Adobe moving to the web

[sniper]

Uh huh...then what are the doing?

Each and every version of Photoshop (and ACR) has added useful and perhaps mission critical functionality. Really, this isn't an argument based on pros but more based on recreational users. If pros are debating the relative value of upgrading to the most recent version, then they really aren't pros...are they? Professionally speaking, if you aren't up to date then you are behind the times...and that's not really professional...skipping a version isn't really viable professionally.

I'm afraid we'll disagree on this.   
The bulk of my work is weddings, what I need to do I can do easily enough in PS7.0, yes content aware fill is nice, but I don't NEED it, the same with most of the other new features, I can live without them and not really affect my workflow.  I'm afraid your idea of "mission critical functionality" and mine differ.

[BernardLanguillier]

If you bought the Windows version, you'd still be able to run it under Windows 7 (even Windows 7 64 bit).

So who forced you to update?

I am on OSX.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Rob C]

"Another point is that I guess that many use pirated versions of Photoshop. I'd suggest that would Adobe sell a serious version of for modest money, many user would opt to go 'legit'.

Best regards
Erik"



I think that's the truest thing said this morning! I would love to go buy myself the latest PS and leave PS6 behind (along with its funny take on languages) but simply can't justify the cost, even with the help of the greatest delusions of grandeur; note: justify is the operative word.

Rob C

[JBerardi]

I'm quite sure they've done the calculations of what happens at what given price.

Is this a good thing?

It’s also the accountants and the money men who search the firm high and low to find new and ingenious ways to cut costs or even eliminate paying taxes. The activities of these people further dispirit the creators, the product engineers and designers, and also crimp the firm’s ability to add value to its customers. But because the accountants appear to be adding to the firm’s short-term profitability, as a class they are also celebrated and well-rewarded, even as their activities systematically kill the firm’s future.

In this mode, the firm is basically playing defense. Because it’s easier to milk the cash cow than to add new value, the firm not only stops playing offense: it even forgets how to play offense. The firm starts to die.

If the firm is in a quasi-monopoly position, this mode of running the company can sometimes keep on making money for extended periods of time. But basically, the firm is dying, as it continues to dispirit those doing the work and to frustrate its customers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/19/peggy-noonan-on-steve-jobs-and-why-big-companies-die/

So what part of this adds value for Adobe's customers?

[JBerardi]

Sorry to say Jeff, but it really looks like you are getting confused between pro Photoshop user and pro photographer. You are the only pro photoshop user in the Western Part of the galaxy, all the other guys use PS to achieve a photographic purpose (or other purpose).

To that end, PS was perfectly able to meet the needs of Professional photographers in CS2.

The only really valuable addition since then has been 64 bits support on OSX. Add decent multi-CPU support and PS will be the platform it should be.

Cheers,
Bernard

No true Scotsman professional would skip a version, Bernard...

Hey, how expensive does your camera have to be, and how often do you need to update it before you're allowed to call yourself a "pro"? How fast a computer is required? Does the actual quality of your work figure in at any point, or is it just whoever has the biggest... uhh... software package?

[Farmer]

I am on OSX.

The question stands.  The answer is, Apple.

[BernardLanguillier]

The question stands.  The answer is, Apple.

Yes, but my image editing software is sold by Adobe and Adobe is the company deciding to change their licencing policy.

They didn't have to do that.

So it should not be blamed on Apple or on anybody else.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Farmer]

So Adobe shouldn't change their policy because Apple forces upgrades?

[BernardLanguillier]

So Adobe shouldn't change their policy because Apple forces upgrades?

No, they shouldn't change their policy because many of their faithfull customers will be significantly affected by this change.

Ya know... customers... those guys paying the bills.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Farmer]

I'm not debating whether this is a good or bad thing in terms of Adobe's bottom line.  Presumably they've investigated the matter and decided that it is, but if it's not then they'll ultimately pay the price.

What I'm saying is that it's quite silly to insist that they shouldn't or can't do what they're doing or that it's unreasonable.  It's the market - they set their price and sell accordingly.

No one is forcing you to upgrade.  If you keep the same camera (your choice) and same computer (your choice) and you don't want any of the new features (your choice) then you never need to buy another version.  If YOU (and that's a generic you, not just you, Bernard) decide to upgrade something and that in turn has consequences that require you to eventually upgrade your Photoshop, then that's a choice you made.

There was never a "perpetual licence" as some people like to call it - never did the EULA say that forever and ever Adobe would have in place the same upgrade policy and anyone who has ever bought software would have realised that it was a generous policy and not in line with most of the market.  The price of the software itself, for a commercial application, is not expensive.

[Anthony.Ralph]

I think that what peeves people as much as anything is the timing of this change to the upgrade policy. If the announcement had said something along the lines of "...starting with CS6, discounted upgrades will only apply to to one version back..." then everyone would have had time to adjust their personal upgrade policy. It might have led to a nice little bump in sales too, as more people got on board with CS6 ready for the different upgrade régime.

Anthony.

[Farmer]

CS6 doesn't even have a scheduled launch date yet, so there is time to adjust - people would still complain no matter how long they were given to "adjust".

[Anthony.Ralph]

CS6 doesn't even have a scheduled launch date yet, so there is time to adjust - people would still complain no matter how long they were given to "adjust".

My point is that those of us who didn't have the current version when this new policy was announced, are obliged to update to CS5 now, with only part of the life cycle left, if we want to upgrade (at the upgrade price) to CS6 - when it is released. I don't have any difficulty in accepting a change in policy on Adobe's part per se, just that I don't like the goalposts being changed part-way through a release cycle.

Anthony.

[LKaven]

CS6 doesn't even have a scheduled launch date yet, so there is time to adjust - people would still complain no matter how long they were given to "adjust".

The tenor, volume, and amplitude of the complaints would be much different. 

"Hey CS4 users -- about the CS6 you thought you were saving yourself for:  You can't have it.  Sorry, but you will be singled out as losers in this game, just so you know how little we care.  Console yourself with this PR campaign, which is designed to make you feel like you will be a winner in the end with cloud computing."

That's a much different message than the message that begins "Starting with CS6, we will be changing our pricing policy."

Nevertheless, I hope they rethink this.  I do not want another "cable bill".  I do not want to subscribe. 

Personally, I think Photoshop is an archaic beast, and long overdue for a complete redesign.  I think they should take a cue from the video industry and get with the dataflow model.  A well thought-out real-time media engine and a dataflow programming model can implement every capability they've ever had, and then some. 

If 1M photoshop users put up $500 next year, instead of sending it to Adobe, we could create the next generation of photoshop from the ground up.  Occupy Adobe anyone?  :-)

[Schewe]

If 1M photoshop users put up $500 next year, instead of sending it to Adobe, we could create the next generation of photoshop from the ground up.  Occupy Adobe anyone?  :-)

Don't bet on it...Adobe has a LOT of IP that you would have to engineer around that would seriously complicate the proposition. Beside the fact that the proposition is ludicrous on the face of it–I mean what are the odds 1M former Photoshop users could agree on anything?

[BernardLanguillier]

If 1M photoshop users put up $500 next year, instead of sending it to Adobe, we could create the next generation of photoshop from the ground up.  Occupy Adobe anyone?  :-)

The Gimp is already pretty close.

Add 10 full time talented developers for one year and you'll have the V1 of a credible alternative. How much would that cost? About 3 M$ max.

Hum... how about making it a Kickstarter project... :-) I would give 50 US$ easily, we just need to find 59,999 other people as motivated as I am and a smart leader.

Cheers,
Bernard

[LKaven]

Don't bet on it...Adobe has a LOT of IP that you would have to engineer around that would seriously complicate the proposition. Beside the fact that the proposition is ludicrous on the face of it–I mean what are the odds 1M former Photoshop users could agree on anything?

It was intended just to underscore a point.  There is a lot of purchasing power in the photoshop user base, enough to justify the development of an alternative.  A little competition in this area would be a good thing for users.  

Basing the core architecture on layer stacks was a serious error, a giant kludge.  Years ago, Adobe should have moved in with a dataflow program model on top of a real-time media engine.  With a proofed virtual machine model, you can implement a complete script language.  Imagine the possibilities for procedural elements.  And you can always implement layers on top of that if you want it.

Then you can write the book on it.

[LKaven]

The Gimp is already pretty close.

It's a contender for a better photoshop.  The GUI is a little too X11 and Tk/Tcl  for today's user.  Does it have 16-bit support yet?  I like some of its filters better.  If it did everything I wanted, I'd use it and pay in.  But since Gimp replicates photoshop's deepest flaws faithfully along with many of its virtues, I think it's also a dead end. 

[BernardLanguillier]

It's a contender for a better photoshop.  The GUI is a little too X11 and Tk/Tcl  for today's user.  Does it have 16-bit support yet?  I like some of its filters better.  If it did everything I wanted, I'd use it and pay in.  But since Gimp replicates photoshop's deepest flaws faithfully along with many of its virtues, I think it's also a dead end. 

Perhaps, but it is a much cheaper dead end for many PS users.

I could be wrong, but I understand that the next gen of Gimp 3.0 will be 16 bits.

Cheers,
Bernard

[feppe]

I could be wrong, but I understand that the next gen of Gimp 3.0 will be 16 bits.

That is correct: GIMP is moving to GEGL (whatever that is) which will enable 16-bit editing in GIMP, along with other goodies. And it will still be free when it does.

There's no need for a Kickstarter project for GIMP: you can donate to GIMP directly without middlemen. It's been in development since 1996, so it's not going anywhere.

For those with a technical bent, GIMP is an open source project so anyone can contribute and get your name in the credits.

And did I mention GIMP is free? As in beer.