Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 37   Go Down

Author Topic: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions  (Read 117287 times)

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5989
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #280 on: May 07, 2013, 11:40:18 PM »

Snakes/Beagles   Nice objective imagery.

Thanks...it really boils down to are they out to get you or protect you. If out to get you, they're snakes, if out to protect, they're beagles (that like to kill snakes BTW).

:~)
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5683
Adobe responds to CC concerns; increases mine instead
« Reply #281 on: May 07, 2013, 11:41:06 PM »

Adobe VP of Creative Solutions, Winston Hendrickson responds to concerns about the move away from perpetual licensing of Photoshop:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08/Adobe-photoshop-cc

I doubt it will allay many of the concerns expressed here. In fact, before this interview I felt completely safe and and a bit smug about choosing Lightroom rather than Photoshop, but now I have some slight worries for the future of perpetually licensed Lightroom. On the reassuring side, he acknowledges that the subscription licensing model is not popular with us mere photographers:
"We expected a higher degree of this type of reaction from the hobbyist photographic community because currently there's not a lot of photography-specific value in our subscription products."
and
"the Lightroom team is very aware of the reaction by photographers to Photoshop CC. We don't have plans to make Lightroom a subscription-only option ..."
But then he suggests that the subscription licensing version of Lightroom will get features that the perpetually licensed version does not:
"... but we do envision added functionality for the CC version of Lightroom."
raising the spectre of the perpetually licensed version becoming a poor cousin for bottom feeding "hobbyists" like me. So I now have one eye on Aperture as an exit strategy.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 11:51:48 PM by BJL »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9852
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #282 on: May 07, 2013, 11:43:31 PM »

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.

Well, you may want to start by answering about the differences I have already highlighted in my previous post? Or do they make too much sense?
 
What you don't seem to be getting Jeff is that this is not about EULA or copyright laws. It is about the practical impact on the intended scope of usage of a good, a photograph or a piece of software.

But anyway, I don't even care, allow me to amend my initial post then. "- As an individual, I want to have perpetual usage right to my frequently used assets, not rent them.". As you have implicitly admitted by being unable to cite one practical difference... it doesn't make any difference. I am still just as pissed.

Adobe decision remains unacceptable and my bet is that it will be seen a few years from now as a rare example of major corporate mess up. We've had HP announcing it would stop making PCs, Adobe May 6th announcement may show up next on the list.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
A few images online here!

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8941
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #283 on: May 07, 2013, 11:43:39 PM »

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  

What exactly does Judge Koh say consumers are protected for?

Ken, I assume we agree that the clause you have bolded is very common in software licenses and I assume we both understand the reasons for it, and that it is not relevant to competition law in this context. I assume also you would agree that being X% of a market is legally innocuous per se, unless it can be proven that they used dominant market power to frustrate competition in a manner that is proscribed by the law. So what's your point that makes this change in pricing policy actionable? I still don't get it.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5989
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #284 on: May 07, 2013, 11:43:52 PM »

Google me.  I am a lawyer.

Ken, ever do any IP/patent/copyright law? Care to explain to these photographers exactly what the deal is with software vs photos vs music vs any other copyright IP?
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5989
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #285 on: May 07, 2013, 11:50:11 PM »

Well, you may want to start by answering about the differences I have already highlighted in my previous post? Or do they make too much sense?

They are irrelevant...you see a difference where there is no difference in the eye of the copyright law.

A license is a license...the terms of the license can be as expansive or limited as both parties agree to. But it is a license, not an transfer of any sort of ownership other the the specified right to use the copyrighted works for a specific purpose (detailed in the EULA) for a specific period of time. In the case of CS6, you can buy a perceptual license...in the case of CC you buy a license limited by the period of time you agree to. It's the same license transaction...the only difference it the period of time. Unlimited vs limited.
Logged

Ken Richmond

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
    • Richmond Fine Photography
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #286 on: May 08, 2013, 12:05:34 AM »

Ken, ever do any IP/patent/copyright law? Care to explain to these photographers exactly what the deal is with software vs photos vs music vs any other copyright IP?

OK, there are differences. The Millenium Act has federal provisions that address software specifically that are not pertinent to photography.  You are utterly correct in your distinction between licensing and sale of software. A first buyer, as opposed to a licensee, can sell his software - ONCE!  A licensee may not.  Indeed, in most cases, the license is to a named individual.  A license is for use, not ownership.  There are other distinctions that relate to the running of software from RAM as opposed to running it from the installation disk.  It's the first step rule that has no application to photography.  Photography has many other issues.  Let's say a person take a photo from the same place that you took one and you got to the copyright office first.  He publishes his photograph for MONEY! Much of your right will turn on his intent when taking the photo.  Was he duplicating yours?  Think of the Eiffel tower shots that have been published.  To complicate it further, was your shot taken with light from another angle?  With a deflector or softbox?  Are you claiming rights to the position of a gridded beauty dish?  Exactly what did you copyright?  An Image or an Idea?  Was it an editorial?   

We can go on here for several thousand paragraphs.  What is it you want to know?

Ken Richmond
Logged

Ed B

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
    • Light Conspiracy
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #287 on: May 08, 2013, 12:06:16 AM »

there is zero difference in the manner or treatment of ANY copyrighted material whether is photos, music, movies, books or software.


Does anyone feel slighted by that law? Movies, music, photos and books stand on their own, not all software does. When I look at a photo it is complete. Same for all the other creative endeavours Jeff mentions. Open a software program and what do you have? Tools, plain and simple. Maybe the problem here is the law and how it applies to software. Game programs certainly entertain, does Office and Photoshop? I think we all know the answer to that.

We are buying tools, not creative works.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9852
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #288 on: May 08, 2013, 12:07:34 AM »

They are irrelevant...you see a difference where there is no difference in the eye of the copyright law.

A license is a license...the terms of the license can be as expansive or limited as both parties agree to. But it is a license, not an transfer of any sort of ownership other the the specified right to use the copyrighted works for a specific purpose (detailed in the EULA) for a specific period of time. In the case of CS6, you can buy a perceptual license...in the case of CC you buy a license limited by the period of time you agree to. It's the same license transaction...the only difference it the period of time. Unlimited vs limited.

It must be starting to get late for you. I understand the urge to try to save the boat, but you won't change the fact that its captain has decided to turn it into a submarine. I happen to like sunsets too much to be interested in a life under water.

In the meantime I'll start to donate money to The Gimp and to encourage the work on a commercial version.

They are already pretty advanced, the only real problem is going to be the plug-ins. We'll see where it goes.

Will you be releasing a The Gimp version of photokit Sharpener Jeff?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
A few images online here!

Peter Le

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
    • lewandoimages
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #289 on: May 08, 2013, 12:10:08 AM »

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.

    So your embarrassed by us..........I will turn this around and say I am embarrassed by you. As intelligent  as you seem some times it is embarrassing that you can't understand what a lot of people are trying to say. So I will spell it out for you ! The way Adobe's license as worked in the past is......if I choose to stop paying Adobe any time for up grades I can still access my files and use Photoshop as long as I want or as long as my computer supports it. With the cloud they are shoving down my throat I could pay them for the next ten years......the 1st month I stop paying Photoshop becomes a BRICK ! I still have all these files on my computer BUT I can not access them nor do anything with them ! Do you feel this is right ? Can you at least understand our concern ? Or is your credibility gone with Adobe's ?
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5989
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #290 on: May 08, 2013, 12:14:44 AM »

We are buying tools, not creative works.

Sorry, no, you are not.

A tool (like a hammers or screw driver) is considered personal property not intellectual property. The rules for real personal property are different than the rules for intellectual property.

The fact that is, what you think has no impact on the reality that for the purposes of copyright protection, all works are treated equal in terms of protection (and as Ken points out there are some specific details that relate how those protections might be applied).
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5989
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #291 on: May 08, 2013, 12:15:40 AM »

Will you be releasing a The Gimp version of photokit Sharpener Jeff?

Nope...
Logged

tbonanno

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
    • http://www.bonannophoto.com
Lightroom Updates and "enhancements" ONLY on CC ???
« Reply #292 on: May 08, 2013, 12:16:11 AM »

From what I read tonight, it appears that Adobe has already planned to place Lightroom in the CC along with Standard version.  The downside appears to be Adobe's plans to make updates to Lightroom only available on the Cloud version ??  If that is the case, does that mean we will have to subscribe to the CC to obtain the new Camera RAW updates for Lightroom ?  The other issue that I find disturbing is the deactivation of my software should I decide to discontinue my subscription.  Even if I've spent several hundred dollars in subscription fees for my PS and InDesign, once I cancel the subscription, my software is toast.  I have NOTHING ? (other than my image files).  I hope I am wrong, but what I am reading leaves me concerned.  I guess it will all sort out over time.  
Logged
Tony Bonanno Photography
ASMP General Member
Santa Fe, New Mexico
http://www.bonannophoto.com

Colorwave

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1007
    • Colorwave Imaging
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #293 on: May 08, 2013, 12:24:50 AM »

Admittedly not scientific sampling, but probably not far off the mark in terms of average user sentiment:  "Is a cloud-based version of Adobe software a better deal for consumers?"   Results:  14% YES,  84% NO

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-adobe-creative-cloud-20130507,0,3520547.story
Logged

Ken Richmond

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
    • Richmond Fine Photography
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #294 on: May 08, 2013, 12:25:50 AM »

"Ken, I assume we agree that the clause you have bolded is very common in software licenses and I assume we both understand the reasons for it, and that it is not relevant to competition law in this context. I assume also you would agree that being X% of a market is legally innocuous per se, unless it can be proven that they used dominant market power to frustrate competition in a manner that is proscribed by the law. So what's your point that makes this change in pricing policy actionable? I still don't get it."

I agree only that it is common practice for software companies to include those disclaimers.  I do not agree with anything else you assert. If you read the legal opinion of Koh your questions about relevance and Adobe's market share are both addressed.  Market share has everything to do with the Sherman Act.  Indeed, it is the very foundation of all Anti-Trust litigation.  Adobe's conduct is NOT merely changing a price point.  It's willingness to rent Photoshop CS as a stand alone was driven by the California case that I cited you to.  It won't be enough to save it for this reason.  It has bundled it's entire suite for $49.00 per month in precisely the manner objected to by Judge Koh.  It is anti competitive under Section 2 when viewed against the former $2,000.00 and up prices charged for the suites.  It is anti-competitive when Adobe argues that it will "lose" money.  Well that's irrational!  The only explanation is to capture more market and destroy competition.  You MAY NOT price competitors, and accessory providers out of business.

As to the warranty, we have grown accustomed to the practice of the click through, but that does not make it ethical to disclaim one's advertising.  More importantly, as the only real provider in the business, Adobe can disclaim it's advertising and all of the expectations it created because of it's dominant market share.  It will not negotiate because it has no competitors.  Do you really think we should not be legally  protected from this when we have invested time and money in training, in DNG files, Raw camera software?  

Ken Richmond
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 12:30:53 AM by Ken Richmond »
Logged

jwstl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #295 on: May 08, 2013, 12:43:34 AM »

I see a contradiction in your assertions. You claim Adobe made this decision "...to capture more market share and destroy competition" but later you say they are "dominant" and have no competitors. You can't have it both ways. I agree that Adobe is dominant and doesn't really have competitors for Photoshop so I don't  see how how their motivation was to destroy. I also see this as having the opposite affect; an increase in competion. Now is the perfect time for a strong competitor to rise and offer what Adobe no longer will; a strong image editor with a perpetual license that a large portion of the market desires.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5989
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #296 on: May 08, 2013, 12:52:20 AM »

Can you at least understand our concern ? Or is your credibility gone with Adobe's ?

I understand people are pissed off with this change...I understand that people don't like to feel strong-armed into something they don't understand (and there has been plenty of FUD to confuse out there).

I understand that Adobe has made a decision that is unpopular with a very vocal group (but a small % of the installed user-base) and I also understand Adobe felt it was in their best interest do make this change (and in general, I tend to agree–not 100% mind you, but overall I agree).

I also think that over time, this will blow over when people actually try CC and find benefit. I think if Adobe DOES actually make the sort of timely upgrades for features on a regular basis, CC users will see benefit.

Will some people allow their anger to drive them to other solutions? You bet...and personally, I would love to see more competition in the industry. If Adobe's CC decision gives some small developer hope that their products might find a group of users that allow them to move forward, I think that's good for the industry. Competition breeds excellence.

Am I sad that some talented but poor individuals will get squeezed out of digital imaging because of this? Yep...all I can do is try to have empathy. That's the one thing about this that makes me cringe.

Does it bother me some people who have bought Photoshop and have no friggin' talent and like to use a "pro app" when they would be better served using Photoshop Elements starts bitching and whining and threatens to quit Photoshop and use GIMP to teach Adobe a lesson? Nope, doesn't bother me in the least...I've always thought that buying a Photoshop license should come with a test to be sure that Photoshop will be used in a worthy manner. If a bunch of wannabes jump from Photoshop to GIMP, it won't bother me in the least because then I won't have to deal with them pissing&moaning about how their hardware/software/camera/wife isn't meeting their expectations...

In the grand scheme of things, is Adobe's CC initiative the most important issue in your life? Does war, peace and hunger fit somewhere towards the top of your "this matters" list?

Get a hold of yourselves...this ain't the end of the world...a meteor is not on a direct path to crash on Earth (as far as I know), nobody has assassinated the President, North Korea has not launched missiles to hit Austin, TX.

Jeeesh, get a grip on yourselves...chill out, take a pill, read a book, have a life. If what Adobe does or doesn't do is ruining your life, how good was your life to begin with? Seriously, get over yourselves. It ain't like Adobe has been discovered to be involved with human trafficking or pedifilia...all they are trying to do is exploit the results of their efforts–their art (and make some money for their shareholders).

And yes, I am happy to admit, I own some Adobe stock...300 shares, it's about 5% of my portfolio (it's not like I think Adobe stock is a growth stock, not with the maturation of their market–although maybe CC might signal a positive change in that regard :~)

As far as my credibility is concerned...I guess you just don't understand. I seriously couldn't care less what my credibility may or may not be. I just don't care what people think. Sorry, maybe that's a character flaw (not in my mind :~), but guess what, I don't care...it means nothing to me...zilch, zero, nada, nothing. Get it?
Logged

Ken Richmond

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
    • Richmond Fine Photography
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #297 on: May 08, 2013, 01:09:24 AM »

I see a contradiction in your assertions. You claim Adobe made this decision "...to capture more market share and destroy competition" but later you say they are "dominant" and have no competitors. You can't have it both ways. I agree that Adobe is dominant and doesn't really have competitors for Photoshop so I don't  see how how their motivation was to destroy. I also see this as having the opposite affect; an increase in competion. Now is the perfect time for a strong competitor to rise and offer what Adobe no longer will; a strong image editor with a perpetual license that a large portion of the market desires.

Adobe dominates the market.  Like Standard Oil dominated the market and priced out competitors by undercutting them.  It not only affects existing competitors, but eliminates potential competitors from entering the market.  Formerly, some suites cost more than $2000.00.  What competitor will enter when that suite can be bundled with everything else and be rented for $49.00 per month. The facts you see as contradictory are those relied upon by the Court in the case cited above. 

Thanks, and I'm hitting the sack.

Ken Richmond
Logged

Peter Le

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
    • lewandoimages
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #298 on: May 08, 2013, 01:12:52 AM »

    I'm glad you at least have some empathy.......it didn't sound it in your earlier posts. I am not a newbie or wanabe I have been using Photoshop for probably as long as you have. I have given Adobe plenty of money over the years.....they just seem very unconcerned of this and that bothers me. I don't agree with your numbers.....I know quit a few graphics people that have already gone to the cloud.....most are not very happy so far and say most likely when their 1st year discount is done they are gone. Has Adobe even considered this ? Also I am a firm believer that when you don't like what is going on you speak up ! It is only considered whining by those that would like everyone to just bend over and take it like nice little boys.
Logged

JhnMhn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #299 on: May 08, 2013, 01:17:14 AM »

This was my response to Adobe regarding their marvelous new licensing model, "Not interested in arguments or any of the self-serving sophistry. Simply put, this long time user of Adobe products will no longer purchase further Adobe products, at least not as long as you force customers to the cloud and subscription-based software. There are already acceptable alternatives, and Cloud-forcing will only speed up the availability of better and better alternatives. Bye." Not interested in arguments here either; but, like Adobe, I also am in business and their new business model no longer fits my business needs. No anger or angst. We will each do just fine without each other. And I have "prolly" spent my last $$ on the "Doode" dude's various Adobe publications & videos. Looking forward to learning more about PhotoLine, and have already found Iridient Developer (formally Raw Developer) to provide better raw conversion than ACR. There is life after Photoshop. Ahhhh, I'm feeling better already.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 37   Go Up