Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Michael's take on Adobe CC  (Read 24248 times)

robgo2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 388
    • Robert Goldstein Photography
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #140 on: May 11, 2013, 06:04:36 PM »

:) Actually, it has to be more than what they will get if people are really unhappy with the CC concept/pricing....which, in reality, could be on a dive to zero.
This will be absolutely true only if viable alternatives to Photoshop become available.  Then Adobe will have to compete for business that they have always taken for granted.  And I expect it to happen.  Most photographers do not need or use much of the functionality contained in the software behemoth that is Photoshop.  A simpler platform that allows for the liberal use of third party plug-ins will suffice for the vast majority of users and almost all photographic purposes.  Some such programs already exist, but there will be more, and they will get better.

Rob
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 06:35:59 PM by robgo2 »
Logged

ButchM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #141 on: May 11, 2013, 06:14:57 PM »

Andrew...maybe license is the wrong term.  

No, "license" is the correct term ... Every product I sell or service I provide also includes a written license agreement. Whether the job is a portrait print package, wedding package that includes prints, albums and digital files, commercial shoot where only digital files are provided or a job for publication delivered electronically. Each type of job has it's own set of license requirements and limitations as required that is amicable to all parties concerned. I don't offer a one-size-fits all license because my client's needs are different. Thus I accommodate them, for which they compensate me based upon those accommodations ...

Even without the existence of a written license, photographers who sell prints still have copyright license enforcement opportunities although they would be more limited. But it is still a "license" nonetheless. Because the sale of a print is not only the sale of a piece of paper, it is the sale of the intellectual property on that paper.
Logged

Gulag

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 336
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #142 on: May 11, 2013, 06:16:55 PM »

Again, Photoshop has very small tiny weight in Adobe's overall revenue pie, and photographers are actually very very small percentage of Photoshop user base.  Adobe correctly foresaw the big change, and has positioned itself for massive revenue rainfalls in this historical switch from paper to screen. What Adobe says basically it's our way or highway. Get used to it.
Logged
"Photography is our exorcism. Primitive society had its masks, bourgeois society its mirrors. We have our images."

— Jean Baudrillard

robgo2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 388
    • Robert Goldstein Photography
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #143 on: May 11, 2013, 06:42:11 PM »

Again, Photoshop has very small tiny weight in Adobe's overall revenue pie, and photographers are actually very very small percentage of Photoshop user base.  Adobe correctly foresaw the big change, and has positioned itself for massive revenue rainfalls in this historical switch from paper to screen. What Adobe says basically it's our way or highway. Get used to it.

If that is the case, then Adobe won't mind losing the patronage of tens of thousands of photographers to alternative programs, once they are developed.  So then everyone can be happy again.  But I can already envision Lightroom's sales starting to plummet, as the photographic community loses confidence in the manufacturer.  Do you think that Adobe will be OK with that as well?

Rob
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 06:46:09 PM by robgo2 »
Logged

Gulag

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 336
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #144 on: May 11, 2013, 07:03:35 PM »

If that is the case, then Adobe won't mind losing the patronage of tens of thousands of photographers to alternative programs, once they are developed.  So then everyone can be happy again.  But I can already envision Lightroom's sales starting to plummet, as the photographic community loses confidence in the manufacturer.  Do you think that Adobe will be OK with that as well?

Rob

It seems like Adobe *believes* it's a TINA world as Margaret Thatcher used to preach. How many photographers don't rely on any third-party plugins/filters/actions in their LR/PS workflow? If the number is more than 80%,  Adobe wouldn't dare to roll out its rentier plan because the switching cost would be far lower.  But, if you can visit those so-called *Creative* workplace, and every desktop has Adobe Creative Suite installed. Adobe seemingly also believes in 80/20 rule in this case.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 07:11:25 PM by Gulag »
Logged
"Photography is our exorcism. Primitive society had its masks, bourgeois society its mirrors. We have our images."

— Jean Baudrillard

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11657
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #145 on: May 11, 2013, 07:34:01 PM »

Because the sale of a print is not only the sale of a piece of paper, it is the sale of the intellectual property on that paper.

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

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5544
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #146 on: May 11, 2013, 07:47:06 PM »

Because the sale of a print is not only the sale of a piece of paper, it is the sale of the intellectual property on that paper.

Hi,

Whoa, one doesn't automatically sell the IP, one sells a copy of a print (unless you stipulate the transfer of the copyright to a single new owner, who can then exclusively exercise his acquired Copy Rights, locking you out).

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 08:03:56 PM by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

ButchM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #147 on: May 11, 2013, 07:56:29 PM »

Quote
Hi,

Whoa, one doesn't automatically sell the IP, one sells a copy of a print (unless you stipulate the transfer the copyright to a single new owner, who can then exclusively exercise his acquired Copy Rights, locking you out).

Cheers,
Bart

Agreed. I should have said the routine sale of a print is actually an implied limited personal use licensing. The courts have upheld in many cases the implied limited personal use licensing in the absence of a written agreement that stipulates otherwise in specific detail.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 08:08:57 PM by ButchM »
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 859
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #148 on: May 11, 2013, 07:59:45 PM »

No, "license" is the correct term ... Every product I sell or service I provide also includes a written license agreement. Whether the job is a portrait print package, wedding package that includes prints, albums and digital files, commercial shoot where only digital files are provided or a job for publication delivered electronically. Each type of job has it's own set of license requirements and limitations as required that is amicable to all parties concerned. I don't offer a one-size-fits all license because my client's needs are different. Thus I accommodate them, for which they compensate me based upon those accommodations ...

Even without the existence of a written license, photographers who sell prints still have copyright license enforcement opportunities although they would be more limited. But it is still a "license" nonetheless. Because the sale of a print is not only the sale of a piece of paper, it is the sale of the intellectual property on that paper.

Thanks, Butch.

You said what I was stretching towards much better than I could....with the update on "personal license"
Logged
John

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5544
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #149 on: May 11, 2013, 08:13:41 PM »

Agreed. I should have said the routine sale of a print is actually an implied limited personal use licensing. The courts have upheld in many cases the implied limited personal use licensing in the absence of a written agreement that stipulates otherwise in specific detail.

Hi,

But don't forget that, e.g. a banknote, just like a print, remains to have the copyrights of the original IP holder, which also means that others are not allowed to reproduce it, alter it, or even purposely damage it!

So, the absent written agreement is already very much part of the original Copyright.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1330
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #150 on: May 11, 2013, 08:57:47 PM »

I don't much care about the cost, I care about the control. If I edit photographs in a post-CS6 cloud-based Photoshop, and if I then do something that seriously annoys Adobe, they can turn me off. I no longer have access to what could be thousands of hours of my own work -- not Adobe's work, but mine. I suspect that right now, somebody somewhere is planning to do just that -- annoy Adobe, get turned off, and then sue, not to be turned on again, but with a claim that they were irrevocably damaged by Adobe's action, that no EULA can apply to somebody else's *work* (not the software, but the *work.*) If just one photo geek somewhere wins, say, $100K with such a suit, I think many, many people might pile on.

I think the Adobe EULA has a lot of stuff in it that is designed to frighten people, and that Adobe wouldn't even attempt to enforce a lot of it, but suppose there was one thing that would really piss Adobe off, and cause them to shut you down? Well, there is. Suppose you lost your job and temporarily couldn't pay the fees? They wouldn't want to hear that, at all. They would quickly stop supporting your software, like, tomorrow. And this is not some random annoyance that some evil guy at Adobe uses to turn you off...this will be a common, routine occurrence and I suspect over the years would cause them to turn hundreds or thousands of people off...and those people would then lose access to their past work.

Let's take this out of the photography realm for a moment. Suppose I am a professional writer who specializes in writing software tutorial books; let's say my name is Shoey.  I go to a cloud-based Microsoft Word where I write a complete how-to book, and I'm negotiating the sale of the book for a very large sum of money, but something I say really pisses Microsoft off -- like, "I'm broke, and I temporarily can't pay the license fee until I sell my book." So they turn off my Word, and refuse to give me access to my own work. Would I sue? You bet I would. And I would sue for a screamingly large amount of money, not only the loss of the sale of the book, but the loss of opportunity -- the momentum that book would have given other books, to my career, etc. Microsoft may have the right to control its software, but they have no right to deny me access to my work.

How is that different than if you find you can't pay Adobe to continue the license, they then refuse to let you have access to your past work? Answer: it isn't.

Adobe could largely protect itself, IMHO, if they added a facility that would "freeze" Photoshop CC at any given point that would allow the users full access to export functions for his stored images and the image modification files, so that while you might lose access to Photoshop, you wouldn't lose your own work. 

I think they could do that, but I doubt that they will.
My feeling is, this is going to end badly.
Logged

Colorwave

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1007
    • Colorwave Imaging
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #151 on: May 11, 2013, 10:50:27 PM »

... if I then do something that seriously annoys Adobe, they can turn me off...

I wonder is a suitably acerbic forum post on a prominent site would suffice.  ;-)
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10704
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #152 on: May 11, 2013, 11:29:26 PM »

To get back to the original topic, I noted that Michael said
Quote
Now, of course if you want to continue using CPM and WordPerfect, that's your right. Just don't expect to run it on a present-day CPU.

To set the record straight, WordPerfect runs just fine on Windows 7 (but not CPM) on my present-day Intel Core I7 CPU.

And if you want to run WordStar on CPM, I have a working Kaypro in my cellar that can still do it.

(So, Take That, Adobe!!!)    ;D
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5965
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #153 on: May 11, 2013, 11:55:26 PM »

Let's take this out of the photography realm for a moment. Suppose I am a professional writer who specializes in writing software tutorial books; let's say my name is Shoey.  I go to a cloud-based Microsoft Word where I write a complete how-to book, and I'm negotiating the sale of the book for a very large sum of money, but something I say really pisses Microsoft off -- like, "I'm broke, and I temporarily can't pay the license fee until I sell my book." So they turn off my Word, and refuse to give me access to my own work. Would I sue? You bet I would. And I would sue for a screamingly large amount of money, not only the loss of the sale of the book, but the loss of opportunity -- the momentum that book would have given other books, to my career, etc. Microsoft may have the right to control its software, but they have no right to deny me access to my work.

Hum...you are an excellent fiction writer John...but like all fiction, one must, as a reader, be willing to suspend disbelief and overlook reality.

First off, I use Word but if Word was removed from my system by the evil MSFT, I would open that Word doc in OpenOffice and keep writing. Yes, I would loose my formatting macros (my Word specific text adjustments), but I would could add styles that would tell production what needs to be a Head 1, or 2 and what's a caption and a callout. Bold in Word is essentially the same as Bold in Writer and save text out as .rtf.

So, would OpenOffice work exactly like Word? Nope...but I could get access to my text (image) and redo formatting (image adjustments) but the essence of my work would remain assessable so I could finish my book on time (highly unlikely since I'm terrible at deadlines). In your fictional; scenario, you better believe I would have some choice words about Word & MSFT :~)

Going away from the analogy (fiction) and back to digital imaging (reality), image file formats have enough compatibility outside of Photoshop to allow access to my images outside of Photoshop. Would a different app maintain things like Smart Objects? Nope...would other apps support all of the Photoshop adjustment layers? Nope. But I would still have access to my images and could do digital imaging with any other apps like Corel PaintShop Pro X5 for $69.99 sadly, Windows only) or GIMP which is cross platform and free. Would I lose work? Yep, Would I lose images? Nope...

As it relates to raw images and ACR/LR, yes, things are more complicated and would be problematic. Yes, the raw edits would be lost if you couldn't get at the raw images with Adobe software because only ACR/LR can read and process those settings. But you would sill have your original raw file. There are plenty of other 3rd party raw processing options–some darn near as good as ACR/LR (some people might say better than ACR/LR but that is a debatable point).

Look, these are the early days of this sea change...we've yet to see the real impact of these changes over time. The CC announcement was less that 1 week ago, and Photoshop CC hasn't even shipped yet. There will be a 30 day demo of Photoshop CC to allow people to see whether or not the new features and functionality is a worthwhile update over CS6. Adobe will have to work hard to keep adding new features t keep subscribers who do buy in happy. For the foreseeable future, photographers still have the CS6 option. How long will Adobe keep selling CS6? I don't know...I'm not sure Adobe knows at this point. Will photographers leave Photoshop in droves? I don't know, neither is Adobe. Will a bunch of competitors be born to pick up where Adobe left off? I don't know, we'll see. The gate has been opened, we'll see what happens. What I suggest people do is wait and see what transpires...and resist doing anything irrational now that makes your life miserable in the future. YMMV!
« Last Edit: May 12, 2013, 03:03:25 PM by Schewe »
Logged

Chris Pollock

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 206
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #154 on: May 12, 2013, 12:09:34 AM »

Again, Photoshop has very small tiny weight in Adobe's overall revenue pie, and photographers are actually very very small percentage of Photoshop user base.
What about the non-photographers? Don't they have exactly the same objections to the rental model that the photographers do?

Quite frankly, Adobe's customers should be able to survive with older versions of Adobe software, or with non-Adobe software. Adobe will not be able to survive long without customers. I think people need to vote with their wallets and remind Adobe of this fact.
Logged

Morris Taub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
    • http://www.morristaubphotography.com
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #155 on: May 13, 2013, 03:15:44 AM »

This debate is getting wrongly biased.

The protest against the CC model is not coming from amateurs vs professionals, it is also not coming from photographers vs graphic designers/other types of PS users. The current reaction is coming from individual users vs corporate customers.

I know many freelance pro graphic designers in Japan who use PS and Illustrator are just as outraged as I am by the decision of Adobe.

I know for a fact that those users were core targets of Adobe, and although I Adobe will probably not be willing to share their customers stats, my guess is that individual users represent a significant chunk of their user base.

Cheers,
Bernard


same here Bernard, I know people using one or two programs that won't be happy...the amateur vs. pro stuff is secondary...a diversion at best...
Logged

bns

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #156 on: May 13, 2013, 05:54:17 AM »

Isn’t it funny, sort of. Many very different users of Adobe products all of a sudden realize that their work is heavily dependent on the stability of Adobe. Don’t even people who approve of the CC scheme – photographers, designers, in fact any user - now think a moment longer about "do I/we have an adequate escape scenario just in case Adobe fumbles". Too little competition for too long.

To me it seems that Adobe has made that very clear to the world. The situation can only improve from now on.

In the meantime, for me personally, LR is all I need.

Boudewijn Swanenburg
Logged
If it can't be done with Lightroom, I don't do it.

Ronny Nilsen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 354
    • The Quiet Landscape
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #157 on: May 13, 2013, 09:46:48 AM »

Getting the CC for $20/month seems like a fair deal from Adobe, but her in Norway the price of CC is about $90/month, and $36 for a single app. That is not such a great deal.  :(

All the other issues aside, the price alone is hard to justify for somebody that have this as a hobby...

Ronny

thierrylegros396

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1206
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #158 on: May 13, 2013, 10:17:59 AM »

Yes the price for Europe are really to much higher than US prices !!

The difference is even more higher than the ever existing ones for perpetual licenses.
Logged

SeanA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #159 on: May 16, 2013, 04:42:07 PM »

The people that should really be worried about this are the gurus Like Schewe, Kelby, Caponigro, it aint the pros taking their seminars and buying their books. Heck most of the high end pros are selling themselves as Photoshop gurus now to us amatuers. No Photoshop for us amateurs no need for courses and workshops, maybe the odd lightroom book and that's it.   hell this is probably going to save me a fortune.  Thanks adobe.  no more napp thats $80 , no more kelby training, that's 180$ the savings are adding up already.

Sad though I have spent a small fortune of my discretionary income with the "hobby".  But then again I'm loving capture one these days.

Sean
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9   Go Up