Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions

[Ken Richmond]

To continue.......

"Turning to the plaintiffs' argument that Adobe "bundled Illustrator with other Adobe graphic design products, raising significant entry barriers for potential rivals to enter the market without a full array of graphics software," the judge said that although the plaintiffs' allegations of bundling were not sufficient to demonstrate a "standalone" bundling claim, the allegations are "relevant" to the Section 2 claims below."

just saying s'more...

Ken Richmond

[werner from aurora]

I stand corrected! Still, I think the point is made!

[Mark D Segal]

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.

You are making a number of very good points here - but I think the engineers will be under the same kind of pressure to produce they always have been. Just in a different and perhaps more rational way, simply because the pre-mandated product cycle was such a poor idea when they introduced it.

[BernardLanguillier]

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.

Please help us understand Jeff. You usually come accross as a very down to the earth no crap kind of person.

What is the practical difference between these 2 concepts?

Practical like in impacting the actual usage/applications of the photographer.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Mark D Segal]

To continue.......

"Turning to the plaintiffs' argument that Adobe "bundled Illustrator with other Adobe graphic design products, raising significant entry barriers for potential rivals to enter the market without a full array of graphics software," the judge said that although the plaintiffs' allegations of bundling were not sufficient to demonstrate a "standalone" bundling claim, the allegations are "relevant" to the Section 2 claims below."

just saying s'more...

Ken Richmond

And I'm "just askin" what's the relevance?

[Ken Richmond]

The relevance, as I first posted is bundling/tying and the potential damage that it causes to existing rivals or those who are now discouraged from entering the market.   I'm not trying to be a heavy here, but the certainty with which you make assertions without legal training is astounding.  

Thanks,

Ken Richmond

[Alan Smallbone]

Adobe responds to the complaints, and there seems to be the implication that after Lightroom V5 there will be no more updates except for the cloud version or I should say that no new features or "added funtionality". It also seems to debunk their statements that they did not want two versions, yet they are doing two versions of ACR now, one with features added, one without....

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08/Adobe-photoshop-cc

Interesting it all boils down to needs and wants.

Alan

[Schewe]

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

Believe it...dual dev of perpetual & subscription would have been a disaster (was a disaster) and that was ultimately the deciding factor in killing perpetual (and I'm not sure Adobe would be happy having me say that, but it's true).

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

Do you understand copyrights and property rights? The only "ownership" you get with software is the right to use...it's usage rights not ownership rights. The whole ownership issue is something photographers should friggin' understand. When you license a photo, does the client "own" the photo? No...not unless you sold all rights or do a total transfer of copyright or agreed to a work for hire agreement.

Come on folks...get a grip...licensing software gives you no "ownership" rights, you don't own the software, you own a right to USE the software (subject to the End User License Agreement–EULA), and if you don't understand the differences, you need a refresher course in intellectual property law (something I'm actually very well versed it).

The main practical difference between a perpetual license and a subscription license is the period of time the license runs.

I get that people don't like having a limited use vs unlimited use. I used to fight this battle with clients all the time. Adobe is no only offering a limited time license. Does that make them evil? No more than me telling a client I won't do a total transfer of rights to a photo (and while I no longer shoot assignments, I do still license the rights to use my photos, so I'm still fighting that battle too).

[Schewe]

It also seems to debunk their statements that they did not want two versions, yet they are doing two versions of ACR now, one with features added, one without....

No, you don't understand code...it's one single version with the ability to turn on or disable certain features–which is nothing new, ACR has had the ability to turn off features since ACR was made available for Elements (which had a limited feature set from the time ACR was added to Elements). Same deal with ACR 6.7 which could process LR4 settings but didn't allow you to change them (because the UI wasn't there).

ACR 8.x will continue to be developed for Photoshop CS6 for the foreseeable future. Once Photoshop CC and ACR move past a certain point (where ACR would be renumbered as ACR 9.x) I don't know and I won't speculate...but for now, ACR 8.x will work in CC & CS6. It will process settings made in LR5 but not expose the UI and features.

[Mark D Segal]

The relevance, as I first posted is bundling/tying and the potential damage that it causes to existing rivals or those who are now discouraged from entering the market.  


Ken Richmond

How does this change in the manner of payment for the right to use the software create the kind of bundling and tying that violates competition laws? What damage does it cause existing rivals? Who will it discourage from entering the market? From everything I'm reading it could well have the reverse of these impacts. Ken look, you're not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer, but in another context I've had training in competition law from way-back-when, I follow prominent cases of interest to me, and I think anyone who believes that pushing this avenue of redress will get very far may well be dreaming in Technicolor - not even sRGB. OK? That's my story and I'm sticking with it whether it astounds you or not. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I'm not there yet based on what I've read through all these pages.

[Joe S]

Come on folks...get a grip...licensing software gives you no "ownership" rights, you don't own the software, you own a right to USE the software (subject to the End User License Agreement–EULA), and if you don't understand the differences, you need a refresher course in intellectual property law (something I'm actually very well versed it).

I can't believe you still want to go on about intellectual property law and defend the (unquestioned) purity of adobe employees.   Can't you understand this simple concept. Many of us are unhappy because we prefer to retain the right to use...for as long as we choose to do so for a fixed fee that we find reasonable and not have to rent for the rest of our lives.   And yes I understand that adobe can do what it wants ....

[Ken Richmond]

And of course, consumers are protected, according to Judge Koh,

"....Turning to the state law claims, [we] found that because the plaintiffs adequately stated a claim for their federal antitrust claims, they also stated claims [against Adobe] under Section 17200, the Washington Consumer Protection Act and the Washington antitrust statutes."

It would seem, to me at least, that the wolves are slathering at that fat greedy cow already.  There is more to report.

Adobe has failed to correct my CS6 from expiring every thirty days unless I re enter my license key after 3 time consuming exchanges.  If the "manager" gets deleted on the 30th. day, a long phone hold will be required to get the premium software I purchased up and running again.

According to this, I have purchased absolutely nothing,

"“DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES: YOU AGREE THAT ADOBE HAS MADE NO EXPRESS WARRANTIES TO YOU REGARDING THE SOFTWARE AND THAT THE SOFTWARE IS BEING PROVIDED TO YOU "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. ADOBE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE; EXPRESS OR IMPLIED; INCLUDING; WITHOUT LIMITATION; ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE; MERCHANTABILITY; MERCHANTABLE QUALITY OR NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS.”

This is a Contract of Adhesion.   Adobe is the 90% market share dominate player and there is no other software with its features.  By the above Warranty (sic) Adobe denies and abnigates its own advertising (like most other software marketers)  Who here is going to rationally defend Adobe's business ethics?  What professionals among you, of any ilk-legal, artist, surgeon, would give your client, your patient, your enemy, such a warranty?

Ken Richmond  

[Ken Richmond]

How does this change in the manner of payment for the right to use the software create the kind of bundling and tying that violates competition laws? What damage does it cause existing rivals? Who will it discourage from entering the market? From everything I'm reading it could well have the reverse of these impacts. Ken look, you're not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer, but in another context I've had training in competition law from way-back-when, I follow prominent cases of interest to me, and I think anyone who believes that pushing this avenue of redress will get very far may well be dreaming in Technicolor - not even sRGB. OK? That's my story and I'm sticking with it whether it astounds you or not. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I'm not there yet based on what I've read through all these pages.

Google me.  I am a lawyer.

Ken Richmond

[BernardLanguillier]

Do you understand copyrights and property rights? The only "ownership" you get with software is the right to use...it's usage rights not ownership rights. The whole ownership issue is something photographers should friggin' understand. When you license a photo, does the client "own" the photo? No...not unless you sold all rights or do a total transfer of copyright or agreed to a work for hire agreement.

Come on folks...get a grip...licensing software gives you no "ownership" rights, you don't own the software, you own a right to USE the software (subject to the End User License Agreement–EULA), and if you don't understand the differences, you need a refresher course in intellectual property law (something I'm actually very well versed it).

A photograph and a piece of software are very different items:

1.  There are indeed very real practical differences between owning a photograph an being granted a license. Typically in terms of the ability to resell, the kind of usage being allowed... because you are speaking about content. Licensing affects the core attributes of the photograph since it is content.

2. A piece of software like Photoshop only has value in its usage. And there is zero practical difference between ownership and perpatual license of use for software in terms of software usage.

The main practical difference between a perpetual license and a subscription license is the period of time the license runs.

I get that people don't like having a limited use vs unlimited use. I used to fight this battle with clients all the time. Adobe is no only offering a limited time license. Does that make them evil? No more than me telling a client I won't do a total transfer of rights to a photo (and while I no longer shoot assignments, I do still license the rights to use my photos, so I'm still fighting that battle too).

There is again a major difference between a photograph and a de facto software platform like Photoshop.

From the point of view of us, the customers paying the bills, we have invested time and money (Adobe software and all the other items we have purchased on top of the PS platform - the plug in capability was/is a strong selling point of PS) in Photoshop and created content with Photoshop that can only be edited with Photoshop.

So, leaving aside words like evil that I did not pronounce, yes Adobe does have a clear responsibility towards its user community and my view is that they are not up to the task with this decision.

I am sure you must understand this gigantic difference Jeff, please.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Schewe]

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

I'm not saying Adobe is immune to Anti-Trust actions in general...Adobe does have to do a very delicate dance with their position in the marketplace...there are always snakes in the grass looking to try to take advantage–I've actually got experience with Adobe having to defend itself against litigation (but I can say no more). Adobe has a team of legal beagles whose job it is to advise and defend Adobe against all comers.

But the likelihood of Adobe facing an Anti-Trust action based on changing the manner in which users license software isn't likely to catch the attention of the FTC. Could individuals try to sue? You bet, Adobe gets sued all the time. Has Adobe engaged in any-competitive, predatory behavior? In my experience (and I don't work for Adobe but I hear things) Adobe bend over backwards to avoid even the hint of any-competitive, predatory behavior.

[BernardLanguillier]

Believe it...dual dev of perpetual & subscription would have been a disaster (was a disaster) and that was ultimately the deciding factor in killing perpetual (and I'm not sure Adobe would be happy having me say that, but it's true).

Well, then getting rid of CC was the obvious decision to make.

And again, it seems very easy to synchronize CC and Perpetual at the moment of the release of perpetual and simply evolve CC as a the code BSF would have evolved anyway, only with the difference that some bits would be GAed in CC every now and then, with release of a full package every 18 months.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Mark D Segal]

Google me.  I am a lawyer.

Ken Richmond

Fine, with a legal mind you should have a good sense of probabilities and relevance. I remain to be convinced on both of these dimensions.

[Ken Richmond]

I'm not saying Adobe is immune to Anti-Trust actions in general...Adobe does have to do a very delicate dance with their position in the marketplace...there are always snakes in the grass looking to try to take advantage–I've actually got experience with Adobe having to defend itself against litigation (but I can say no more). Adobe has a team of legal beagles whose job it is to advise and defend Adobe against all comers.

But the likelihood of Adobe facing an Anti-Trust action based on changing the manner in which users license software isn't likely to catch the attention of the FTC. Could individuals try to sue? You bet, Adobe gets sued all the time. Has Adobe engaged in any-competitive, predatory behavior? In my experience (and I don't work for Adobe but I hear things) Adobe bend over backwards to avoid even the hint of any-competitive, predatory behavior.

OK, the snakes challenge Adobe's practices and the "Legal beagles" created the worthless disclaimer and "click thru" disclosure after downloading and purchase.  Snakes/Beagles   Nice objective imagry.

Hmmm, let's see, who is wearing the white wings here?  

Ken Richmond

[Ed B]

Adobe is a tool (in more ways than one) as far as I am concerned, just like a Estwing hammer. The software is nothing without a creative mind to use it to process their work. No different than a skilled carpenter using a hammer, a hammer is a paperweight without a person to wield it. This script version of software is nothing but bad news for future creators who can't afford it. As great as a time it is for photographers and the tools they now have to create, software script is a thorn in the side.

I will keep my Computer alive as long as I possibly can with the software I have and when the time comes I hope there will be something I can use to process my images that won't try to rape me.

What is the next thing we have to worry about, camera manufacturers charging us a monthly fee to use the firmware in our cameras to make images? F U Adobe.

[Schewe]

A photograph and a piece of software are very different items.

If you don't understand the fact that a photograph and a piece of software is treated EXACTLY THE SAME as it relates to copyright, well, you need to do some learning bud.

Have you ever even read the EULA for Photoshop? Do you actually know what rights you have licensed?

Go ahead and read it...then get back to me an explain how usage rights for a photo are different than usage rights for a piece of software.

Hint, you might not like it, but I'm right and you are wrong...I spent a decade fighting for photographers' rights in the 1980's and got schooled in intellectual property rights/copyrights by some of the top attorneys in the field. In the eyes of the law, there is zero difference in the manner or treatment of ANY copyrighted material whether is photos, music, movies, books or software.

The owner of a copyright is granted by the US Constitution with the exclusive right to exploit as a monopoly, the intellectual rights to their creation. Whether it's an individual author, photographer of corporation producing commercial software, the rules are all the same.

When you buy software, all you are buying is a right, no ownership is involved except you own the right to use it for whatever period of time you agree to. Perpetual or subscription, as it relates to copyright, they are the same. The only difference is the period.