CC goes from ok for pro's, mediocre for hobby'ist, to very good for the 99%

[l_d_allan]

For me (serious volunteer hobby'ist taking 1000 to 2000+ pictures per week), this is SO MUCH BETTER of a deal than the original introductory offer, that I will probably proceed.

TMI?
From point-n-shoot using PSE, I originally purchased CS4 (PV2003) when I got my first DSLR in 2009. Upgraded to CS5 (PV2010 ... super), skipped CS6, got super deal on LR4 (very impressed with PV2012 ... LR not so much) with Black Friday pricing, and skipping LR5.

Decided against intro 12 months of just CC-PS, and proceeding with a "hold your nose work-around" with CS5 and LR4.

My plan prior to CC announcement had been to upgrade to CS7, as I was underwhelmed by LR4 (except printing). I was BUMMED by CC subscription, as it almost seemed custom designed to be a financially "worst case scenario" for my situation.

YMMV, but I'll almost certainly be subscribing. I may keep my eyes open for a Black Friday time-frame 12 month teaser, and then "pull the trigger".

I think it may be interesting to watch the Amazon sales rankings for Adobe CC-PS books from Martin Evening and Scott Kelby for CC-PS, before and after this change.

[Rick Popham]

I guess I finally made it to the 1%!     Likely the only time I'll ever do that.

My initial thought was that this was a good deal.  It brings the price of Photoshop down to about what I've been paying for perpetual upgrades.  But there is still no exit strategy, and Adobe seems unwilling to agree to any sort of a "keep the last version" deal.  So all those monthly payments are lost when I stop subscribing and revert back to my CS6 license.  And if I have to go back to CS6 (I truly don't expect to maintain an Adobe subscription forever), why bother leaving CS6 at all?

I'll stick with the perpetual license for Lightroom, because I've put a lot of work into organizing and editing my work which is stored in the catalog.  I'm not tying up all that work in a subscription that I have to maintain. 

I admit that I'm kind of clueless about Behance, but I'm not too motivated to learn about it -- I'm unlikely to go to the Cloud unless they come up with an exit strategy I can live with.

[l_d_allan]

But there is still no exit strategy

Good point, but nothing seems particularly fixed in concrete at this time. Au contraire, mon frère.

I can see a scenario where my exit strategy in 7+ years might be a perpetual license for LR, with the latest ProcessVersion when I go from occasionally needing PS, to essentially never needing PS.

By then LR and PS may both be up to PV2020 (as in 20/20 vision?) and LR can handle simple layers, better masking, etc.

And by then PSE-2020 might be suitable for almost all of my needs?

An aside:
IIRC, a long time Adobe user made a suggestion to the effect that if a person had "rented / subscribed" to CC-PS-LR for [fill in the blank] years, then they could exit with that specific capability with a permanent license. They would not be eligible for any upgrades from that point on.

For example, if the number was 7 years, and CC-PS-LR was up to the equivalent of PV2020, then from that point they could use CC-PS-LR-2020 off into the sunset without an additional expenditure.  Or perhaps they could "buy out" for a reasonable amount ... $100?

Or perhaps some kind of "sliding scale" with gradually decreasing "buy out" based on the number of years of CC subscription?

Note this simply my recollection of "wishful thinking" from an end-user.

[Steve House]

...
For example, if the number was 7 years, and CC-PS-LR was up to the equivalent of PV2020, then from that point they could use CC-PS-LR-2020 off into the sunset without an additional expenditure.  Or perhaps they could "buy out" for a reasonable amount ... $100?

Or perhaps some kind of "sliding scale" with gradually decreasing "buy out" based on the number of years of CC subscription?

Note this simply my recollection of "wishful thinking" from an end-user.

Would be nice, but I don't expect anything like that to ever happen.  Having a 'buy-out' option would mean you would then get a perpetual license for your software as it stands at the time you retire your subscription.  But the whole idea behind subscriptions in the first place is to eliminate perpetual licenses altogether and switch users to a pay-per-use basis, thus insuring Adobe an on-going steady cash-flow stream.  The idea of continuous updates as a benefit of a CC subscription is a Red Herring, a bit of sugar from the marketing people to try to make subscriptions more palatable - actually updating the software is irrelevant to the subscription model.  Adobe prefers to get $x per month spread out evenly over the course of the year rather than big lumps of $12x once a year.  They're also seeing people skipping releases, meaning the lumps of cash come even less frequently than with each new release.  So they're taking what they would have earned if the users had all immediately upgraded with each new release and are spreading it out evenly as rental fees.

[digitaldog]

Would be nice, but I don't expect anything like that to ever happen.  Having a 'buy-out' option would mean you would then get a perpetual license for your software as it stands at the time you retire your subscription.  But the whole idea behind subscriptions in the first place is to eliminate perpetual licenses altogether and switch users to a pay-per-use basis, thus insuring Adobe an on-going steady cash-flow stream.

Exactly! If only the large group of people who continue to ask "what will happen when I stop paying" would 'get that'! It is the basis for a subscription model. You either pay and get the subscription of you stop paying and get off the bus. I'm not saying I prefer this model. But it's nothing new expect in this case, for software from Adobe. If you want a buy out option, you better own a perpetual license to CS6 or switch to another application and kiss all that proprietary Adobe processing you've been using good-by.

[hjulenissen]

Up until now people have either paid (or not) based on the improvements that Adobe could put into their new versions.

With the subscription model, people are paying for the privilege of opening and readjusting their old files.

Seems like a lot of pressure is taken away from Adobe on improving. A good thing for Adobe, not so good for users.

With Lightroom I am allready "hooked" on the UI and a large database. Basically Adobe can do all kinds of nastyness to me and I would still be reluctant to swap. As for pixel-based editing, I'd rather not invest time in learning an Adobe product.

-h

[digitaldog]

With the subscription model, people are paying for the privilege of opening and readjusting their old files.

Only if they save them such they force opening the proprietary nature of the edits in a version they no longer have (by their own doing). I'm not suggesting this is a good situation but it's not a deal breaker or forced upon them. Especially for CS6 owners. The older a perceptual license you own, the more difficult it will be to archive newer proprietary functionality. Smart Object users will be especially subject to these issues. Even some of the new CC layer functionality is backwards compatible but not at that point editable. But this is a far cry from those who say they can't open/access their files.

[BarbaraArmstrong]

It seems to me that some of the desire for a "perpetual license" comes from forgetting what happens when one buys a new camera, and wants to open the raw files in ACR (without converting to dng), or what happens when we buy a new computer with a new (and different) operating system, and all-of-a-sudden you need software upgrades.  I think we should be asking Adobe to keep the $9.99 price forever as their side of the bargain for bringing us onboard with the subscription model, instead of our going to a competitor. --Barbara  (All my Photoshop upgrades have been for new camera purchases, rather than new software features.)

[MHMG]

It seems to me that some of the desire for a "perpetual license" comes from forgetting what happens when one buys a new camera, and wants to open the raw files in ACR (without converting to dng), or what happens when we buy a new computer with a new (and different) operating system, and all-of-a-sudden you need software upgrades.

Actually, I agree and further wish to reinforce the idea that a whole bunch of the desire for perpetual licenses comes from this very upgrade treadmill. In the digital age not only is there a value in "archiving" old software versions, for many of us there is a need to archive old hardware as well. I swore I would never do that, but perhaps ironically, Adobe was the first company that forced me into both a software and hardware archiving strategy. I had been using Aldus Pagemaker for many important documents including my Master's thesis. Then Adobe bought Aldus, soon after canned Pagemaker, and offered an upgrade pathway to InDesign. I did migrate to Indesign, but I soon discovered that the pagemaker-to-Indesign conversion software offered by Adobe was half-baked. It left considerable errors in the page layouts that needed to be handled manually on a page-by-page basis. I just didn't have the time to go through a huge number of files one by one, so I "archived" a complete software/hardware system that can run those old documents. I know that approach also won't last forever, but it's still working a full decade after those pagemaker files would have otherwise been orphaned. In this passage of time, I've been able to discern which of those files really matter to me in the long run, and those are the ones I am now taking time to migrate painfully by hand to newer systems. My latest hardware legacy issue was forced by Apple. Apple orphaned the Rosetta emulation software that allowed older Power PC software to run on the new Intel Macs when OSX 7 (Lion) was introduced. Apple's argument was that all software developers had been given plenty of time to migrate their products to the newer OS platform. However, some of those software vendors saw this Power PC-to-Intel transition as an opportunity to radically overhaul and/or abandon some of their older software and thus force customers onto new software that perhaps inadvertently orphaned various features of their own older software.  This situation thus became a real catch-22 for the end user. Personally, it left me with quite a number of mission critical pieces of software that won't run on my latest Macs. So, I keep asking friends and family for their older Macs, and now have a small fleet of them... running OS9, OS10 tiger, leopard,etc. Everything's working fine, but again no doubt not forever. Yet I've been able to keep all of my digital files accessible long after the manufacturers have in effect said, "get over it, it's not our problem anymore".

So, let's consider the traditional "subscription model" from hardcopy print. You buy a hardcopy magazine subscription. You get new and different hardcopies with new features (i.e, articles) each week, month, etc. You stop your subscription. The publisher doesn't ask you for the old articles back. You still get to use what you bought. This approach also needs to be the model for digital subscription as well. Obviously, Adobe wouldn't want folks buying one low rate introductory month, then dropping immediately while keeping fully functional software, and then resubscribing say two or three years later to repeat the same abuse. However, the answer to that problem lies in a contract where one agrees to an optional cancelation fee that would be comparable to an "option to buy perceptual license copy" price for the existing software on one's computer which should then remain fully functional, for example. In effect, the option to convert existing subscription software to perpetual license for a reasonable price is the sensible solution to this dilemma.

I think Adobe will get there, reluctantly perhaps, but it will only get there once the managers understand the scope of the problem and why many current customers are worried. In the meantime, we need to keep the pressure on Adobe so that it figures this whole digital subscription model out in a way that works for Adobe as well as for all of its customers, not just those "preferred" customers who justify subscription costs on the basis of the money they make this month using the latest version.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[BernardLanguillier]

Did you buy PS CS or the whole suite?

If it is the latter, like probably 2/3 of photographers, then you are not elligible.

Cheers,
Bernard

[MHMG]

Did you buy PS CS or the whole suite?

If it is the latter, like probably 2/3 of photographers, then you are not elligible.

Cheers,
Bernard

Yup, I'm in the group that has PS as part of the CS suite, so I'm not eligible. I'm also in that portion of Adobe customers who can no longer justify the whole CC package since Adobe just doubled the annual costs of the whole suite to me, and thus I have no choice except to "downsize" my usage patterns to less Adobe software products, namely just the PS and LR software that I would like to retain no matter what.  So, Adobe management keeps stepping in the dung as far as I'm concerned. They really need to think this subscription model out better than they did before putting the program into play. The latest offer may please some, but it's truly irritating another faction of Adobe's customer base. However small that fraction of us is in the larger population of Adobe customers, why would Adobe want to disenfranchise us, who after all, gave Adobe more revenue than those who just bought a standalone version of PS?

[Steve Weldon]

Exactly! If only the large group of people who continue to ask "what will happen when I stop paying" would 'get that'! It is the basis for a subscription model. You either pay and get the subscription of you stop paying and get off the bus. I'm not saying I prefer this model. But it's nothing new expect in this case, for software from Adobe. If you want a buy out option, you better own a perpetual license to CS6 or switch to another application and kiss all that proprietary Adobe processing you've been using good-by.

They get it.  It's why I'm part of such a large group.  When I get off the bus I want to take my luggage with me.  And be able to open it.  

[chez]

They get it.  It's why I'm part of such a large group.  When I get off the bus I want to take my luggage with me.  And be able to open it.  

I guess the question you need to answer before getting off the bus is what other bus are you going to get o to and how much of a hassle will this other bus be and how crippled will this other bus be compared to the bus you are getting off.

For me, $10/month is peanuts compared to how much time I save using both Lightroom and PS. My time is sure worth more than $10 per month...what about yours?

[Steve Weldon]

I guess the question you need to answer before getting off the bus is what other bus are you going to get o to and how much of a hassle will this other bus be and how crippled will this other bus be compared to the bus you are getting off.

For me, $10/month is peanuts compared to how much time I save using both Lightroom and PS. My time is sure worth more than $10 per month...what about yours?

I've heard used buses are a perfectly good value these days.  After all, drive that new bus off the lot and it's lost like.. what.. 30% of it's value?  Heck, at that rate you might never get it paid off.   Meanwhile I wonder if my old bus will increase in value due to it's projected scarcity?  It's already paid for in full and costs me nothing to keep or maintain.

Okay, I tried.. really really tried.  But I couldn't do it.  I'm sure you see it, but not me..

[Rhossydd]

My time is sure worth more than $10 per month...what about yours?

The real question should be: Does PS CC offer sufficiently better productivity than what you're using at the moment (or any other image editor on the market) to be worth paying forever for ?

[John Nollendorfs]

Well it's obvious that the continued subscriptions were not coming in like Adobe had hoped, hence the "blink".

We still have a valid point, what happens to our images when we get off the bus? Sure, you can go convert them to layered tiffs, and high quality jpegs--but so much work and effort.

I'll just stick with my CS6 until the dust settles. It's not over yet! And I have no plans to update my D800E.

[digitaldog]

Well it's obvious that the continued subscriptions were not coming in like Adobe had hoped, hence the "blink".

It's not obvious. You are welcome to look at it that way but without facts, being a fly on the wall inside Adobe corporate, it's an obvious assumption! As far as we know, this was planned from the beginning.

We still have a valid point, what happens to our images when we get off the bus? Sure, you can go convert them to layered tiffs, and high quality jpegs--but so much work and effort.

IF it's so much work, if the downside is so egregious (which it shouldn’t be), stay on the bus.

This is all very simple. Perceptual or subscription, there is a price to pay for using a tool. It is either worth it to you or it isn't. Adobe as well as all other companies are willing and able and often raise prices or change their terms. As consumers, we either accept or deny the terms depending on if we are willing to pay for the product or service. I don't like when the price of gas goes up because something might happen in the middle east. I don't like it when my cable company raises it's prices. Or the electric company. In terms of the later, I spent considerable money to install a solar tracker so I now have no utility bill. I could by an electric car. I could decide I don't need cable (or TV for that matter). Same with software. The people who are enraged by the new Adobe policies should stop paying them and move on. Or decide they are no more happy with Adobe as they are with BP or Exxon but will pay for the product provided because they have to. It isn't personal, it's business.

Want to get off the bus? Save a layered TIFF with a flattened version.

[hjulenissen]

Exactly! If only the large group of people who continue to ask "what will happen when I stop paying" would 'get that'! It is the basis for a subscription model. You either pay and get the subscription of you stop paying and get off the bus. I'm not saying I prefer this model. But it's nothing new expect in this case, for software from Adobe. If you want a buy out option, you better own a perpetual license to CS6 or switch to another application and kiss all that proprietary Adobe processing you've been using good-by.

As long as Adobe are primarily trying (on a corporate level, at least) to maximize profits, while their customers are trying to get maximum benefits at minimum price, there will always be tension.

The fact that Adobe has a large market share, and a large set of customers that to some degree are "locked-in" either through years of training or gigabytes of media stored in proprietary file formats, means that Adobe to some degree have the power to make changes that many customers might dislike, knowing that most will accept anyways.

The notion that "Adobe have said it, so it will be" is not any more true than Microsoft saying that "the start-button has disappeared from Windows 8, so it will be". Once your actions starts to affect profit and stocks in a negative way, "rational" organizations tends to be pragmatic.

What I am saying is that if sufficient number of customers do not accept the CC model within a given time-frame, Adobe is likely to either back down or, eventually, go belly-up. I have no idea how long that time-frame is, or if the number of frustrated customers is anywhere near the required numbers.

Transitions can be painful, but over time, I assume that Adobe will search for (and perhaps find) the "pain threshold" where they can get the maximum amount of money from the maximum amount of people while spending the minimum amount themselves on e.g. software developers. If one believes in truly free markets, then one might believe that over time, competing offerings will be developed and offered on competitive terms, setting an upper limit to the amount of pain that Adobe can successfully apply to their customers.

-h

[Simon Garrett]

Exactly! If only the large group of people who continue to ask "what will happen when I stop paying" would 'get that'! It is the basis for a subscription model. You either pay and get the subscription of you stop paying and get off the bus. I'm not saying I prefer this model. But it's nothing new expect in this case, for software from Adobe. If you want a buy out option, you better own a perpetual license to CS6 or switch to another application and kiss all that proprietary Adobe processing you've been using good-by.

I think most people get it, they are just not very comfortable with it.  Subscription to something like a software service is rather different to, for example, a magazine subscription.  If I stop subscribing to The Economist, I don't get new editions but I do get to keep the old ones and I can still read them.

If you stop subscribing to CC, you can't even edit old pictures any more!  Nothing wrong with the rental model, Adobe aren't being "disloyal", on a purely financial basis it may even be better value for the customer.  You might even describe the dislike of rental as irrational.  But for most of us, photography is not a rational, business-like activity.  We don't do business cases for what we're going to spend money on.  We're in it for enjoyment, gratification, pleasure...  In that sense it's not rational. 

I might - might - take up the new CC offer, but only if I can be sure it doesn't nullify my existing Photoshop CS5 licence, so if I stop paying for CC I can go back to CS5. It may be irrational, but if it's what makes me feel OK about it then it's right for me. 

PS - I've got an Adobe Customer Service online chat transcript that says I get to keep my existing licences (CS5 and LR5) if I sign up to CC, and can use them again if ever I leave CC, but I'm looking for confirmation of that. 

[digitaldog]

I think most people get it, they are just not very comfortable with it.  Subscription to something like a software service is rather different to, for example, a magazine subscription.  If I stop subscribing to The Economist, I don't get new editions but I do get to keep the old ones and I can still read them.

And when you stop subscribing to CC, the documents you processed don't disappear either. You probably can't edit CC functionality further by your own doing. But your documents are still accessible unless you do some really stupid things.

If you stop subscribing to CC, you can't even edit old pictures any more!

FUD. Sure you can. You are not able to continue using CC proprietary processing but nothing stops you from further editing or using your images! In fact, you can create proprietary processing on a layer (Shake Reduction), that edit is stamped on a layer you can then open (and edit san's more Shake Reduction) in earlier versions of Photoshop. Or even other non Adobe applications! Save a layered TIFF. Save a flatted TIFF. Save a JPEG. Hundreds of applications will allow you to edit old pictures.  

I might - might - take up the new CC offer, but only if I can be sure it doesn't nullify my existing Photoshop CS5 licence, so if I stop paying for CC I can go back to CS5. It may be irrational, but if it's what makes me feel OK about it then it's right for me.  

Because it has a perceptual license. It will run forever assuming you don't have to update your OS and the computer of which it runs today will run tomorrow. You could run Photoshop 1.0.7 if you had an old Mac IIci and a very old OS running on it.