Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 37   Go Down

Author Topic: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions  (Read 114372 times)

Stephen Girimont

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 74
    • The Intimate Landscape
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #160 on: May 07, 2013, 01:32:20 PM »

Quote
You can continue to run which ever versions of the software that you want until YOU are ready to upgrade. You can continue using your current version of the product for one full year after the subsequent version is released.

Love the double-speak there. Use current versions as long as you want as long as it's a year or less.
Logged

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #161 on: May 07, 2013, 01:33:46 PM »

I find it interesting when I used the term FUD to describe Jeff Schewe's arguments for why the OEM RAW manufacturers must provide DNG output (even though it was no benefit to them).  He we quite insulted that his arguments were "attacked" that way.

Well...now with the shoe on the other foot, it appears he has taken the term on as his own. It is surprising how flexible his stories are.  One day you full of 'doode' for your idea or words and the next, Jeff has discovered/invented/created this new concept or method that all show follow.  (For example, follow his dissertations on PPI for printing and functionality or printer interpolation....it is an interesting insight into the supposed "guru")

To be honest I was surprised by his response.  And I understand he might hold allegiances with Adobe in one capacity or the other so it's not my intention to upset him or anyone else.  But as adults we should deal in the reality of the situation and that means we should expect lawsuits on one side and poor business behaviour on the other.  

Heck, Adobe just bought up NIK and sources tell me they've after most major plug-ins so in their pursuit to make this subscription thing fly with their customer base.  It would be one thing to keep using CS6 and hold out on CS7 for a generation or two, but to find our your most popular plug-in's can't be owned either, that Adobe bought them and they're now part of their subscription..  It should be obvious Adobe has a monopoly at least in the photographic market, and buying up the smaller more popular programs to include in their base product or to encourage assimilation in their new subscription services is pretty much on par for the business world when you're trying to force your customer base into an unpopular position.  It doesn't take a MBA grad to see exactly what they're doing and to know with so much money at stake they'll do whatever they think they can get away with.. and some.  and I say "and some" because corporations routinely do things THEY KNOW will get them sued and they know they will lose, as a calculated business cost.

Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11536
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #162 on: May 07, 2013, 01:35:10 PM »

Love the double-speak there. Use current versions as long as you want as long as it's a year or less.

Confused. I own CS6. I can use it forever right? I decide I want to upgrade to CC. I can't use CS6? I don't think so.

I've got copies of Photoshop dating back to 1.0.7 and serial numbers for all. I'm under the impression nothing stops me from using them once I subscribe. I have an old G5 running CS3 and from time to time I still have to use it.

Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

Doyle Yoder

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 502
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #163 on: May 07, 2013, 01:35:23 PM »

I don't understand what you are saying. As far as I know you can keep using CS5 as long as it will run on your machine. (I have old versions of photoshops on my old laptop--they work just fine.)

Did I miss the point you are making?

thanks

ed

My point is that if CS5 was a CC product you could longer be using it. That is the future with CC.
Logged

Doyle Yoder

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 502
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #164 on: May 07, 2013, 01:36:51 PM »

To be honest I was surprised by his response.  And I understand he might hold allegiances with Adobe in one capacity or the other so it's not my intention to upset him or anyone else.  But as adults we should deal in the reality of the situation and that means we should expect lawsuits on one side and poor business behaviour on the other.  

Heck, Adobe just bought up NIK and sources tell me they've after most major plug-ins so in their pursuit to make this subscription thing fly with their customer base.  It would be one thing to keep using CS6 and hold out on CS7 for a generation or two, but to find our your most popular plug-in's can't be owned either, that Adobe bought them and they're now part of their subscription..  It should be obvious Adobe has a monopoly at least in the photographic market, and buying up the smaller more popular programs to include in their base product or to encourage assimilation in their new subscription services is pretty much on par for the business world when you're trying to force your customer base into an unpopular position.  It doesn't take a MBA grad to see exactly what they're doing and to know with so much money at stake they'll do whatever they think they can get away with.. and some.  and I say "and some" because corporations routinely do things THEY KNOW will get them sued and they know they will lose, as a calculated business cost.



You mean Google just bought NIK.
Logged

Colorwave

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1007
    • Colorwave Imaging
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #165 on: May 07, 2013, 01:38:23 PM »

I don't understand what you are saying. As far as I know you can keep using CS5 as long as it will run on your machine. (I have old versions of photoshops on my old laptop--they work just fine.)

Did I miss the point you are making?

thanks

ed
If your question was in reference to my comment about proprietary formats, I wasn't speaking about the immediate future, but about one when your copy of CS5 or CS6 no longer works with your current machines.  Yes, if you take good care of it, you might be able to keep a current computer running for quite some time, but sooner or later, the software will be too old to run on new computers.  Can you still run your PowerPC apps?  Certainly not on any Mac built in the last couple of years.  Many people trusted their future with Adobe, and the message that was sent yesterday is that the status quo is not to be counted on.  I'm sure that as long as Adobe is around, you will be fine, but will you be willing to pay the price for accessing your content that you locked into their format?
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11536
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #166 on: May 07, 2013, 01:39:38 PM »

My point is that if CS5 was a CC product you could longer be using it. That is the future with CC.

"if mother had balls she'd be the dad." <g>

Yes, that's the future of subscriptions for software, just like we use cell phone's, ISP providers, magazines or video services. You stop paying, you stop getting.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11536
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #167 on: May 07, 2013, 01:41:51 PM »

Can you still run your PowerPC apps?  Certainly not on any Mac built in the last couple of years.  

Which is why I keep that old G5 around. Heck, I can boot OS9 if I have to (and I have files I've needed to access). It's a PITA but I don't see an alternative. This will work short term. If the G5 blows up, hopefully eBay has something dirt cheap to replace it. Still short term.

Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

bill t.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2979
    • http://www.unit16.net
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #168 on: May 07, 2013, 01:50:52 PM »

Devil's Advocate here.

People line up to pay $100+ a month for a freaking silly iPhone to gossip and watch Youtube videosl, but grouse about paying $50/month for one of the cores of their professional businesses.  It's all how you look at it.  Switch to Net10, subscribe to CC, and you'll still be dollars ahead.
Logged

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #169 on: May 07, 2013, 01:53:27 PM »

Yes, it's my option for what's it's worth, I didn't pass the bar (have you) so it's not my "professional legal opinion" but I've been exposed to enough FTC actions to have a pretty good understanding of the wat the FTC views the marketplace. Adobe has an enviable market share, but it doesn't have a monopoly in the legal sense. Look at all the real competitors out there for Adobe products...GIMP is free, Corel makes a competitor, there are a lot of niche image editors and more every day. There's direct competition with Capture One and all the camera makers software. You would have a very hard time claiming that Adobe's large market share is monopoly...they just make Photoshop which so many people use. They don't engage in any price fixing or collusion with competitors. Adobe's marketshare ain't illegal...

I find it pretty ironic that a company that makes software, which is in fact intellectual property that is copyrighted much like the copyright owned by photographers work is held in such distain by photographers. Adobe creates Photoshop and is entitled to license the use of their software any way they want to–that's a guarantee offered by copyright. Look at the original copyrights in the US Constitution–they are the only real "rights" granted (all other rights were added by amendment).

So, Adobe decides they want to change the model of how they license their copyrighted intellectual property. It's their right under the Constitution just as it's our right as photographers to dictate how we license our photos to clients. Yes, a client that you used to sign over all your rights to (or signed a work for hire) might be pissed off when you tell them that no, you are no longer gonna hand over the copyright and expect to be paid on a use basis for limited time. But doing that ain't illegal, is it?

I understand that people aren't happy with the changes...but it's silly to claim there's some sort of antitrust action possible. You go right ahead and find an attorney willing to file suit on your behalf (and take your money)...we'll see how far that will get ya.

1.  Good.  Then we can agree we're both entitled to make opinions without insulting the other.

2.  I strongly disagree.  Microsoft was ruled (several times) to have a monopoly and there were plenty of alternative operating systems out there.  Your stated views of what makes a monopoly are both simplistic and limited.

It's very simplistic to put it in the terms "well, you can use GIMP for free, or switch to Corel" when our entire work flows and supporting software (plug-ins, printer profiles, etc, etc), not to mention specific hardware compatibilities are not only Adobe specific, but actually integrated into the product in many ways.   Any good business strives to be a monopoly while not crossing that line into actually being one.  With Adobe's acquisition of NIK and their pursuit of other popular plug-ins, and their handshaking with other popular products.. it won't be difficult at all to argue a monopoly.  We only need to compare case studies to see Adobe is already sliding down that slope with their hands in the air waving madly..

3.  I don't.  Anyone who takes advantage of their success in such ways should be expected to be held in disdain.  

4.  No one has suggested a revolution.  Anti-trust suits are covered under the same constitution.  Clearly it's not illegal to do well in business.  But it is against certain laws to obtain unfair advantages.  And it's just as clear that Adobe isn't "asking", they're aggressively telling us where and how we'll spend out money and obtaining the more popular supporting plug-ins to ensure they do so.

5.  Nonsensical hyperbole.

 
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

buggz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #170 on: May 07, 2013, 01:54:44 PM »

I am a hobbyist.
I wouldn't ever use the word professional anyway...
Far too many people use it way too loosely.
Logged

kirkt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 345
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #171 on: May 07, 2013, 01:58:32 PM »

It would be interesting if there were an option to board the train and pay as you go (as it appears to be heading) with the ability to get off the train and retain access to the version of software you have at the time you get off the train.  I would not mind subscribing for the chance to use the pay-as-you-go, updated latest and greatest with the idea that, when I realized the new features I was paying for monthly had demonstrated their merit, I could lock in a perpetual license at that state.  I would pay an additional modest "transfer fee" to transfer from the pay-as-you-go to a locked in perpetual license at that state.  If the value and security and convenience of locking in my version at the current state is worth money to me, then the "transfer fee" would be worth it.  At least I would have the choice.

In this hypothetical, the pay-as-you-go would continue to advance as I used my perpetually licensed version and, if advances were made to the pay-as-you-go version that piqued my interest enough to try them, I could get back on the train and pay-as-you-go so I could try the newest, latest and greatest.  If I thought it was worth it, I could continue to use the latest and greatest, pay-as-you-go, until, again, the features were sufficient for me - then I would transfer to a (modestly priced) perpetual version, locking in my access to the application at that current state.  I could even stay on the pay-as-you-go plan while I paid each transfer fee to lock in my perpetual licenses.  These two paths would not be mutually exclusive and could be simultaneous - the transfer fee for each locked in state would provide me with a static, known application I could use outside of the subscription, independent of the subscription, should I chose to leave the subscription.  Likewise, I would not be required to stay on the train to be able to access my perpetually licensed products.  Once I locked in and paid my transfer fee, I would be free and clear of the subscription at that state - forever if I chose.

This way I could establish my own custom perpetually-licensed application states at points in feature sets, hardware requirements, etc. that I chose.  This way I would be more apt to get on the train, knowing that I could get off and, for a modest additional fee, lock in the progress I paid for.  If my business model or finances changed, or my hardware was specialized to the point of needing a specific, older version, I could have some security in knowing that I could leave the pay-as-you-go train until conditions permitted me the chance to decide to get back on.

If Adobe did this, I think their customers would at least feel less betrayed and concerned about their impressions of having to "stay addicted" to the pay-as-you-go model.  In essence, customers would be paying-as-they-go to beta test the continually advancing software and then pay a modest fee to lock in access to the application when they felt that the application was mature and stable enough for their workflow, equipment, business, etc.  

I dunno, just a thought.

kirk
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 02:17:35 PM by kirkt »
Logged

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #172 on: May 07, 2013, 01:58:54 PM »

Steve - Adobe has patents on their intellectual property. Patents are, in an important sense, intentionally created "legal monopolies" for reasons I needn't bore you with - you likely know. They cannot be charged for anti-trust violations by holding their legal monopoly rights. The way in which they choose to market their intellectual property is a matter of free choice. They can rent it, or they can sell perpetual licenses to it, or they can do both. There are no laws against this. You would be very hard-put to prove in a court of law why renting software frustrates the benefits to be achieved from competition as opposed to selling perpetual licenses to it. If any one could win that case, perhaps outfits such as Lynda.com would have to change their business model, because they rent access to tutorials rather than selling you copies of the product for your perpetual reference. You can be well-assured that Adobe has a whole legal department doing nothing else but advising senior management on how to keep out of trouble. You would have great difficulty proving in a court of law that the one business model or the other constitutes the kind of abuse of a dominant market position that would be unambiguous enough to constitute an anti-trust violation. If anything, this new business model invites the development of competition and a challenge to revenue on a scale they haven't seen to date. This is business risk that I know for a fact they clearly understand.

The one potential vulnerability they MAY - but not likely - have is through the consequences of stopping to pay the rent. One loses access to software on which one depended for creating and amending images. It would prevent people from reverting to those photographs and revising them if they contained code that their last installed perpetual license version no longer recognized. But even that, as immoral as it would be, may not be a legally determinate abuse of a monopoly position, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a court that they ever made commitments to the perpetual usability of their software, and that is something no software vendor in his or her right mind would ever do, because it would frustrate the benefits of technological change by creating the need for an infinite change of backward compatibility that no-one guarantees - no-one.
If you can only see one vulnerability then you aren't looking hard enough.  
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Gulag

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 336
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #173 on: May 07, 2013, 02:02:01 PM »

Devil's Advocate here.

People line up to pay $100+ a month for a freaking silly iPhone to gossip and watch Youtube videosl, but grouse about paying $50/month for one of the cores of their professional businesses.  It's all how you look at it.  Switch to Net10, subscribe to CC, and you'll still be dollars ahead.


You sound like you really don't fully understand the whole issue. According to Wiki, Rentier Capitalism is a term currently used to describe economic practices of parasitic monopolization of access to any (physical, financial, intellectual, etc.) kind of property and gaining significant amount of profit without contribution to society. Let me put it in the simplest term: this whole Adobe shit is about renter vs rentier. Adobe "believes" it is a monopoly and behaves as a such. Innovation? Forget about it. Improvements? Forget about it. What would you say if Microsoft or Apple started to charge you some monthly fee for Windows or Mac OS?  
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 02:05:19 PM by Gulag »
Logged
"Photography is our exorcism. Primitive society had its masks, bourgeois society its mirrors. We have our images."

— Jean Baudrillard

bill t.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2979
    • http://www.unit16.net
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #174 on: May 07, 2013, 02:10:09 PM »

I do understand the issue.  We're all really pissed that Adobe is now doing what everybody else is doing and the steam is venting.  That's the issue.

Two months down the road, almost everybody here will be subscribed to CC, and the wounds will slowly heal.  And I bet Adobe will continue to supply with new, useful stuff.  And any viable alternative will be a long time coming.  That's the reality we're going to see.
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3436
    • waynefox.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #175 on: May 07, 2013, 02:16:18 PM »


This is really a more complicated issue than Jeff presents it and one only needs to look at those companies supporting the Senate bill (Amazon and most other major Internet retailers).  This will severely disadvantage the smaller retailers who will now have to institute complex software packages to collect and disburse sales taxes in the states that they don't have a physical presence.

This is an effort to save the small retailers.  I myself lose at least 2 or 3 camera sales a week to someone who spends my employees time deciding what camera to buy, looking at and playing with my demo's including sometimes shooting cards, only to leave saying "they'll think about it".  In reality they are going to buy it online to save the sales tax. So it's bad enough I lose the sale because I can't compete on a level playing field, it's like pouring salt into a wound because I'm the showroom for B&H and the like with no compensation.  (Personally I think Canon, Nikon and others should recognize this and offer me lower prices and surcharge them.  Of course that's never going to happen) Forcing them to collect sales tax and I can then compete close enough on price I could close most of those sales, and actually may have a chance at surviving.

Anyone who meets the $1m year internet sales number can easily afford the software and systems to collect and remit the tax, and in fact the bill requires the states to furnish the software to the retailers.

As far as unfair taxation, the issue is states losing revenue because some of their residents are avoiding taxes this way.  They owe it, and it isn't fair to the other residents who pay it.  Whether sales tax in general is "fair" is another discussion, but what isn't fair is some not paying their share.  The states have no way to police or enforce this.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 08:36:50 PM by Wayne Fox »
Logged

soboyle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 305
    • http://www.shaunoboyle.photoshelter.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #176 on: May 07, 2013, 02:21:18 PM »

It's the price. That is the issue.
Adobe is begin greedy, and everyone is pissed off, including me.
Drop the price and all the screaming will go away.
Logged

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2349
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #177 on: May 07, 2013, 02:24:49 PM »

Adobe just bought up NIK
Can I be the second person to correct you on this; Google bought NIK, NOT Adobe.

http://www.niksoftware.com/nikcollection/en/intro.html
Logged

Gulag

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 336
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #178 on: May 07, 2013, 02:26:09 PM »

I do understand the issue.  We're all really pissed that Adobe is now doing what everybody else is doing and the steam is venting.  That's the issue.

Two months down the road, almost everybody here will be subscribed to CC, and the wounds will slowly heal.  And I bet Adobe will continue to supply with new, useful stuff.  And any viable alternative will be a long time coming.  That's the reality we're going to see.

So you will be obedient and accept the rape? Congratulations. But, I know I won't. GIMP will be my solution since I don't use any Photoshop third-party plugins at all.  
Logged
"Photography is our exorcism. Primitive society had its masks, bourgeois society its mirrors. We have our images."

— Jean Baudrillard

jerryrock

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 598
    • The Grove Street Photographer
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #179 on: May 07, 2013, 02:26:21 PM »

Thank you for the clarity.  I'm assuming then that I should be able to work locally, off line for extended periods of time as long as I'm paid up.

Must say, I don't like the idea much, though. Has anything been said about Lightroom going cloud only?

Perhaps this will provide a new space in the market for smaller companies to capture significant market share with similar products.  I've been meaning to test others available & now have impetus to do so.

It also now makes me rethink the wisdom of my "convert to DNG on import" as a default.

Rand

The Creative Cloud version requires an internet connection every 30 days or the activation will cease. The previous stand alone versions require activation upon installation only.

Personally, I will stop with CS6 having invested in the Master Suite, it will be to costly to maintain a monthly subscription to retain the same programs with the Creative Cloud. While this marketing scheme is fine for large businesses and schools, it leaves the loyal single end users out in the cold. This is a great opportunity for a competitor to develop similar software.
Logged
Gerald J Skrocki
gskrocki.wordpress.com
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 37   Go Up