Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 37   Go Down

Author Topic: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions  (Read 187817 times)

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1882
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #240 on: May 07, 2013, 08:00:19 pm »

No I don't. Of course price matters, but there may also be some workflow implications for some people down the road.

I have concerns on several levels.  While I can imagine the benefits of such a scheme in a collaborative environment, I have zero need for that (so don't care to contribute, price wise, for a feature I don't need - just like video on still cameras!).  I'm also concerned (in general, not merely with this "cloud schema") about cloud computing and our growing dependence on the internet for all kinds of things.  SCADA systems is a prime example where we are becoming increasingly vulnerable as a nation due to the hack-ability of such systems for both public and private infrastructure.  So, I have an objection to moving in that direction in general for reasons other than silly photo/graphics software.

On the personal side, I am as many have expressed in this thread, essentially a hobbyist in semi-retirement for whom price is an issue at some point.  Having bought in "heavily" for original and expensive full versions of LR and Photoshop, I've been able to "keep up" with attractive upgrade pricing by adopting an "every other version" strategy.  That has already gone by the boards with Photoshop.  As Adobe moves toward a customer base made up primarily of professionals, it is quite likely that I'll be priced out of the ability to use these excellent tools at some point.  I'm already teetering on the edge of sanity as it is.  

A third reason is my love of this web site and the great LULA tutorials.  If I migrate to another platform for editing at some point, the value and learning opportunities I have here will diminish.

On the potential upside, as I mentioned earlier, perhaps this will provide opportunity for smaller companies to do some reverse engineering and fill in the gap for us amateurs at a price that is manageable for most of us over the long haul.

If LR goes CC, I'm not sure what the hell I'll have to do.  One thing I changed "today" is to move away from DNG as I don't know what impacts the future may hold for me there.  

Dang.... I hate sounding whiney.  Sniveling Chablis is my least favorite whine.   ;D
Rand
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 08:04:12 pm by Rand47 »
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

Joe S

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #241 on: May 07, 2013, 08:04:54 pm »


As for why I defend Adobe? Because, on this forum, they can't defend themselves...but I can. So, I do. What are my motives? I have a lot of friends at Adobe. I know the people of Adobe very well. I've watched as they have bent over backwards over the years to try to do the "right thing" and have a bunch of yahoos sniping from the sidelines spouting FUD, bullshit and whatever. So, yes, I like to set the records straight. If that pisses you off, screw you, ya know?

If you want to discuss the the facts (not wild speculations), I'm all in...otherwise, move on, find someplace else to hang your hat.


Speaking of a load of bs or whatever.     Justifying boorish behavior under the auspices of defending your good friends at adobe is just that.   I have heard no one say anything bad about the good folks that work at adobe.   Unhappiness with corporate adobe for being greedy...what else is new...a corporation trying to wring out every last dollar it can..hardly new...hardly illegal (maybe)...but certainly not popular with us who have to take it or leave it.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #242 on: May 07, 2013, 08:16:30 pm »

Do you see Adobe going CC with Lightroom?

I really don't know...the fact is, it's Adobe's only App Store app and that changes the nature of the app and updates. Also, since Adobe decided to make the license cross platform it broke the Adobe mold–no activation! So it would be a LOT of work to turn LR into an activation type of registration. Also, considering the price point I don't think it's a good ROI.

I do think that there may be room for some new registration options-matbe a Photoshop/LR combo. But don't quote me on that, I'm just speculating. So, bottom line, I doubt it but things could change.
Logged

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1882
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #243 on: May 07, 2013, 08:21:02 pm »

I really don't know...the fact is, it's Adobe's only App Store app and that changes the nature of the app and updates. Also, since Adobe decided to make the license cross platform it broke the Adobe mold–no activation! So it would be a LOT of work to turn LR into an activation type of registration. Also, considering the price point I don't think it's a good ROI.

I do think that there may be room for some new registration options-matbe a Photoshop/LR combo. But don't quote me on that, I'm just speculating. So, bottom line, I doubt it but things could change.

Jeff,

Thanks for the insight.

Rand
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #244 on: May 07, 2013, 08:25:42 pm »

And regarding your claim of not having customers?   --- http://www.schewephoto.com :

You seem to suffer from the same illness as Adobe: a total disregard to your customer base.

And note the last time the site was updated? I keep it up because it's easier than taking it down and I use the email address.

Again, I don't have a customer base...I don't work for clients anymore. I write books to fill my spare time, buy, don't buy. It honestly doesn't matter. You like the LuLa video tutorials? Cool, but I do those to spend time and have fun with Mike and Chris (we'll be shooting the LR5 vid stating tomorrow). Do I care if you do or don't buy them? No really...Mike and Chris might and if my behavior pisses of Mike and Chris, they'll let me know.

So, moving back on topic (because all this personal shit really doesn't address the issues) exactly what are your issues? And, perhaps since you registered yourself here on LuLa today, care to introduce yourself to the community? Who are you, what do you do and why should we care?
Logged

kencameron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
    • Recent Photographs
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #245 on: May 07, 2013, 08:38:35 pm »

Jeff,

Do you see Adobe going CC with Lightroom?

Rand

Awaiting Jeff's answer with interest. In the mean time, I would note that there is more real competition for Lightroom, particularly but not only for Mac users, and I would wonder what they could charge for it as a CC product. If it were pro rata with the current relative costs of PS and LR, then not much.
Logged
Ken Cameron

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #246 on: May 07, 2013, 08:50:25 pm »

Look three posts up for my answer...
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #247 on: May 07, 2013, 09:22:25 pm »

Surely for the vast majority of us this just comes down to price.  If Adobe charged $20 a year everyone would be blissfully happy.  If they charged $100 a month, almost nobody would subscribe.  So it's mainly a price thing. Do you agree?

Partially.

1. Yes, price does matter,

2. No, it is not the only issue. The other issues are:
- My IP (.psd files) is linked to Photoshop and I don't want to put myself in a position where I may not be able to edit my IP if I stop paying a monthly fee. With the existing model, nothing prevents me from using CS6 for 5 years as long as the hardware it runs on remains problem free/can be fixed.

- As an individual, I want to own my frequently used assets, not rent them. Rental is OK as an option for infrequently used items, but it mostly is an economic offering in favor of the seller for frequently used items. PS is a frequently used item for me just like my house and my TV. I rent cars because I use one every 3 month at best. Companies think differently because they have much more elaborate financial mgt whose very existence relies on the participation in complex financial schemes. I want simplicity. I buy, I own, end of story.

- Software like PS that is close to an image editing OS, is not a service to me, it is clearly a product. I don't need it to be bundled with content, nor do I need more frequent delta functional updates. I want a stable software platform that remains up to date relative to the underlying stack (OS and H/W mainly). Yes, this requires updates, but one every 18 months is sufficient. This is very different from content streaming providers like the App store for movies. Those guys are just putting online an existing model (movies rental) that has always made sense because most people only watch a movie once. Movies are extremely infrequently used items, hence the rental model makes sense.

- I just don't buy the proposition that the rental model is mandatory for technical reasons because of the way Adobe wants to roll out more frequent updates. I applaud the ability of Adobe to come up with more granular/flexible development approaches enabling them to make new capabilities available to customers faster. But I doubt it answers a real individual user need (corporate customers may be different as their processes may rely on the availability of some capabilities with a clear ROI associated)... and they could simply make these updates available for free for paying users. If PS were an online application (think super web pages), this would make more technical sense, but the CC version of PS remains a desktop application for now.

Have I already mentioned that I am real pisssssed?

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 09:32:52 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #248 on: May 07, 2013, 09:40:37 pm »

- I just don't buy the proposition that the rental model is mandatory for technical reasons because of the way Adobe wants to roll out more frequent updates.

Do you understand the implications of revenue recognition relating to generally accepted accounting practices here in the USA? Google it...it starts with Enron...it means that based on the way Adobe had previously set up it's accounting for R&D for Photoshop (and other apps), once a product version was shipped, after the end of the quarter that the product shipped, Adobe was specifically precluded from adding any new features, only bug and maintenance fixes.

With the perpetual license model, Adobe was precluded (meaning that they literally could not) add any new features to the perpetual version.

Now, with the subscription model, Adobe was able to change the way that they accounted for R&D...since the subscription is an on going pay/time model, Adobe is now able to create and add new features and release them when they are ready without delaying the features till the next major version.

The problem (highlighted by the 13.1/13.0.4 technical issues) is that keeping a dual licensing model alive proved to be impossible, so they dropped  the perpetual license model so they could go all in on the subscription model.

All this stuff about buy vs rent is a distraction...whether you pay as you go or pay once for an unlimited time, it's still a license. You don't "own" anything other than rights...so an analogy dealing with tangible property (car, house, camera) are totally irrelevant. The only difference between a perpetual license and a subscription is the time terms of the license. Unlimited time vs time limited. In either case, the only thing you own are rights, not property.

Jeeesh, I really feel embarrassed by all the photographers who completely and totally misunderstand intellectual property and copyrights. You buy Photoshop? You don't own Photoshop, you own the right to use Photoshop for either a limited period of time or an unlimited period of time. Both transaction are the same principal. The only difference is with a subscription you lose the right to use after your subscription expires. With a perpetual license, it doesn't expire until such time as you no longer have a computer it will run on.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 09:43:15 pm by Schewe »
Logged

Chris_Brown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 974
  • Smile dammit!
    • Chris Brown Photography
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #249 on: May 07, 2013, 09:55:39 pm »

I recommend the naysayers try it out. The 30 day trial is 100% free, and includes all applications. Check out what's behind the curtain.

Since subscribing a few weeks ago, I've drilled into the CC and watched many of the "learn more" videos. I think it's pretty amazing actually. Now a content creator can utilize any of Adobe's products for a simple fee. No longer do I have to juggle multiple licenses for more than a dozen programs and spend a day upgrading workstations & laptops, and track & archive serial numbers.

The full-meal-deal is $600 per year for a small, 2-seat studio. This is too much? Really? Are you selling portraits for $1.99 each? Time for that to change.

This also includes web site hosting (up to 5 sites) and various programs to build a site.

Obviously, this CC plan is great for those who create works for clients, and get fairly compensated for it. For those who have photography as a hobby, it's now decision time.

Back when Adobe announced that they would deliver a PS upgrade every 18–24 months, I was very discouraged by the announcement. My fear was that Adobe would release versions of PS that had minor improvements or simple UI changes for $200 per license, and that true product enhancements (computational improvements, new algorithms, radical concepts such as Layers, etc.) would become more scarce. And that the software engineers would become more like gerbils in a barrel. This new biz model eliminates that, and this is fantastic. Both from a programmer's POV and an end user's POV. Now we will get enhancements as they are released and folded into each program. Updates occur almost on-the-fly. We also get an incredible amount of instructional info on using & implementing these new features.

From the standpoint of running a studio that uses this software as a tool, as a profit making tool, it's obviously worth a try.
Logged
~ CB

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #250 on: May 07, 2013, 09:59:36 pm »

Do you understand the implications of revenue recognition relating to generally accepted accounting practices here in the USA? Google it...it starts with Enron...it means that based on the way Adobe had previously set up it's accounting for R&D for Photoshop (and other apps), once a product version was shipped, after the end of the quarter that the product shipped, Adobe was specifically precluded from adding any new features, only bug and maintenance fixes.

With the perpetual license model, Adobe was precluded (meaning that they literally could not) add any new features to the perpetual version.

Now, with the subscription model, Adobe was able to change the way that they accounted for R&D...since the subscription is an on going pay/time model, Adobe is now able to create and add new features and release them when they are ready without delaying the features till the next major version.

The problem (highlighted by the 13.1/13.0.4 technical issues) is that keeping a dual licensing model alive proved to be impossible, so they dropped  the perpetual license model so they could go all in on the subscription model.

Jeff,

Sorry, I still don't buy the proposition in bold above.

Jeeesh, I really feel embarrassed by all the photographers who completely and totally misunderstand intellectual property and copyrights. You buy Photoshop? You don't own Photoshop, you own the right to use Photoshop for either a limited period of time or an unlimited period of time. Both transaction are the same principal. The only difference is with a subscription you lose the right to use after your subscription expires. With a perpetual license, it doesn't expire until such time as you no longer have a computer it will run on.

Right... and the practical difference between ownership and right to use for an unlimited amount of time is?

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 10:02:33 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #251 on: May 07, 2013, 10:01:43 pm »

The only difference is with a subscription you lose the right to use after your subscription expires. With a perpetual license, it doesn't expire until such time as you no longer have a computer it will run on.


Yes. all this is true save for one factor: with a perpetual license, once it is bought the user has control over the duration of its usage regardless of whether an upgrade has become available; with a subscription license you are cut off when you stop paying, and then, whether you can re-edit the images you made in a CC version back in the latest CS version you have access to becomes a bit of a crap-shoot. I think it is the loss of control and the uncertainties it creates that people are reacting against, added to which - pricing starts reasonable, but after a year significantly exceeds the equivalent "traditional" up-grade cost amortized say over 18 months. I'm not necessarily opposed to this business model. In fact I'm on subscription for Microsoft Office, because it makes the most economic sense based on the pricing options Microsoft offers for this product; I think perhaps Adobe needs to refine the model a bit to take some of these irritants into account. Then they may have a win-win.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Chris_Brown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 974
  • Smile dammit!
    • Chris Brown Photography
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #252 on: May 07, 2013, 10:03:47 pm »

Right... and the practical difference between ownership and right to use for an unlimited amount of time is?

The speed of the treadmill.
Logged
~ CB

Joe S

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #253 on: May 07, 2013, 10:05:17 pm »


All this stuff about buy vs rent is a distraction...whether you pay as you go or pay once for an unlimited time, it's still a license. You don't "own" anything other than rights...so an analogy dealing with tangible property (car, house, camera) are totally irrelevant. The only difference between a perpetual license and a subscription is the time terms of the license. Unlimited time vs time limited. In either case, the only thing you own are rights, not property.

Jeeesh, I really feel embarrassed by all the photographers who completely and totally misunderstand intellectual property and copyrights. You buy Photoshop? You don't own Photoshop, you own the right to use Photoshop for either a limited period of time or an unlimited period of time. Both transaction are the same principal. The only difference is with a subscription you lose the right to use after your subscription expires. With a perpetual license, it doesn't expire until such time as you no longer have a computer it will run on.



Don't be embarrassed.  We could care less about the legal differences.   We understand the BIG difference between a license to use for as long as we want and a subscription that expires when we stop paying.   There is a huge difference between a right to use for a limited vs unlimited time.  Unlimited is de facto ownership.
Logged

werner from aurora

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #254 on: May 07, 2013, 10:12:30 pm »

There is a lot of responses here fueled by some heated emotions. Jeff I think has taken a lot of undeserved flack. A lot but not all is unjustified. There are two issues at play here that seem to get merged into one. The first according to Jeff is that     "I think it makes good technical sense to get out of the 18-24 month dev cycle". This may be true, Jeff  I know, has forgotten more about Photoshop than I will ever know. However this is not what is fueling the emotional responses. For years now we have all had to pay the price for what we perceive as corporate greed. Banks still making profits, are nickel and dimeing us, Insurance companies refusing to pay for any excuse they can find, Municipalities re-writing laws-freezing wages-continuing to raise taxes.
   We live in a world where monthly incomes are decreasing and monthly payments are increasing. Lets assume Photoshop and Lightroom would actually benefit the end user from the new model. O.K. I give.
   The problem is that no-one at Adobe really knows what the final fees or at least all the future implications will be. There are plenty of posts where individuals have called Adobe reps to clarify the new model only to be just as confused as before they called. Adobe itself does not yet know what the final fees may settle down to. How else are we to interpret this  other than Adobe is just trying to figure out what they can get away with.
   Adobe has been a driving force for photographers and have contributed to the industry in no small way. Should they not reap the rewards? Of course! However, looking at the yearly profits they have gone from 675 million in 1994 to 4.4 billion in 2012, with a slight drop in 2009 from 3.5 from the previous year to 2.9 billion.   Adobe does not seem to be at the verge of bankruptcy. Does this mean they should give away the product for free? NO! But frankly I have had enough of everyone trying to tap into a percentage of my yearly earnings!
  Do I really matter? NO! But all of a sudden all those years where I could not understand why other corporations did not adopt Adobe standards,- the light has just come on.
  
  
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 10:21:43 pm by werner from aurora »
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #255 on: May 07, 2013, 10:28:48 pm »

And that the software engineers would become more like gerbils in a barrel. This new biz model eliminates that, and this is fantastic. Both from a programmer's POV and an end user's POV. Now we will get enhancements as they are released and folded into each program. Updates occur almost on-the-fly. We also get an incredible amount of instructional info on using & implementing these new features.

Well, the engineers will still be like "gerbils in a barrel", the difference now is there ain't a big bad cat looking in telling them they have a drop dead deadline and if you can't make it, your feature is cut–usually early in a cycle.

Most people have no clue what the Photoshop engineers are like...they are really bright boys (a few girls) who are the cream of the crop...they do pure research, they write SIGgraph papers...they are very talented and avid users of their own products.

To claim that now there's no pressure to meat a deadline there will be little or no progress is a real disservice. When has Thomas Knoll ever been motivated by anything other than doing the right thing...or our own Eric Chan?

Look people, Adobe is a corporation, yes, but a company is made up of the people who work there. If you don't personally know anybody who works for Adobe, quit taking potshots on their motivations and talent, ok?
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #256 on: May 07, 2013, 10:29:32 pm »

However, looking at the yearly profits they have gone from 675 million in 1994 to 4.4 billion in 2012,
  

No Sir. Please refer to their 10K for 2012. Net income for the year was about 832 million. (The 4.4 billion you cite was total revenue.) Still not bad.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #257 on: May 07, 2013, 10:30:43 pm »

Unlimited is de facto ownership.

Yeah, ya know, you still don't get it...you have no ownership rights, you have rights to use. If you don't understand the differences, I suggest you learn a bit about copyright.
Logged

Ken Richmond

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
    • Richmond Fine Photography
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #258 on: May 07, 2013, 10:32:15 pm »

For the modest edification of those who feel Adobe is immune to Anti-Trust actions:

Graphic design professionals may continue with their claims that Adobe Systems Inc. violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act when, after acquiring FreeHand, a professional vector graphic illustration software, it failed to update the program and increased the price of its own software, a federal judge in California ruled Feb. 10 in denying Adobe's motion to dismiss (Free FreeHand Corp., et al. v. Adobe Systems Inc., No. 11-CV-02174-LHK, N.D. Calif.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17254).

just sayin....


Ken Richmond
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #259 on: May 07, 2013, 10:39:05 pm »

For the modest edification of those who feel Adobe is immune to Anti-Trust actions:

Graphic design professionals may continue with their claims that Adobe Systems Inc. violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act when, after acquiring FreeHand, a professional vector graphic illustration software, it failed to update the program and increased the price of its own software, a federal judge in California ruled Feb. 10 in denying Adobe's motion to dismiss (Free FreeHand Corp., et al. v. Adobe Systems Inc., No. 11-CV-02174-LHK, N.D. Calif.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17254).

just sayin....


Ken Richmond

And what is the specific relevance of this case to the change of a sales model from perpetual to subscription licensing? I don't see it.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 37   Go Up