Adobe - Creative Cloud Update

[gbillett]

Yes Mark.  I agree.  Points have been made......   

[StephaneB]

Wow. Guys, this is just the new release of PhotoShop with anew licensing scheme that applies only to the new version. Some reactions sound like someone just forbade to sell food or something. No one stole anything you had yesterday!

I am not a pro. I have been an amateur for the last 41 years (I'm 50). I have done a few exhibitions and sold a few prints. I consciously chose not to go pro because it was absolutely obvious that I would not be able to feed myself with photography, let alone live comfortably. I learned to do something else very well and I now live very well and am able to practice photography the way I want.

Despite being an amateur, I do use LightRoom and PhotoShop, like many of us, as everybody but Adobe knows, it seems

Ah, and I pay for what I use. That's what the real job is for.

It seems to me the two main points of contention are price and dependency. Actually dependency is not new. Maybe some only realised it now, but our PhotoShop files have always been proprietary. What is new regarding dependency is that *if* we upgrade to PhotoShop CC, we will have to pay monthly and when we stop paying we loose access to the layers.

I know I am only restating things, but bear with me.

Who feels pressure to upgrade? Not me. Ah yes, if and when I buy a new camera, I'll have to upgrade. Wait. I'll have to upgrade LightRoom. I can keep a very old PhotoShop with only a very minor inconvenience. Yes I am on Windows. I chose that too, for the very reason that Apple has no concern for continuity and makes breaking changes to every single release of their operating system. How a "pro" can choose to use Apple and then blame Adobe when Apple breaks the compatibility with a major trade application is beyond me, but that's just me.

By the way, are these the starving pros we are talking about? They use Apple? And they starve? Hello?

So, if and when I buy my next $2000 camera (I am not a pro, so the D4 and 1D-X are of no use for me), I am not going to moan a very long time if I choose to pay $20/month for an essential software.

Since when photography gear is inexpensive?

Ah, the revenue is disappearing, Yes, I know. It happens in a lot of other businesses, all the time. Those people move on.

Being a pro photographer is running a business. If one goes into running a business without a solid business plan (been there, done that), it fails. In any kind of business. If the market conditions change, businesses fail and others spring up from nowhere.

When I see a business owner getting all caught up with a commodity that is available from just one supplier and has not factored in that that supplier might change its pricing structure, I see bad management, not an unlucky poor photographer trapped by a big meany corporation.

Now, for the complains about Schewe's style. Guys, who forces you to read him? It is written Schewe in bold at the top left of all his posts. I, for one, learn more from him than from all the other posts combined. So, no, he should certainly not be the one to be kicked out. Please.

[gbillett]

Stephane your website flashes up an infection notice. (html:lframe-ZG trojan).  No-one is asking for any sacking - far from it - just better moderation. I too continue to learn enormously.

For information and transparency,  as I am posting on issues of significance, my websites are www.geoffreybillettphotography.co.uk  and www.spanishcivilwarphotography.co.uk.

[john beardsworth]

Wow. Guys, this is just the new release of PhotoShop with anew licensing scheme that applies only to the new version. Some reactions sound like someone just forbade to sell food or something. No one stole anything you had yesterday!

Sorry, Stephane, but (whatever you think of it) this is a big deal. That's why Adobe made such a big announcement.

It might be also less provocative not to imply others are guilty of bad management , not least when that supplier has an effective monopoly.

[StephaneB]

Sorry, Stephane, but (whatever you think of it) this is a big deal. That's why Adobe made such a big announcement.

It might be also less provocative not to imply others are guilty of bad management , not least when that supplier has an effective monopoly.

It is only a big deal if you let it be a big deal. This is a matter of perception.

Adobe has no monopoly. They have competition. I agree the competition sucks. But that's not Adobe's fault. Leading companies always charge more than the others. The more they lead, the less they fear competition, the more they charge. If you had shareholders, they'd expect that from you.

In a way, all this argument stems from the fact that Adobe's product are superior to the competition and that it creates a sentiment of dependence. Therefore, if they made lesser products, you'd feel  less dependent on them, so you wouldn't mind so much about CC. It follows you'd like Adobe better if they made worse products. No wonder they are puzzled

Again, what makes you feel compelled to upgrade?

[ianmac]

Schewe: Photoshop was not designed for nor really intended for photographers...

That maybe true but they sure want to attract photographers to CC now according to their main home page - Photoshop CC "With all-new Smart Sharpen, Camera Shake Reduction and cloud-powered Behance integration, it's the most advanced Photoshop yet."

Now no decent pro photographer should need the ludicrous Camera Shake Reduction, if you do need it then maybe try plumbing or carpentry as a trade.  So I agree with Jeff, but maybe he should use the phrase "Photoshop was not designed for nor really intended for decent photographers..."

Schewe: I hope some bright young people are hard at work creating a Photoshop killer...I'll just warn them that's it's a cutthroat field and you'll be going against Adobe's best and brightest. But if somebody thinks they can create an imaging app to rival Photoshop for photographers, more power to them–and I hope you bring your 'A' game cause competing against Photoshop won't be easy.

Agreed, I wish there was more competition but it'll be a hard act to beat.

A final thought - if I live my whole life NOT knowing what "Cloud Powered Behance Integration" is I will die happy.

Sorry, a final, final note - a big thanks Jeff for starting the thread "If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now..."  It provides a great opportunity to list the most wanted/useful tasks needed in software for photographers.  A super post.

Regards, Ian (fashion photographer, Manchester, UK)

[ianmac]

Stephane

I agree with every word of your last couple of posts.

Ian (fashion photographer, Manchester, UK)

[john beardsworth]

It is only a big deal if you let it be a big deal. This is a matter of perception.

Adobe has no monopoly. They have competition. I agree the competition sucks. But that's not Adobe's fault. Leading companies always charge more than the others. The more they lead, the less they fear competition, the more they charge. If you had shareholders, they'd expect that from you.

In a way, all this argument stems from the fact that Adobe's product are superior to the competition and that it creates a sentiment of dependence. Therefore, if they made lesser products, you'd feel  less dependent on them, so you wouldn't mind so much about CC. It follows you'd like Adobe better if they made worse products. No wonder they are puzzled

Again, what makes you feel compelled to upgrade?

Sure, it's a matter of perception. Stick your head in the sand and you don't see a big deal.

I didn't say monopoly - I said effective monopoly - so I'll ignore your diatribe on that.

Compelled to upgrade? Well, I didn't answer because this isn't about me - it's about your unpleasant assertion of others' "bad management".

Since you ask, compelled is the wrong word. Inclined is better. I am one of those who has got enough out of recent upgrades to justify the cost and therefore expected to continue upgrading. Apart from the various content aware stuff of recent versions, in the new cloud version of Photoshop I can quickly think of conditional actions, rounded corners, probably the CSS features, and there will be others - but I make a deliberate effort to evaluate new stuff. I will probably hold my nose and subscribe, but I certainly don't blame others for complaining when Adobe change the basis of the relationship, and I certainly wouldn't accuse them of bad management.

John

[StephaneB]

Complaining is one thing. Company-bashing and person-bashing is something else.

Seems I struck a nerve with my allusion to bad management. Sorry, I did not mean to offend. I am myself a terrible manager.

[john beardsworth]

Yes, I agree there's too much of that, but I think it's reasonable that people have a reaction. After all, Adobe's announcement was always intended to be "exciting".

Only time will tell, but I just wonder how many of those who say they are finished with Adobe will just come back after a year or so when Adobe add a feature they really want, or when they find the alternatives aren't as viable as they'd hoped. And don't forget that one of the architects of Adobe's cloud jumped shipped in March - to Apple.

John

[StephaneB]

Well, I spent way too much time in the last weeks checking the alternatives. Some are reasonably good. Certainly good enough to avoid being excuses for bad pictures

But no one has smart filters. Smart filters are such a boon when using the Nik plugins that I am ready to stay with CS6 for as long as it works. And that is going to be long. I reckon it will take at least 4 major releases of Windows before CS6 stops working.

Unless they do something that makes me want to subscribe.

[john beardsworth]

I'm sure you won't be alone. But what can they ever do to make people want to subscribe? Is there enough in a single product subscription to tempt existing customers into paying more for a product which they only use for 5-20% of its features?

[StephaneB]

Is there enough in a single product subscription to tempt existing customers into paying more for a product which they only use for 5-20% of its features?

But then why complain if one is not concerned? It only becomes a potential problem if there is something you need in the upgrade.

[jrp]

For a thoughtful analysis of how Adobe got to this point (bundling mature and immature products into the same upgrade cycle) see Dan Margulis' blog entry here http://www.moderncolorworkflow.com/blog

[john beardsworth]

But then why complain if one is not concerned? It only becomes a potential problem if there is something you need in the upgrade.

Well, there will be many who will take your view, but those who complain would have upgraded in normal circumstances because they have benefited from previous upgrades. That's why I wonder how many who complain will reluctantly sign up, and a lot sooner than we may think.

[32BT]

I'm sure you won't be alone. But what can they ever do to make people want to subscribe? Is there enough in a single product subscription to tempt existing customers into paying more for a product which they only use for 5-20% of its features?

What can they ever do, is all in your post: break-down of services! That way you only have to pay service fees for that 5-20%, which pretty much would assure that the cost-of-ownership for most users goes down. I personally have very little problem with a subscription model if that is what they will eventually offer.

That also solves many contingency concerns, because if you wanted to open some legacy files, you simply subscribe to the legacy-file-module for however long your project runs, and be done with it.

[BernardLanguillier]

In a way, all this argument stems from the fact that Adobe's product are superior to the competition and that it creates a sentiment of dependence. Therefore, if they made lesser products, you'd feel  less dependent on them, so you wouldn't mind so much about CC. It follows you'd like Adobe better if they made worse products. No wonder they are puzzled

Again, what makes you feel compelled to upgrade?

Stephane,

The dependance on PS is not directly related to its superiority, it is related to the ton of IP I have created using PS that is only useful when using PS.

This is the core of the issue here, Adobe is using our past trust in them to screw us.

Who wants to keep working with a supplier with such credentials?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I reckon it will take at least 4 major releases of Windows before CS6 stops working.

Hi Stéphane,

You seem confident that reactivation of CS6 will be possible ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Isaac]

...Adobe is using our past trust in them to screw us.

I very much doubt that anyone at Adobe is even so slightly interested that they would want to "screw us".

I kind-of think that we previously bought Adobe software out of our own self-interest -- we chose to put on the golden handcuffs.

[chez]

I very much doubt that anyone at Adobe is even so slightly interested that they would want to "screw us".

I kind-of think that we previously bought Adobe software out of our own self-interest -- we chose to put on the golden handcuffs.

Like any corporation, Adobe is just looking at maximizing their revenue and profits. An objective of "screwing us" has never crossed their minds. And I agree, we all willingly used Adobe's proprietary formats when processing our images. A smart business maybe would look at this risk and find ways of eliminating or at the very least, reducing the risk. Anyone caught in such a dilemma today only has themselves to blame.