Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: jerome_m on September 13, 2013, 03:01:25 am
-
I only have one comment on the Article by Michael Reichmann. The article writes, near the end:
how we each spend out money is always a personal decision
Indeed. I don't mind the cloud. I mind photoshop being a de facto monopoly and Adobe taking the decision on how I spend out my money out of my hands. This is all I have to say.
-
I agree with you Jerome. I, too, don't mind the cloud and people are free to subscribe to it or not. What I do mind is the absence of a alternative solution from Adobe for those who prefer not to use the subscription model.
-
I might not mind the concept of a subscription IF there was a way out in the future, but in CC's case there isn't... and Adobe knows it. Once you move to CC you're locked in... forever. Should you ever decide to leave, all your converted files will be compromised to say the least. Yes, at the moment you could open them in another application and get at the image, but you wouldn't have the layers or the ability to go back in stages... and I suspect it will only get worse. This is like only backing up jpeg versions of my RAWs. My images are simply too important. I need options. No CC for me! Fortunately I rarely use any of Adobe's products anyway. My workflow is Aperture/NIK and I only need to use Photoshop on very rare occasions... far too rare to waste $10/month.
-
My images are simply too important. I need options.
So you've created a vendor independent archive of flattened TIFF images, right?
-
Fortunately Adobe is far from having a monopoly in pixel editing. There are plenty of alternatives. Maybe not so elegant. Maybe not as smart. But being the best is NOT the same as having a monopoly. So whether we like it or not, Adobe is free to change their charging mechanism any which way they want.
(I also don't like having to sign up to a subscription-only model, but I will do it when their offer launches next week, because for me the benefits outweighs the downsides)
-
I think the Adobe Cloud is the best thing to happen to creative software in a long time. It has opened the door to more competition.
I think in the next 5 years or so, there will be more variety of excellent programs. It will no longer be a case of, "If you are serious you have to use Photoshop"
Maybe we can even get rid of the verb "Photoshopping" ;D
-
(I also don't like having to sign up to a subscription-only model, but I will do it when their offer launches next week, because for me the benefits outweighs the downsides)
Hi,
I'm wondering. Why rush into the situation, when postponing the decision can only improve the situation?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
I'm wondering. Why rush into the situation, when postponing the decision can only improve the situation?
Cheers,
Bart
Because I need to use Photoshop CC, Lightroom 5 and all the other apps now and because the special offer ended at the end of August?
So I subscribed to the 'All Apps' Cloud option for $20 a month. To me this is a worthwhile offer. But then I am a professional and need these apps to run my business.
Just my 2 cents.
Alain
-
There is not a day that goes by when I don't use Adobe After Effects. My business doesn't work (well) without it. I may be forced over the edge.
-
If you do the math, $20 a month x18 ($360) for a 1 year 'All Apps' Cloud Subscription (18 months was the rotation time between new versions in the 'sofware you own' days) is less expensive than what the packaged software used to cost. But then we are locked on 'forever' or we lose access and that is not so good...
-
If you do the math, $20 a month x18 ($360) for a 1 year 'All Apps' Cloud Subscription (18 months was the rotation time between new versions in the 'sofware you own' days) is less expensive than what the packaged software used to cost. But then we are locked on 'forever' or we lose access and that is not so good...
As long as you upgrade with each incarnation...
I usually skipped one or two, often more because there were not enough new features to justify the cost.
If I was teaching photoshop, or I trusted Adobe to come up with many new features on a regular basis, it might be worth it.
Personally I am sticking to CS5 and LR5 until I find a suitable alternative.
-
Correct. I did upgrade for each new version though so it is worth it for me.
-
Considering that CC is less expensive than continual upgrades and everybody here has pretty much kept up with most of the upgrades, I'm at a loss to see the downside. If you cease to upgrade, you'll be hosed soon enough when you go to upgrade your computer and find that the latest Apple doesn't support anything over two years old.
I understand the philosophical issues involved, but philosophy and reality are two different things to us photographers.
Most professional photographers will photoshop an image till it's done, make the prints (or whatever the output is) and rarily, if ever revisit it again. And if we do revisit it, it's because we want to make it better, somehow, which usually means undergoing an all new raw conversion which means a whole new post processing effort. The fact we might lose all our editing layers may not mean much in reality.
Besides, as someone else noted, CC may be just what is needed to get other vendors to step up their game.
-
If you do the math, $20 a month x18 ($360) for a 1 year 'All Apps' Cloud Subscription (18 months was the rotation time between new versions in the 'sofware you own' days) is less expensive than what the packaged software used to cost. But then we are locked on 'forever' or we lose access and that is not so good...
sounds great. Where did you get a $20 for all apps offer? best offer I've seen is one year introductory offer at 29.95/mth, which then goes to standard 49.95/mth. I've been on this for a year and now am at the 49.95 price. So the math is $30x18=$540, followed by $50x18 = $900. The $20 is for one app.
For anyone using multiple programs this model is terrific. For those using only one or two, maybe not so good.
I usually skipped one or two, often more because there were not enough new features to justify the cost.
I think this pushed Adobe to the subscription model. Adobe spends some development money to maintain some older versions (they just updated CS6) for a while through hardware and OS upgrades , printer driver changes etc, and I think to some degree forces the development budget to focus on gee whiz features to help sell an upgrade, perhaps at the expense of really useful things that aren't as flashy. Eventually hardware and OS changes will break CS3, 4, 5 and at some point in the future 6, at that point they will be focused on a single version. Of course the other problem is quite obvious, they had trouble monetizing major upgrades because the adoption rate was unreliable(a big problem for all software companies )
I might not mind the concept of a subscription IF there was a way out in the future, but in CC's case there isn't... and Adobe knows it.
I think the CC model is pretty logical. They seemed to do what most big companies do and fail to implement it well, in this case I don't think they considered the huge disparity of the user base in how many apps they actually use ... the all inclusive model really isn't appealing to some users (although it certainly is appealing to many). But if you want to get off the bus (a term I saw in one of the many other threads on this) it isn't any different at all than deciding to not use Photoshop or Lightroom with the perpetual license model. Everyone argues this point but it doesn't apply at all. As long as you want to use Layered PSD's and tiffs with Adobe proprietary technology, you keep buying photoshop whether it is a perpetual or subscription model. Opting out results in the same thing, you need to save flattened tiffs that are non proprietary. This seems to be everyones biggest complaint, yet it really isn't a CC issue. Nothing changes with the subscription model ... just like a perpetual license you pay as long as you want to use it (eventually you will have to upgrade because eventually it will break) and when you no longer want to use it, you have to flatten your files and move to something else. The only difference is opting out of a perpetual model means it may be some time before things break to the point you can't use them, where as opting out of CC means it breaks the next month. But you would need to plan for either case, and the path out is the same.
As far as non competition argument, I'm not sure how that's Adobe's fault. Seems they are just doing what they do, and managed to create some really great apps that are widely used. The challenge for any new company is to really create something compelling enough to switch. Microsoft Office has lost some market share because it became too overwhelming and others have created useful tools that are simpler and do enough for what people want, but the power users stay with Word and Excel. Same thing here ... there are many other options that are simpler and easier to use, but most on this forum are really in the power user category, a smaller market and not very appealing to many developing new software.
-
I just checked my invoice and I am paying $19.95/month, $21.25 with tax, for the entire suite. It will go up after the first year they say. A great deal compared to the previous upgrade model. I was a CS6 Suite owner so I may have got an additional discount for that.
-
Fortunately Adobe is far from having a monopoly in pixel editing. There are plenty of alternatives. Maybe not so elegant. Maybe not as smart. But being the best is NOT the same as having a monopoly.
Define monopoly. Adobe has a monopoly on pixel editing in the same sense that Microsoft has a monopoly on word processing and spreadsheets. There are better and cheaper word processors than MS Word, but they are not used in work environments. If you want a job as secretary, they will not ask you "can you use a word processor?, but "can you use MS Word?". Conversely, all courses and books are geared toward that software, all plugins and templates and are for that software and if your firm needs a custom solution, it will be built around MS Word.
The same exists with Photoshop. One can edit pixels without PS, sure. If one needs professional features (like 16 bits editing, color calibration, LAB mode, etc...), the competition becomes scarce. If, in addition, one is dependent of commercial plugins or want to ensure 100% compatibility with large print shops, the competition is even scarcer. More importantly, courses for future graphic designers are almost only available on Adobe products and a person with expertise about anything else will always be perceived as a non-pro in the graphics industry.
Your perception of PS not being a monopoly may come from the fact that photographers who sell prints or finished files are the least concerned by this problem, since their customers rarely ask what software they used for editing (yet they are still constrained by an environment only developing courses and plugins for PS). If you were looking for a job as a graphic editor, your opinion would probably be different.
-
...The only difference is opting out of a perpetual model means it may be some time before things break to the point you can't use them, where as opting out of CC means it breaks the next month. But you would need to plan for either case, and the path out is the same.
And I think you'd have to accept that this isn't a small difference. I'd agree about the OS eventually breaking Photoshop, but that might be years later, and ceasing to use a program isn't a sudden thing that's the same as it ceasing to work. Even if you no longer use Photoshop CSx, you retain the freedom to rework aspects of images and will probably do so occasionally - after all, it's quicker and cheaper than learning to fix the same problem is some other program. The subscription-limited Photoshop removes that tail off - you just fall over the edge.
-
And I think you'd have to accept that this isn't a small difference. I'd agree about the OS eventually breaking Photoshop, but that might be years later, and ceasing to use a program isn't a sudden thing that's the same as it ceasing to work. Even if you no longer use Photoshop CSx, you retain the freedom to rework aspects of images and will probably do so occasionally - after all, it's quicker and cheaper than learning to fix the same problem is some other program. The subscription-limited Photoshop removes that tail off - you just fall over the edge.
My experience has been that the OS breaks programs in less than 10 years. For example, on modern macs, CS2 will not run, because the powerPC programs are not supported any more. With the "buy" model, I can keep an old mac around with an old OS if I ever need to access some old files. I actually did exactly that to access some old Corel Draw files (not supported any more on the Mac): if I need an old file, I fire up the old Mac and convert the file to Illustrator to access it. I can't do that on a subscription based model, I would have had to make sure all my files were converted before moving on.
It is not impossible to move on in subscription based model of course, but it is considerably more effort.
-
I just checked my invoice and I am paying $19.95/month, $21.25 with tax, for the entire suite. It will go up after the first year they say. A great deal compared to the previous upgrade model. I was a CS6 Suite owner so I may have got an additional discount for that.
Just done the same. I think it's a great deal if, and it is a big if, like me you keep your OS, hardware and applications completely up-to-date. Like another poster, however, I keep my old Macs, in a nice dry store room. Having used Macs professionally since 1990 and kept them all it means that I can resurrect files and programmes such as Macwrite as needed . Now where did I put that floppy disc drive..... LOL
-
I think it's a great deal if, and it is a big if, like me you keep your OS, hardware and applications completely up-to-date.
As someone who does do so (having the CS6 suite), I looked closely at the deal. Continued upgrades would cost me about £1400 over the next 6 years, compared with paying £3000 in subscriptions.
-
As someone who does do so (having the CS6 suite), I looked closely at the deal. Continued upgrades would cost me about £1400 over the next 6 years, compared with paying £3000 in subscriptions.
Depends how much of the Adobe Suite you actually use. If it is just PS and LR then I would agree but if you use a lot of the other packages it starts to make sense.
-
Depends how much of the Adobe Suite you actually use. If it is just PS and LR then I would agree but if you use a lot of the other packages it starts to make sense.
You miss my point, David. As I said, I have the suite and do use more than 2-3 apps. For new suite customers, it is cost neutral over 5-6 years and easier on the cashflow. For those upgrading and "like me you keep your OS, hardware and applications completely up-to-date", this good deal is a hefty price rise....
-
Considering that CC is less expensive than continual upgrades and everybody here has pretty much kept up with most of the upgrades, I'm at a loss to see the downside. If you cease to upgrade, you'll be hosed soon enough when you go to upgrade your computer and find that the latest Apple doesn't support anything over two years old.
New OS updates tended to break much more in the past with OS X but now it is quite mature and the main APIs don't change much. I think it is reasonable to assume that a five-year old application will run on the current OS, if you add an average computer age of two years, that is seven years. Buy CS once every seven years is much cheaper than the subscription.
I understand the philosophical issues involved, but philosophy and reality are two different things to us photographers.
Most professional photographers will photoshop an image till it's done, make the prints (or whatever the output is) and rarily, if ever revisit it again. And if we do revisit it, it's because we want to make it better, somehow, which usually means undergoing an all new raw conversion which means a whole new post processing effort. The fact we might lose all our editing layers may not mean much in reality.
And that is the key, if you run a business, the subscription is just the cost of doing business like renting an office. But if you don't run a business, photos will keep their value much much longer because they are personal memories, and if keeping your memories requires a $30/month subscription fee, things don't look quite so positive.
But then, I think 99% of all images won't need PS if you use LR or Aperture and thus maintaining their functionality is 100 times more important. The same is true for video work, complex documents in InDesign but then their won't be too many InDesign documents made containing personal stuff.
-
Controlling costs is a huge part of running a successful business. Just because the subscription is a cost of doing business and is tax deductible, doesn't mean it isn't still a real cost that comes out of cash flow and profit. Just because I might tip over the edge and join the cloud doesn't mean I don't still dislike the whole thing. Deming, the father of what is now known as Kaizen, said that focusing on quality improves your quality and reduces your costs, focusing on costs reduces your quality and raises your costs. Still, you have to pay attention or costs will sink your business.
-
For those of us living on a budget upgrading every other version of photoshop who have supported adbe for years this is BS . It is just a money grab by a monopoly.
-
I posted this question to Michael in the wrong forum on here...
----
I keep meaning to ask this but kept forgetting...
In the article on "Why going to the cloud", the mention of "continued updates" was raised.
Which to me prompts this question(s) about updates.
Do the regular and automated updates from Adobe using its update downloader not satisfy?
Or will that be phased out over time to favour getting updates from the CC?
Or will the updates released from the CC be different to the "patch updates" for Ps/Lr products?
I suppose I'm curious about why this was called out for mention when it should be something that already happens?
Or is it a reference to what will eventually be "upgrades", not just "patches" or "updates", when (for example) Lr goes from 5.x to 6.x and CC folks will just "get it" as part of their regular update?
-
Or is it a reference to what will eventually be "upgrades", not just "patches" or "updates", when (for example) Lr goes from 5.x to 6.x and CC folks will just "get it" as part of their regular update?
Yes...you'll receive "upgrades" on a regular basis (CC subscribers have already received an upgrade since CC was launched). So, getting upgrades with new features and functionality is what Mike was referring to...not simple updates for bugs and maintenance releases. Note, that is for Photoshop...Lightroom will not get incremental upgrades but subscribers will get Lightroom 6 when it comes out.
-
Yes, that's the way I understand it. The Creative Cloud offers continuous updates, whether Adobe releases updates to current versions of the software or entirely new versions. I also think those who subscribe to the 'all apps' option will get any future new apps, if new apps are released.
On a separate note I find that this approach saves me time because there is now a single location where can update all my apps compared to having to udpate each app separately.
ALain
-
It's apparent that some of the disagreement about costs cuts across the amateur/professional line. I would think a large majority of the people here are amateurs, or at least would not make enough money from photography to get the IRS (in the US) to agree that it qualifies as a business. (Basically, and crudely stated, the IRS wants you to make more money than you deduct to be a legitimate business. If you make $1000 a year on photography, and try to deduct $3,000 cameras every year, plus computers, office space and software, they will not be happy, and their unhappiness translates directly into repayments with interest plus fines, and, theoretically possible at least, jail time.) If you are on the legitimately professional side of this line, you get to deduct the software, which amounts to a savings of 15-40+%, depending on your income and how your business is structured.
The amateurs don't get that, so they pay the full load. And I think that's where a lot of the complaints come from -- the amateur photographers. And, I have no proof of this at all, but I suspect amateurs make up the bulk of Adobe customers, at least for some of their photo-related software packages. I've read that they don't really carry about amateurs, but if you simply sit down and put your thinking cap on, and try to figure out how many fully-professional Adobe-using photographers there, I think you'd conclude that the number is in the low thousands in the very largest art centers like New York and Los Angeles, with much small cohorts in other cities. According to the US Bureau of Statistics, for example, there are 56,140 people in the US employed as "photographers." I wouldn't think that would be enough to keep Adobe fully occupied...I think the amateurs are carrying the load.
-
And, I have no proof of this at all, but I suspect amateurs make up the bulk of Adobe customers, at least for some of their photo-related software packages.
pdf Slide 24 "FY12 CS Product Family Revenue Mix" (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/investor-relations/PDFs/AdobeMAXFABriefingSlides6May2013.pdf)
~10% @Home Individuals
~25% Education
~25% @Work Creatives
~40% Creative Professionals
The CC horse was flogged to death back in May.
-
Yes, that's the way I understand it. The Creative Cloud offers continuous updates, whether Adobe releases updates to current versions of the software or entirely new versions. I also think those who subscribe to the 'all apps' option will get any future new apps, if new apps are released.
On a separate note I find that this approach saves me time because there is now a single location where can update all my apps compared to having to udpate each app separately.
I find this curious because on Windows, there is an "Adobe Update Manager" that seems to take care of this that isn't present on Apple?
Or is this something different again?
-
I find this curious because on Windows, there is an "Adobe Update Manager" that seems to take care of this that isn't present on Apple?
Or is this something different again?
I'm talking about the Creative Cloud Manager app. The Adobe Application Manager is pretty much the same on Apple otherwise.
-
pdf Slide 24 "FY12 CS Product Family Revenue Mix" (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/investor-relations/PDFs/AdobeMAXFABriefingSlides6May2013.pdf)
~10% @Home Individuals
~25% Education
~25% @Work Creatives
~40% Creative Professionals
The CC horse was flogged to death back in May.
Pretty much the breakdown I expected, though I didn't know this existed. The 35% in either education or at home are obviously non-professionals, and I would expect that at least half of the "creative professionals" don't make a living at it...
-
You understand that you're just making stuff up, don't you?
-
. . . and I would expect that at least half of the "creative professionals" don't make a living at it...
Please show your data to support this.
-
pdf Slide 24 "FY12 CS Product Family Revenue Mix" (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/investor-relations/PDFs/AdobeMAXFABriefingSlides6May2013.pdf)
~10% @Home Individuals
~25% Education
~25% @Work Creatives
~40% Creative Professionals
What is @Work Creatives?
The CC horse was flogged to death back in May.
Still has legs it would seem. ;)
-
Nope, just flogging a dead horse.
-
Yet Adobe only very recently altered the CC. So still alive and kicking it would appear - to flog the metaphor even further.
-
iirc back in May, Adobe announced that they would be considering more attractive pricing for those who'd previously licensed PS CS.
-
You understand that you're just making stuff up, don't you?
Oh, maybe. But I would note that if you actually do a little research, you'll find buried comments like one from Barron's that Adobe has missed its profit goals although it has more than a million customers for its subscription services, while, elsewhere, the Bureau of Labor Statistics say that in May of 2012 there were 56,140 employed photographers in the US, and I suspect there are more employed photographers than there are graphics and movie professionals and other "creatives" using Adobe products, because photographers would seem to me to be the most numerous of those related professions (I could be wrong) so the gap between the "more than a million" CC customers and the 56,140 photographers would seem to be a large one...But, who knows, really, and more to the point, who cares?
-
find buried comments like one from Barron's
When you refer to comments elsewhere please provide some way to verify that the meaning you give to those comments is reasonable.
in May of 2012 there were 56,140 employed photographers in the US
Does that include the self-employed?
and I suspect ...
Making stuff up.
and more to the point, who cares?
Let's stop flogging a dead horse. Adobe C-level will operate the business as they see fit.
The relevant questions are -- What do I need from photography software? Which photography software meets my needs?
-
Controlling costs is a huge part of running a successful business. Just because the subscription is a cost of doing business and is tax deductible, doesn't mean it isn't still a real cost that comes out of cash flow and profit. Just because I might tip over the edge and join the cloud doesn't mean I don't still dislike the whole thing. Deming, the father of what is now known as Kaizen, said that focusing on quality improves your quality and reduces your costs, focusing on costs reduces your quality and raises your costs. Still, you have to pay attention or costs will sink your business.
Controlling costs IS a part of business but the most important thing is actually charging the right price for your work that accommodates the professional tools and overhead necessary for your work. So just how cheap do your vital tools need to be? Are we really saying that $50 a month makes your business a non-business? If we are in such a parlous state then maybe a more serious look at the business model is in order.
For the hobbyist it really comes down to how much will they pay for their fun. I have no opinion on this as some have $50k in gear for fun and others buy used P&S cameras. Clearly one group will have a different threshold of financial pain.
-
Here in Holland the costs are higher:
37 euros a month ( including 21% taxes) the first year = 370 euro that year (without taxes)
after that it will be 61,50 a year ( incl taxes) = about 610 euro a year without taxes...
there is photoshop or all- nothing in between photoshop alone is 25 euro a month - about 20 euro without taxes... 240 euro a year..
I used to spend on a suite about 120 euro because i did the upgrades once every 3 years
so the costs ( for me) are 2-5 fold; i will be locked in; and after that there will be no valid reason for adobe to be creative... it will be the next Microsoft Office
-
Here in Holland the costs are higher:
37 euros a month ( including 21% taxes) the first year = 370 euro that year (without taxes)
Are you sure you won't be paying 23% Irish tax?
-
Here in Holland the costs are higher:
37 euros a month ( including 21% taxes) the first year = 370 euro that year (without taxes)
after that it will be 61,50 a year ( incl taxes) = about 610 euro a year without taxes...
there is photoshop or all- nothing in between photoshop alone is 25 euro a month - about 20 euro without taxes... 240 euro a year..
I used to spend on a suite about 120 euro because i did the upgrades once every 3 years
so the costs ( for me) are 2-5 fold; i will be locked in; and after that there will be no valid reason for adobe to be creative... it will be the next Microsoft Office
You could always wait 2-3 years before you upgrade to CC. Save up some money in the meantime... ?
-
Perhaps not such a grand idea after all.....
http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2013/10/important-customer-security-announcement.html