So how is that Subscription Service working out for Adobe?

[LesPalenik]

by LesPalenik
BTW, I enjoy also using LR and PS tremendously, but my copies work without any interference and hiccups. No silly online verifications, frustrations and outages.
It looks like they will work for a long time. Great products!

Same on this end. NEVER once have I experienced any online verification. But perhaps unlike some here, I actually use the product a couple times a week (if not more).

Good! I was already worried that you are using the CC version.

[jjj]

Same on this end. NEVER once have I experienced any online verification. But perhaps unlike some here, I actually use the product a couple times a week (if not more).

Is there no hoop you won't jump through with regard to denying this issue that others have experienced? How frequently you use CC should be of no relevance and you know that.
Not to mention that I use my software almost every day and still had a verification glitch.
I've never had a heart attack either, so I don't believe they happen - seems to be your manner of response to bugs/problems you've not personally had.

BTW you claim to be a PS/LR etc professional and yet only use the software a couple of times a week!?!  

[digitaldog]

Is there no hoop you won't jump through with regard to denying this issue that others have experienced?d

I don't deny a tiny group experience this, just as I don't deny that a small group of Photoshop users report: Photoshop crashed because I (fill in the blank).
The web doesn't appear to be filled with people reporting this issue any more than other glitches that they report about (fill in the blank software product on fill in the blank OS with fill in the blank hardware). But it is a convenient way to suggest the subscription is the worst thing since the black plague.

BTW you claim to be a PS/LR etc professional and yet only use the software a couple of times a week!

And yes, I use Lightroom far, far more than Photoshop these days. What a bad dog I must be. And as usual, you conveniently ignore my writings: (if not more).

[chez]

I don't deny a tiny group experience this, just as I don't deny that a small group of Photoshop users report: Photoshop crashed because I (fill in the blank).
The web doesn't appear to be filled with people reporting this issue any more than other glitches that they report about (fill in the blank software product on fill in the blank OS with fill in the blank hardware). But it is a convenient way to suggest the subscription is the worst thing since the black plague.
And yes, I use Lightroom far, far more than Photoshop these days. What a bad dog I must be. And as usual, you conveniently ignore my writings: (if not more).

Andrew, totally agree with your assessment. The internet has a way to echo a few voices to make it sound like a major issue...yet if you analyze the few same people making noise, you quickly realize its only a very small minority of people with the problems.

I'm not denying there are problems...just not a big mountain that some people consistently want to make it out to be.

[jjj]

I don't deny a tiny group experience this, just as I don't deny that a small group of Photoshop users report: Photoshop crashed because I (fill in the blank).
The web doesn't appear to be filled with people reporting this issue any more than other glitches that they report about (fill in the blank software product on fill in the blank OS with fill in the blank hardware). But it is a convenient way to suggest the subscription is the worst thing since the black plague.

You've actually been arguing it wasn't a problem as you could avoid verification problems by planning or now by your dumbest suggestion yet, using CC more often.

And yes, I use Lightroom far, far more than Photoshop these days. What a bad dog I must be. And as usual, you conveniently ignore my writings: (if not more).

So are you now claiming that LR is not part of your CC subscription? Because nobody was talking about using PS exclusively. In fact seeing as I specifically mentioned using both PS + LR in this my reply this is to regarding CC usage, you are being a complete numpty with regard to comments about reading.

[digitaldog]

So are you now claiming that LR is not part of your CC subscription?

Correct.

Because nobody was talking about using PS exclusively.

Speaking for everyone again? Tiring.

In fact seeing as I specifically mentioned using both PS + LR in this my reply this is to regarding CC usage

And again, that it happened to you (talk about karma) doesn't apply to the vast majority of others, at least the vast majority isn't complaining as often as you and as I pointed out, the web is filled with people having various issues with all kinds of software and hardware that affect a tiny number of people (compared to the user base).
But it's convenient to ignore this if your goal is to troll about Adobe or (fill in the blank: person, company, political party, country, planet).

[Farmer]

Since the point was raised, I'm using CC (the whole suite) on Win 7 x64 with UAC fully functional and as a standard user (I have an admin account on my machine, but it's good security to not be logged in with more priveleges than you need) and no problems at all.

I know, I'll get hounded about how people are having problems.  I get it.  It's got to be hugely frustrating to those being affected, but it's not a case of "corporate greed" or "evil corporations" or any of the other nonesense being bandied about.

Configurations of computers are almost endless and from time to time there are problems.  The more people tinker or customise or install weird and wonderful apps and other things, the more likely there are problems.  If Adobe didn't care, you wouldn't see people like Mike here braving the slings and arrows of the forums to try to communicate.  It's little wonder other vendors stay away.  Mike's a champion and very brave.

And, of course, you all have the option of not using it and not purchasing it.  That doesn't mean you should be silent, but if you have such a strong philosophical objection to the process, then don't do it.

[Glenn NK]

Well said Phil Brown.

[Rhossydd]

If Adobe didn't care, you wouldn't see people like Mike here braving the slings and arrows of the forums to try to communicate. 

Caring ? not really. It's just corporate damage limitation policy.

Better than nothing, but don't think the corporation 'care' in any real sense of the word.

[Farmer]

Care:-

Noun:

1. the provision of what is necessary for the health, welfare, maintenance, and protection of someone or something.

2. serious attention or consideration applied to doing something correctly or to avoid damage or risk.

Verb:

1. feel concern or interest; attach importance to something.

2. look after and provide for the needs of.

How does "care" not fit?  Particularly when you see people like Mike going the extra mile (or 10) and coming here regularly to speak about it.  What you're suggesting is that the people who work there are careless, mindless, uncaring, unthinking - basically corporate machines.  They're not.  They're like you and me - regularly people (OK, some of them are insanely clever and I'm not, so in that sense they are unlike me!) trying their best to do the best job they can and to help their customers and get a good result for everyone.  Yes, that includes Adobe, but if Adobe doesn't get a good result then this whole discussion is moot - you won't have to worry about CC vs Perpetual licencing because it will cease to exist.

So let's stop with the "corporations only care about themselves" and the implication that they're bad and all that.  They are made of people, just like us.  They have a defined goal, which in various places may or may not align with our goals.  That doesn't make them bad.  If they are not breaking laws then they are following the morality set down by society - let's not paint them otherwise just because we disagree with them or don't like something they've done.  Let's not tar their staff as if we are somehow superior and altruistic compared to them.  Let's treat them as people.  In my experience, if you do that, you get treated like people in return.  In fact, in most cases, even if you don't treat them as people they try to treat you that way, which suggests the idea of who has the moral highground might be somewhat skewed...

[ButchM]

So let's stop with the "corporations only care about themselves" and the implication that they're bad and all that.  They are made of people, just like us.  They have a defined goal, which in various places may or may not align with our goals.  That doesn't make them bad.  If they are not breaking laws then they are following the morality set down by society - let's not paint them otherwise just because we disagree with them or don't like something they've done.  Let's not tar their staff as if we are somehow superior and altruistic compared to them.  Let's treat them as people.  In my experience, if you do that, you get treated like people in return.  In fact, in most cases, even if you don't treat them as people they try to treat you that way, which suggests the idea of who has the moral highground might be somewhat skewed...

Sure ... the folks in the trenches are "just like us" ... however, the folks who make the decisions that all those who work in the trenches must abide by, only care about their bottom line. Just look how carefully crafted Mike's contributions are shared here ... the term "prepared script" comes to mind. While those posts are shared in a friendly manner ... they are not spontaneous, unscripted discussion that normally come from folks ... "just like us" ... You'll have to excuse me if I don't find those in charge of the corporation as down to earth as you would like to portray them. In this regard ... there is no moral high ground to be found anywhere.

[Farmer]

Have you read how quickly people threaten law suits or other action against companies?  Of course the responses are crafted.  That's professional.

[jjj]

Caring ? not really. It's just corporate damage limitation policy.

Better than nothing, but don't think the corporation 'care' in any real sense of the word.

Actually it could be either option. Minimising damage is sensible and to be expected, however this does not mean the person responding does not actually care about giving good service.
John Nack was a very good representative for Adobe, you felt he did care about helping the customer despite that at times he got abused he got for being the face of Photoshop. His moving to Google was a big loss to Adobe.

[jjj]

Correct.

You have been going on and on about the fact you have no issues with CC and then now admit the Adobe programme you use the majority of the time is not in fact not part of CC. *shakes head*.

And again, that it happened to you (talk about karma)

You are a bit of a dick aren't you. You are now saying I deserve my CC subscription to have problems simply because I don't agree with your rather myopic and as it turns out incorrect world view. CC needed to check I was still subscribed only a week or so after a new install on an OS, not 30 days but 7-9 days. Now if I had been working on location with no internet access, something that I do on occasions, then I would have been without my software.

doesn't apply to the vast majority of others, at least the vast majority isn't complaining as often as you and as I pointed out, the web is filled with people having various issues with all kinds of software and hardware that affect a tiny number of people (compared to the user base).
But it's convenient to ignore this if your goal is to troll about Adobe or (fill in the blank: person, company, political party, country, planet).

Not agreeing with you is not trolling. I'm just pointed out that contrary to your assertions, I have recently had a problem with CC [as have others] that you incorrectly claimed in this thread was entirely avoidable. Well it isn't.
The thing you really do not get is that nothing is foolproof. The fact you have to regularly check in remotely to keep your programmes functional means that at times for some people, this will go pear-shaped for reasons out of one's control. So these people will then be unable to access the software that they have paid for and it may mean they will be unable to work.
As I have mentioned before, when Adobe introduced activation many years back, people would buy the software but then installed a cracked version. The reason - so that they could be sure they didn't have to wait for Adobe offices to reopen after a weekend to get their software up and running again in case of activation issues. And there were issues.
I'm thinking of having a fresh OS boot disk so I can install a trial version of CC in another name that gets set up just before I go somewhere remote, so if the paid subscription has any issues, then I have the second OS I could run instead as backup and hope that also doesn't have the same problem.

[digitaldog]

You have been going on and on about the fact you have no issues with CC and then now admit the Adobe programme you use the majority of the time is not in fact not part of CC. *shakes head*.

You can't read! Photoshop CC is subscription! My copy of Lightroom is NOT. No issue with either.

[Paul2660]

I was late to the dance, and waited till just this month to sign up.  So far no problems, love the fact I can now have Mac/Win solutions without having to purchase 2 pieces of code.  My LR is still on the old plan but the Adobe manger sees it and offers upgrades just like CC (just upgraded to 5.4)

If Adobe can keep the credit card info from getting out to the hacked world, I have to say "good job overall"

Paul

[jjj]

So Andrew after all you inane wittering about how only an incompetent and unprofessional person would get caught without functioning software if they use CC, how do you explain to those currently unable to use CC  why it their fault? As it happens I have 2 different CC subscriptions. One is fine, the other however needs to phone home tomorrow or day after [depending on time zones], so won't work after that if Adobe doesn't get back online.
And if you use web fonts in your designs, you're also stuffed it would appear, even if your software is currently working.

CC is down

[digitaldog]

Just launched CC, runs fine. Same with Acrobat and InDesign. BFD.

So Andrew after all you inane wittering about how only an incompetent and unprofessional person would get caught without functioning software if they use CC, how do you explain to those currently unable to use CC  why it their fault? As it happens I have 2 different CC subscriptions. One is fine, the other however needs to phone home tomorrow or day after [depending on time zones], so won't work after that if Adobe doesn't get back online.
And if you use web fonts in your designs, you're also stuffed it would appear, even if your software is currently working.

CC is down

[Simon Garrett]

One is fine, the other however needs to phone home tomorrow or day after [depending on time zones], so won't work after that if Adobe doesn't get back online.

Adobe have always said that if CC apps need to phone home, you get a week or two before they stop working.  Let us know if it stops working for you tomorrow, I'd love to know how much slack they actually give. 

PS - how do you know it needs to phone home today or day after?  I've no idea when mine needs to phone home. 

[jjj]

Just launched CC, runs fine. Same with Acrobat and InDesign. BFD.

Typical ignorant and self centred response I expect from you Andrew. I'm sure those who cannot use their software/have urgent deadlines will be thrilled by your childish response.
Of course your copy works if it hasn't had to phone since the issue started, but if today had been the day it needed to phone home......