have no clue how Adobe is organized (and truth be told, it changes from time to time). There are two "competing" entities when it comes to actual products...engineering and product management.

The engineers report to engineering management (Winston) while product management report to different executive management. Depending on the product, the weight of engineering or product management outweighs the other. Take ACR, Camera Raw is lead by Thomas Knoll (an engineer) and he pretty much totally controls what his team does. Take LR and the tide goes more to product management (ironically, the same "product manager").

Marketing managers struggle for relevance (and usually fail) on all Adobe products. The upper executive level managers really don't have much direct influence over product features...they dictate schedules and goals like sales, but upper management doesn't get involved in what features are released when. That's engineering and product management's responsibilities.

[Lundberg02]

i can only imagine how difficult it is to get decent software out of the house at Adobe. We used to get hints of it from the Adobe engineer who frequently visited the Adobe photoshop users forum. I haven't visited there in several years so I don't remember his name, but he was one of he principals. Just specifying what is needed is a beeyotch Here is a hardware example from a major weapon system. The DOD wanted to have a common missile safeing arming and fusing system, so they decreed "make it so". Naturally there were thirteen  of them in the end. But they forgot to say "must not move on impact". We began finding warheads sitting on the target unexploded. The SAF unit would slide forward and cut its own cables.   I know how hard it is to integrate hardware and software when you have just one product, and Adobe has products that complement and interact with one another that run on every kludge imaginable. Whew. Not to mention the range of  users.  Not sure how they stay sane.

[Damon Lynch]

Take LR and the tide goes more to product management (ironically, the same "product manager").

Maybe that's one contributing reason why the LR CC and LR 6 code bases are now split, which from a software engineering perspective is a pain in the butt when there is no compelling reason for it. Patches now need to be applied to at least two different code bases. That takes valuable engineering time, and inevitably means a less reliable application. The only "compelling reason" for it in this instance is the management driven demand that LR 6 be differentiated from LR CC due to the subscription model push. I'd love to be wrong but that's very much how it looks from the outside looking in.

[Mark D Segal]

........... The upper executive level managers really don't have much direct influence over product features...they dictate schedules and goals like sales, but upper management doesn't get involved in what features are released when. That's engineering and product management's responsibilities.

This sounds completely credible and sensible to me Jeff, but the evidence of the problems associated with the latest upgrades indicates that somewhere in Adobe they have management issues that need to be sorted out between these streams. The fundamental source of the problem could be lodged in exactly what you say above: "executive level managers...............dictate schedules and goals like sales.....". Anyhow, one way or another surely they've heard the community and they'll sort it all out. My take on all this is "don't fuss - just wait".