Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 37   Go Down

Author Topic: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions  (Read 187812 times)

Justan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1928
    • Justan-Elk.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #340 on: May 08, 2013, 11:35:51 am »

This announcement has been like the equivalent of Adobe realizing that they can milk the consumer more often and get something more for little effort. It is a move to please the company owners while essentially demonstrating contempt for its consumers.

On the one hand, this may be a good time to invest in Adobe stock. I predict they have several internal estimates on what this change will do to their revenue over the next couple of years, especially around the end of year 1, when their rental rates will double. They probably expect that the results will bring in another mountain of cash and they will do everything they can to make this added revenue image shine. We can’t credibly expect them to be anything but dazzlingly narcissistic about their projections.

On the other hand, I’m reminded of the once great company named Ashton-Tate (A-T). Ashton-Tate used to make the industry standard database platform, which they called dBase. This platform went through several major revisions, and was used by vast numbers of corporations. No other database platform could do what they did and due to this A-T became like pigs at the trough.

A story told briefly, over time, A-T fell in love with their success, and greatly slowed development of their product. By the 4th major release, there were rumors that A-T employed more lawyers than software engineers. A-T focused on chasing competitors from making similar platforms, while, you guessed it, substantially raising the price to their loyal customers. As a result, A-T long ago disappeared from the market, along with all their major and minor product offerings. Does anyone remember the great application named Framework? Of course, in hindsight, A-T behaved stupidly. A company generally doesn’t profit by increasingly milking its customers. Had they continued development aggressively, they may still be a dominant player.

On yet another hand, with several BOD members at Adobe who are also on the BOD of other major software corporations, there can be no doubt that this amounts to a sophisticated and calculated market test. If it is successful, we may witness over the next three years or so, a nearly complete migration towards a monthly expense for most or even nearly *all* software, from the OS to every application and utility used. It is as if the conclusion has been made to profit more by milking the consumers monthly rather than every other year.

In addition, this change may drastically reduce the opportunity for software piracy. All by itself, this will work to undermine some large piracy based enterprises everywhere they exist, and that will translate into a big revenue increase.

Of course, Adobe altering course again in the not too distant future is always a possibility. Should the BOD find that the revenue is significantly less than projected, there is nothing to stop them from partially or totally changing course, by adjusting the monthly subscription fee, or abandoning the subscription model all together.

Any license statements used to hide behind can be altered with only the effort of simple changes to the license agreement. After all, Adobe just did a HUGE push to coerce as many as they could to update to CS6, stating no more discounted updates unless everyone jumped aboard with the CS6 platform. This amounts to a carrot and stick coercion, er, license change. Evidently it worked. Ironically, it can now be seen as another way to drive the herd. And, surprise, yet another ploy is in evidence with this push to their new subscription platform with the sole goal of increasing revenue.

As has been implied again and again, fear is a major factor. Count the number of people in this thread who have noted that should they abandon PS, they will lose access to their files. In the end, Adobe is very confident that most will pay their toll.

As to anti-trust litigation, while anyone can sue anyone, the bigger question is do they have an arguable case against Adobe? I don’t believe so. Adobe has access to too many first rate legal minds to expose themselves in this way. This doesn’t mean there won’t be legal challenges. That is part of the cost of doing business.

In the end, evidently Adobe believes the consumer exists to be coerced into paying ever more and more frequently. The bigger the business, the easier it is to coerce. Would anyone re-train a staff of 20 or 100? Not only is that is a big investment in time and money, add to this that there is no equivalent platform and the answer is ….

The remaining question that this change seeks to answer, is not can you milk the consumer monthly, but how much can you drain them? Unless there is some real competition (there isn’t), or unless Adobe is stupid (so far, they are not) they can’t really lose more than the percentage who will not pay for a subscription.

But it raises an interesting if academic question, and that is, at what point does a company exist to please it’s business owners instead of pleasing its customers? The answer implied by this change is: when the company has a valuable product no real competition.

tornwald

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #341 on: May 08, 2013, 12:01:15 pm »

r.i.p Adobe
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #342 on: May 08, 2013, 12:04:27 pm »


BTW...a side thought on Jeff's response to not creating a PKS version for GIMP.  I would not be surprised that the lucrative PixelGenius deal with Adobe precludes providing a plugin for any other product.

I'm gonna respond once to you bud...you are wrong. PG's license of PKS to Adobe for Lightroom's output sharpening does not preclude us from making plug-ins for other products. Heck, we could license output sharpening to Apple for Aperture or to Epson for use in the print driver. I know how to negotiate a contract bud...you might want to quit trying to assume facts not in evidence.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #343 on: May 08, 2013, 12:14:39 pm »

Awww don't go Jeff... Your rude offensive replies have always been the highlight of posts on LL subjects. I shall miss you 'shoot from the lip' replies. Do you pack a pair of pistols ? I bet you've got the boots too.

What makes you think I'm going anywhere? I'm not...
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #344 on: May 08, 2013, 12:16:56 pm »

A reminder to several members of this thread – refrain from personal attacks and negative insinuations.

Only warning.

Michael
Logged

AFairley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1486
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #345 on: May 08, 2013, 12:31:46 pm »

Trying to maintain both a subscription model AND a perpetual model is unsustainable...engineering had all sorts of problems with the recent 13.1/13.0.4 updates and the engineering staff gave up their holidays to pitch in and fix them. That was the end of the idea of trying to maintain both models.

I simply can't believe this; more apologism from Jeff.  The subscription software requires the actual program code to be downloaded and installed on a computer, no?  So there is no reason Adobe could provied the same incremental upgrades for the perpetual model software, but the ability to upgrade a version would end periodically.  As long as code is being installed on the end users machine I don't see where the engineering challenges come from (except in DRM management) The real reason is not the difficulty of maintaining both models, the real reason is to maximize earnings.
Logged

Ken Richmond

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
    • Richmond Fine Photography
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #346 on: May 08, 2013, 12:38:20 pm »

Taking instruction from Mr. Schewe's lead,  I'll make a final post on this Anti-Trust subject.  Below are selections from the lengthy opinion that permits the case to go to a jury.  I will not repeat the mistake of offering this kind of information to lay people.  So read it for what it's worth to you or discard it.  'Nuther words, for all of those steeped in the complexities of the Sherman Act, I yield.  (the emphasis below has been added by me)

"...Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it a crime to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations . . . ." 15 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). Section 4 of the Clayton Act, in turn, establishes a private right of action to "any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws" and provides "threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee." 15 U.S.C. § 15 (2006). Section 16 of the Clayton Act establishes a right to injunctive relief "against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws." 15 U.S.C. § 26 (2006).

To state an unlawful monopolization claim, a plaintiff must allege "(1) [p]ossession of monopoly power in the relevant market; (2) willful acquisition or maintenance of that power; and (3) causal antitrust injury." SmileCare Dental Group v. Delta Dental Plan of Cal., Inc., 88 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 1996).

Plaintiffs have alleged, and Adobe does not dispute, that Adobe has monopoly power in the global and/or national Macintosh and Windows markets for professional vector graphic illustration software. FAC ¶¶ 32, 33, 47-48, 52-53, 56. Thus, Plaintiffs have alleged possession of monopoly power in the relevant market, the first element of a monopolization claim. Accordingly, the Court looks to whether Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Adobe willfully acquired or maintained that power, and whether Adobe's conduct caused Plaintiffs' antitrust injury. FAC ¶¶ 110-11.

Plaintiffs allege that since acquiring FreeHand in 2005, Adobe has not delivered any new features for FreeHand and has actively driven existing users of FreeHand to use Illustrator instead. FAC ¶¶ 70-72. Plaintiffs claim that Adobe acknowledged its intent to cease development of FreeHand and to cripple FreeHand's functionality on May 16, 2007. Id.

Adobe argues that all companies are entitled to make unilateral product line decisions, including discontinuing products,

But the Ninth Circuit also noted that "
  • ne form of antitrust injury is coercive activity that prevents its victims from making free choices between market alternatives" and found that the alleged injury "flowed from the discontinuation of the only competing product on the market by agreement between the only two competitors in the market," resulting in "no viable choice between market alternatives." Id. at 374. Thus, Glen Holly does not preclude the possibility that a unilateral decision to discontinue a product line can be anticompetitive.
Logged

kirkt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #347 on: May 08, 2013, 12:38:26 pm »

Couldn't expect any more or any less from mr. Kelby. I place him just a hair above mr. Rockwell with his comments.

It really is a different way to look at things, but bearing in mind that while all iPad displays might be quite similar, all tablets aren't i-Products. On top of that the notion about "most people" even owning tablets (or similar portable devices) in the first place is pretty ignorant (don't know if to cry or laugh at these assumptions).

The rest of it is pretty much how I'd see this thing boiling down to with a few exceptions. For example Lightroom isn't going to be a tool for serious retouching even with "brusheable" content aware heal or just adding layers to it. It would definitely go a long way for most people, but I don't see techniques like frequency separation or D&B at pixel level inside a RAW-editor happening. Also not all photo editing or retouching is just about editing or retouching. LR doesn't cut it if you have to actually draw or write something (a collage etc.).

Agreed.  Pretty much why i put "photographer" in proverbial air quotes.  

kirk
Logged

kingscurate

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #348 on: May 08, 2013, 12:46:37 pm »

LR 5 is due out approx 30th June(possibly), thats when the beta product testing ends.
LR users around then will be able to find out adobe reaction to the current debate, and will have the opportunity to show adobe where they are taking their business. A suggestion is we all go one way, that is we stick with LR or use another image processor.
Jeff attitude is similar to adobes attitude if you ask me.
Could someone provide a corporate insight into adobes thinking. Im thinking colleges, universities on why they would buy into the "CC" thing. I know some colleges would upgrade every 2nd upgrade.
Logged
I aint a pro

AFairley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1486
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #349 on: May 08, 2013, 12:50:57 pm »

In addition, this change may drastically reduce the opportunity for software piracy. All by itself, this will work to undermine some large piracy based enterprises everywhere they exist, and that will translate into a big revenue increase.

This I doubt.  As long as there is an app that has to be downloaded to the computer and will run without real-time connection to Adobe servers, it can and will be patched.  If anything, Adobe is driving the marginal users who stretch themselves to pay the high price for PS out of a sense of honor or whatever into the arms of the pirates.
Logged

Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 798
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog
Petition
« Reply #350 on: May 08, 2013, 01:03:58 pm »

There is a petition going, which I just signed.


Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #351 on: May 08, 2013, 01:09:16 pm »

Taking instruction from Mr. Schewe's lead,  I'll make a final post on this Anti-Trust subject.  Below are selections from the lengthy opinion that permits the case to go to a jury.  I will not repeat the mistake of offering this kind of information to lay people.  So read it for what it's worth to you or discard it.  'Nuther words, for all of those steeped in the complexities of the Sherman Act, I yield.  (the emphasis below has been added by me)

"...Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it a crime to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations . . . ." 15 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). Section 4 of the Clayton Act, in turn, establishes a private right of action to "any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws" and provides "threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee." 15 U.S.C. § 15 (2006). Section 16 of the Clayton Act establishes a right to injunctive relief "against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws." 15 U.S.C. § 26 (2006).

To state an unlawful monopolization claim, a plaintiff must allege "(1) [p]ossession of monopoly power in the relevant market; (2) willful acquisition or maintenance of that power; and (3) causal antitrust injury." SmileCare Dental Group v. Delta Dental Plan of Cal., Inc., 88 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 1996).

Plaintiffs have alleged, and Adobe does not dispute, that Adobe has monopoly power in the global and/or national Macintosh and Windows markets for professional vector graphic illustration software. FAC ¶¶ 32, 33, 47-48, 52-53, 56. Thus, Plaintiffs have alleged possession of monopoly power in the relevant market, the first element of a monopolization claim. Accordingly, the Court looks to whether Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Adobe willfully acquired or maintained that power, and whether Adobe's conduct caused Plaintiffs' antitrust injury. FAC ¶¶ 110-11.

Plaintiffs allege that since acquiring FreeHand in 2005, Adobe has not delivered any new features for FreeHand and has actively driven existing users of FreeHand to use Illustrator instead. FAC ¶¶ 70-72. Plaintiffs claim that Adobe acknowledged its intent to cease development of FreeHand and to cripple FreeHand's functionality on May 16, 2007. Id.

Adobe argues that all companies are entitled to make unilateral product line decisions, including discontinuing products,

But the Ninth Circuit also noted that "
  • ne form of antitrust injury is coercive activity that prevents its victims from making free choices between market alternatives" and found that the alleged injury "flowed from the discontinuation of the only competing product on the market by agreement between the only two competitors in the market," resulting in "no viable choice between market alternatives." Id. at 374. Thus, Glen Holly does not preclude the possibility that a unilateral decision to discontinue a product line can be anticompetitive.
And my final post on this issue too, because life is too short so we will obviously agree to disagree - but that's fine: first you need a case before it can to a jury, and I would argue that nothing above is *necessarily* relevant to the facts of the situation at hand; and it is by no means obvious, at least to me and I know others, that the situation at hand could be successfully litigated as "anti-trust" regardless of Adobe's market power. So we let it rest and just observe what happens.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #352 on: May 08, 2013, 01:12:16 pm »


Could someone provide a corporate insight into adobes thinking. Im thinking colleges, universities on why they would buy into the "CC" thing. I know some colleges would upgrade every 2nd upgrade.


No better place for getting a corporate insight than straight from the horse's mouth. Download their 2012 annual 10-K and you will see their thinking all laid out in depth.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #353 on: May 08, 2013, 01:14:36 pm »

BJL, your Matlab subscription rules make a lot of sense.  Adobe could defuse much this current firestorm by implementing some or all of this strategy.

The idea that we'd lose all access to all of our work if we chose to get off the train for any reason is inexplicable and inexcusable.  Note that I said "work", not "files".   I'm sure nobody wants to confiscate our data.  But by removing access to the software tools, Adobe is essentially confiscating at least some of the work we put into manipulating our original camera data.  All work in progress is disabled.  Only flattened, completed work stored in open file formats remains accessible to other software.



A lot of the outrage can be summed up in one word:  "equity".

With the perpetual model, we invested cash in software tools that we could use in perpetuity.  In other words, our payments built equity.
With the CC model, we build zero equity.  Just like renting accommodation, in nearly all cases owning is a better deal for the customer than renting.

On the other hand, renting is a great deal for the landlord.

« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 03:47:53 pm by Peter McLennan »
Logged

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #354 on: May 08, 2013, 01:15:10 pm »

Quote
Could someone provide a corporate insight into adobes thinking. Im thinking colleges, universities on why they would buy into the "CC" thing. I know some colleges would upgrade every 2nd upgrade.

I gave it a stab in posts #311-318 with emphasis with what #318 outlines.
Logged

Morris Taub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 437
    • morristaubphotography
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #355 on: May 08, 2013, 01:20:45 pm »


Somehow giving my money in future to a company based around high quality photography seems much more appealing let a company focused on internet marketing suck all my cash away.

I'm starting to feel the same way. It isn't said 'explicitly' but the apologists and spokes persons for Adobe make individual photographers (calling us amateur or hobbyist) sound like so much scruff they're willing to get rid of. They make me feel like somehow I've become a burden. After 23 years of giving money to Adobe for upgrades and new product it isn't a warm feeling I have toward them these days. I know it's a business there to make money, but the human factor is and always will be there.

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Petition
« Reply #356 on: May 08, 2013, 01:26:31 pm »

There is a petition going, which I just signed.




No one's listening. 500,000 Adobe product users are over on the Cloud. Wonder if they allow petitioning on the Cloud.
Logged

jwstl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 149
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #357 on: May 08, 2013, 01:33:50 pm »


The idea that we'd lose all access to all of our work if we chose to get off the train for any reason is inexplicable and inexcusable.  Note that I said "work", not "files".   I'm sure nobody wants to confiscate our data.  But by removing access to the software tools, Adobe is essentially confiscating at least some of the work we put into manipulating our original camera data.  All work in progress is disabled.  Only flattened, completed work stored in open file formats remains accessible to other software.[/i]



I'm not sure why you believe that unless you think Photoshop is the only application that supports PSD files with layers. It isn't now and it won't be in the future. I expect there to be many more option going forward now that Adobe has made this decision. If I'm misunderstanding please let me know what I'm missing.
Logged

Janne Aavasalo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #358 on: May 08, 2013, 01:39:18 pm »

Trying to maintain both a subscription model AND a perpetual model is unsustainable...engineering had all sorts of problems with the recent 13.1/13.0.4 updates and the engineering staff gave up their holidays to pitch in and fix them. That was the end of the idea of trying to maintain both models.

Looking back a few pages, could Jeff or someone more software oriented person open this sentence for me?

Is the "old" CS update system so stiff that it doesn't support hotfixes, which in turn means that if something has to be fixed quickly, they've had to roll out a whole new "numbered" update with more than fixing just the bug? If this is the reasoning behind it, then I can see why this kind of situation would lead to "all hands on deck and screw the holidays" - situation. Or are CS6 and CC6 so different products even at this point that the same fix doesn't cut it for both?

Otherwise I don't get how changing the pricing scheme and adding cloud-capabilities would make this thing better. Unless they think that people can't stop their subscriptions even if we fix the bug after the holidays from now on.
Logged

nemo295

  • Guest
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #359 on: May 08, 2013, 01:42:38 pm »

It's a brave new world of centrally-controlled cloud computing out there, but it remains to be seen if Adobe will get to bend it to its will with Creative Cloud. By strong arming people into a pay-as-you go software rental scheme they are pissing off the majority of their customer base who before now saw no reason to buy every new CS version in lockstep with Adobe's absurdly brief 14-month product cycle. I predict this will eventually bite Adobe in the ass, big time.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 37   Go Up