Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Alan Goldhammer on November 15, 2015, 11:49:52 am
-
http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/why-nobody-trusts-adobe.html from Thom Hogan. It might be funny were it not for the issues it raises.
-
What's the problem, specifically?
That clearly reads "CS6 for Creative Cloud", there's no confusion there. Yes, CS6 was offered as subscription before CC and if that's how it was installed, it's still part of the CC subscription. I still get updates for CC (2013) and CC 2014.
This is not the same as CS6 perpetual license. No further updates there. That CS6 perpetual will be phased out soon should really come as no surprise, and that Adobe "wants us" to move to subscription even less of a surprise.
-
Nobody? Other than millions of us using it every day? And admiring how far we've come, not small part thanks to Adobe?
-
Well, what to say - this, composited on top of the LR 6.2 Import dialog debacle may rattle some nerves. Adobe clearly has some QC/QA issues to tidy up, as well as to rewind the stuff the community has been clamouring about with LR. All that said, I think it's a bit much to say "Nobody Trusts Adobe". I keep my image-editing life simple by ONLY using the two CC apps in the Photo bundle. So there isn't CS6 to confuse it with. Why would I need it? As well, what really matters most (at least to me) is image editing capability and quality, and LR's Develop Module only get better with every up-date. I also appreciate the fairly seamless integration with Photoshop, and the Print module. In fact, I have little need for Photoshop any longer, which is great for saving on file versions and storage. So I for one shall carry on trusting Adobe for what they do well, and hope they soon get their act together on where they have erred. I think they've endured some bruising wake-up calls and they'd be extraordinarily obtuse to ignore it all or treat it as a one-off accident. Time will tell, but let us maintain perspective.
-
I didn't read past the title which proposes to speak for everyone (Nobody trusts Adobe). A sure sign the piece should be ignored.
-
I didn't read past the title which proposes to speak for everyone (Nobody trusts Adobe). A sure sign the piece should be ignored.
You missed nothing. It's incoherent.
Jeremy
-
More to the point, does anyone trust Hogan?
-
While Alan's title for this thread is hype borrowed from the link, most likely done to make a point and not to be taken literally, the material comes from Thom Hogan, who isn't exactly a nobody (read his bio). Once you get beyond the title and carefully read the content of his post and the experience he had, it raises questions - the first one being whether this is a random glitch of some kind that doesn't deserve the attention he's creating. He claims not, saying many others have experienced the same thing. So perhaps there is a problem that needs to be fixed. For the record, I do have much respect for Adobe - where would we be in digital imaging without the brilliant people they employ delivering us such incredibly powerful software, and the commercial decisions they have made over the years for it to be marketable and viable, thereby sustaining it. But recently there have been a series of confusing issues, e.g. - over program versions, version numbering, feature differences between alternative license arrangements and the underlying approach to them, the LR Import Dialog issue, at the heart of which improved communications and additional bullet-proofing seems indicated. I wouldn't read much more than that into any of this. Problems occur, they can be fixed.
-
And hopefully the problems can be fixed quickly and course corrections made.
Because Lightroom has become "the only game in town," if you are looking for solid DAM and RAW adjustment in the same application.
Aperture is dead, Photos is a LONG, LONG way from challenging Lightroom to get better, and Capture One just hasn't (yet) gotten its DAM act together. Competition is good for users and Lightroom has little, or none.
-
While Alan's title for this thread is hype borrowed from the link, most likely done to make a point and not to be taken literally, the material comes from Thom Hogan, who isn't exactly a nobody (read his bio).
I don't know Thom from a hole in the wall, his bio doesn't change the title of his blog post which is rather silly and doesn't do much to convince me he has no agenda using it.
Once you get beyond the title and carefully read the content of his post and the experience he had, it raises questions - the first one being whether this is a random glitch of some kind that doesn't deserve the attention he's creating.
Again, he fails at the title, I'm not going past it and news alert, Adobe products, updaters, like most software products, contains bugs.
There's plenty of areas Adobe can be legitimately criticized for (like your example of the Import debacle), I really don't think this deserves the attention it's getting. Maybe Thom needs to generate more traffic and hence the title?
-
While Alan's title for this thread is hype borrowed from the link, most likely done to make a point and not to be taken literally, the material comes from Thom Hogan, who isn't exactly a nobody (read his bio).
OK, I did. IS there a bit of Ben Carson/Al Gore here? I don't know. And it's really not important but I will point out Thom states (only one example):
Designed the first consumer digital camera (QuickCam; Thom was Business Unit Manager).
OK. I googled QuickCam, seems to be a web cam?:
QuickCam is a line of webcam video camera products by Logitech.
The original QuickCam was developed by Connectix in 1994 for nationwide commercial sale and was the first widely marketed webcam-like device, although its original advertising did not use the term "webcam" or refer to the World Wide Web, then in its infancy.
Fine. Wikipedia states:
The first digital camera of any kind ever sold commercially was possibly the MegaVision Tessera in 1987 [22] though there is not extensive documentation of its sale known. The first portable digital camera that was actually marketed commercially was sold in December 1989 in Japan, the DS-X by Fuji[23] The first commercially available portable digital camera in the United States was the Dycam Model 1, first shipped in November 1990.[24] It was originally a commercial failure because it was black and white, low in resolution, and cost nearly $1,000 (about $2000 in 2014).[25] It later saw modest success when it was re-sold as the Logitech Fotoman in 1992. It used a CCD image sensor, stored pictures digitally, and connected directly to a computer for download.[26][27][28]
The move to digital formats was helped by the formation of the first JPEG and MPEG standards in 1988, which allowed image and video files to be compressed for storage. The first consumer camera with a liquid crystal display on the back was the Casio QV-10 developed by a team led by Hiroyuki Suetaka in 1995
Did I invent the Beep When Done option in Photoshop? I suggested an audible alert to Adobe as a beta due to how long operations took in the early 1990's on huge 20MB files at the time (IIci, 8MB of RAM). One would commonly need to walk away from the computer knowing an operation could take 10 minutes to complete (seriously).
No, I think I'll refrain from such credit, it's possible Adobe had it planned before the thought came into my head. ;D
-
Nobody? Other than millions of us using it every day? And admiring how far we've come, not small part thanks to Adobe?
With the emphasis on small part. For most of the time, Adobe was only the distributor of Photoshop, the product being developed under contract by a self-employed person. It is only because of the idiosyncrasies of the funding of the US healthcare system that forced the contractor to become an employee.
Now that Adobe relies on a quasi-software as a service model, you'd have thought that they would invest a bit more effort in making the distribution platform more robust and user-friendly. If you count the number of recent releases of Photoshop / Lightroom where there were problems or the confounding of expectations (deleting old versions of Photoshop, without migrating the plug-ins, without making it clear at the outset that that was what was about to happen, removing features of Lightroom without any advance indication, etc, etc) you might think that Adobe was not doing a great distribution job. My default now is to wait a week or two before installing updates so that other guinea pigs can test the water. This should not be the case for software as a service. Thom's experience is just another instance of a problem with the distribution infrastructure. The suspicion that they are doing things for their convenience or to drive you onto the subscription model, rather than doing things that are of value to you, undermines trust in the brand, as Thom points out.
-
You trust Adobe? Really?
-
...the material comes from Thom Hogan, who isn't exactly a nobody (read his bio). Once you get beyond the title and carefully read the content of his post and the experience he had, it raises questions...
I "carefully read" what Thom wrote as he instructs (and I had to read it several times BTW) and now see his point and agree with Mark's points. From what I gleamed from the article is that confusion and doubt is created by the way, where & how Adobe labels version numbers to distinguish between Photoshop CS6 and CC updates before and after an actual update. (i.e. CC version: 2015.0.1 and 20150772.r.168x64 vs regular CS6 version: 13.0.6x64).
But then if he's paying a subscription for Photoshop CC2015 (updated version now at 13.1.2) why would he need updating of CS6 since there is no longer any more updates for that version? Or is the confusion created when Adobe sees the newly updated CC2015 as the newest version of Photoshop that is no longer part of CS6 but now updating the number overrides the older version. There's no clear indication that newly updated CC2015 trumps the older CS6. Maybe Adobe should start including "CC" in the version number once it overrides the older CS6. Now I'm confused!
The corruption warning is the first I've seen in any Adobe update download prior to CS6 (I have CS5) and the inconsistency of the message "Photoshop Has Moved" didn't happen on his laptop doesn't make it easier to sort out the source of the problem.
The more complicated it is getting to update already complex digital image processing and management software with all its non-transparent layered facets, directories and methods of OS integration through internet download and update managers, the more its getting harder to distinguish between real problems and their source (Adobe server?, firewalls? bad ram? failing hard drive?) vs F.U.D.
-
What's the problem, specifically?
Thom doesn't know how to use software....that's what I got out of his rant.
-
As a longtime user of Adobe products they have been great for educational users. Having retired I volunteered and I thought that they would have the same approach for non profit organisations. Maybe in the US but elsewhere you have to pay full price. Hey, if I'm willing to give my services for free to help a charity Adobe should be in on the process. It wouldn't cost a cent for Adobe to to help non profit organisations!
Cheers,
-
You trust Adobe? Really?
Oh, for God's sake. We're not in an intimate relationship: I buy software from them. I believe that they won't write code that destroys my images and I don't imagine they'll use their limited access to my credit card for malicious purposes. To that extent, yes, I trust the company. Other than that, what's trust got to do with it?
Jeremy
-
Oh, for God's sake. We're not in an intimate relationship: I buy software from them. I believe that they won't write code that destroys my images and I don't imagine they'll use their limited access to my credit card for malicious purposes. To that extent, yes, I trust the company. Other than that, what's trust got to do with it?
Jeremy
Jeremy, this is a good question. I agree with you completely on a couple of points - I do believe they want us to succeed using their software; that's what keeps them in business and as long as their security protocols are robust and up to date our credit card information should be safe with them, and no I don't expect to see charges on my Visa card from rogue employees even if they had any.
But that isn't the whole story of "trust" - it's a broader concept. Perhaps expectations are higher than they should be in some quarters, but people - I believe - generally expect to have a relatively seamless experience up-grading their software, knowing what they are up-grading from-to, understanding the differences and implications between various purchase options available to them (because it has become a bit more challenging to understand than it used to be - but not by that much), and being able to use the software pretty much as they had been - or if features are changing, adequate notice and instruction about how to deal with what's new. If they feel let-down on stuff like this, they become wary, uncertain and uncomfortable, and that impairs "trust" very broadly conceived, as in: "can I trust what I'm into with this software"?
I don't know Thom Hogan from Adam, so I won't argue with Jeff about whether or not he knows how to use software; however in a way that's not the key issue. More importantly, from all the stuff I've been reading, other seemingly intelligent people are getting confused (e.g. about versions, upgrades, LR import dialog), and if that's happening it implies that the Company may have at least some communications issues to address. Different people have different levels of comfort and agility with software as it takes its twists and turns, and the developers need to address a fairly broad spectrum. I don't see any of this as a train-smash, and we've read that Adobe is fixing-up certain things. I wouldn't read much more into this. All companies make mistakes - we all do - the more responsible ones will fix them and move on, as perhaps we should! :-)
-
I suppose that this discussion got off to a very bad start because Alan, in his thread title, quoted direct from the blog to which he linked (and failed to place the offending words in quotation marks).
Like many others, I am sure, my initial reaction was, "How dare an ignorant, arrogant, empty-headed, big-mouthed nobody like Thom purport to assume what or whom I do or do not trust! (Expletive deleted) him!!"
Having adopted a slightly less injured mindset and having read what he wrote, I think he draws unsubstantiated conclusions from a very limited example. Perhaps if he had suggested that he had discovered a minor flaw in Adobe's set-up, rather than making ludicrous claims about nobody trusting them, his words might have received the more limited attention they possibly deserved.
-
"In God we trust...everyone else pays cash" - a sign in a bar.
Sounds like a reasonable approach for software use too. Or, as comrade Stalin used to say: "Trust, but double check." ;)
-
Like many others, I am sure, my initial reaction was, "How dare an ignorant, arrogant, empty-headed, big-mouthed nobody like Thom purport to assume what or whom I do or do not trust! (Expletive deleted) him!!"
Having adopted a slightly less injured mindset and having read what he wrote, I think he draws unsubstantiated conclusions from a very limited example. Perhaps if he had suggested that he had discovered a minor flaw in Adobe's set-up, rather than making ludicrous claims about nobody trusting them, his words might have received the more limited attention they possibly deserved.
I wouldn't characterize Thom Hogan as a nobody. He has a following in the Nikon world that includes me. He was a protege of the late Galen Rowell (http://www.theguardian.com/news/2002/aug/15/guardianobituaries.localmuseums).
I have several of his e-books on Nikon equipment and have found them authoritative and very helpful. That said, he does tend to be rather opinionated and negativistic at times.
His setup is somewhat unusual in that he apparently has two versions of Photoshop installed on the same computer: PS6 and PS CC. That can lead to trouble if the updaters do not clearly differentiate the two versions. He may keep the perpetual version installed as a backup for the time he bails out from CC, not trusting Adobe to do the right thing.
I do have a copy of CS6, but deactivated and uninstalled it from my system when I began using CS CC and have had no problems whatsoever. I see no need to have two versions of PS. Perhaps Adobe will prevent re-installation and reactivation of PS6 at some time in the future, but I think that possibility is remote but maybe Thom is prepared for that possibility.
Bill
-
Bill, I think it's the opposite - he has CS6 as subscription. It was offered as subscription in the beginning, before CC (2013). In which case that message in the CC updater makes perfect sense and I don't understand what the problem is.
I don't have CS6 installed at all, but I do get new updates for CC (2013) and CC 2014 all the time, both of which I do have along with CC 2015.
-
Bill, I think it's the opposite - he has CS6 as subscription. It was offered as subscription in the beginning, before CC (2013). In which case that message in the CC updater makes perfect sense and I don't understand what the problem is.
I think you nailed it. I have CC and CS6 (perpetual license) installed on the same machine so that CS6 is my backup/exit plan if necessary. No issues as Thom describes. I can't understand why anyone would be using CS6 subscription with CC and suspect that's a main issue; CS6 'wants' to be updated. If indeed that's the case, Jeff nailed it as well. Now if Thom has CS6 perpetual, I can't explain his issue, it has never occurred on this end.
-
I have the CC photo combo (PS & Lr) along with a PS6 perpetual license I bought before being seduced by CC. I have experienced the same thing Thom reports on my 4 machines. I'm not alone either. Many friends have experienced it as well. Adobe provides a list of ways to overcome the issue with updating PS6 from CC but I've not been successful with any of them yet. In reality I gave up trying to update PS 6 perpetual as a waste of mine time.
IMHO Adobe is way too focused on mobile. I understand they think that's the future for them but perhaps they've spread their resources too thin and forgotten the rest of us. While its true that a gazillion photos are taken and uploaded every day from smartphones I don't think but a handful will be hanging in galleries 10 years from now.
-
If Thom gets a message that "Photoshop has been moved" it is very possible that he copied an existing installation from one machine to another rather than doing a fresh installation?
I wonder how many machines he might be using the same copy of CS6 Perpetual on simultaneously?
-
If Thom gets a message that "Photoshop has been moved" it is very possible that he copied an existing installation from one machine to another rather than doing a fresh installation?
I wonder how many machines he might be using the same copy of CS6 Perpetual on simultaneously?
I can't speak for Thom. I can tell you that in my cases CS6 perpetual licenses are compliant with Adobe licensing. They run on 2 machines, typically an iMac and a MacBook Pro.
What Thom reports is NOT a user induced error. Adobe has a problem.
-
Jeremy, this is a good question. I agree with you completely on a couple of points - I do believe they want us to succeed using their software; that's what keeps them in business and as long as their security protocols are robust and up to date our credit card information should be safe with them, and no I don't expect to see charges on my Visa card from rogue employees even if they had any.
But that isn't the whole story of "trust" - it's a broader concept. Perhaps expectations are higher than they should be in some quarters, but people - I believe - generally expect to have a relatively seamless experience up-grading their software, knowing what they are up-grading from-to, understanding the differences and implications between various purchase options available to them (because it has become a bit more challenging to understand than it used to be - but not by that much), and being able to use the software pretty much as they had been - or if features are changing, adequate notice and instruction about how to deal with what's new. If they feel let-down on stuff like this, they become wary, uncertain and uncomfortable, and that impairs "trust" very broadly conceived, as in: "can I trust what I'm into with this software"?
Mark, you're obviously right. People expect a lot from software. To a very large extent, they get a lot, too: I consider Lightroom, for example, to be probably the most impressive piece of software I've used in some 40 years of working with computers.
In the old days (ah, the good old days) computers were difficult to use, unforgiving of mistakes. People who installed software had to understand what they were doing: how to use make, whether they had the correct libraries, whether their search paths were correctly set up and so on. Tech support people, some of whom at least partially understood the issues, were vital.
Now, expectations are different. There's an expectation that an update will run smoothly and that the result will be an improvement. To a very large extent, those expectations are met. Lr, for example, has improved enormously. But sometimes, things go wrong; and people then get irritated. And angry. And blame the software provider.
They may be right. But the fact that Hogan's update went wrong doesn't mean that there's an egregious error which warrants the ludicrous overreaction of "never trusting Adobe again" or the ridiculously hyperbolic "nobody trusts Adobe": the paucity of complaints suggests that for the vast majority of people, it went well. Maybe Hogan did something wrong. Maybe there's something sufficiently non-standard about his setup which results in the installer's failing, because perhaps it's so non-standard that it never occurred to the programmers that it might ever happen. Some comments above suggest that the last possibility may be right.
I don't know Thom Hogan from Adam, so I won't argue with Jeff about whether or not he knows how to use software; however in a way that's not the key issue. More importantly, from all the stuff I've been reading, other seemingly intelligent people are getting confused (e.g. about versions, upgrades, LR import dialog), and if that's happening it implies that the Company may have at least some communications issues to address. Different people have different levels of comfort and agility with software as it takes its twists and turns, and the developers need to address a fairly broad spectrum. I don't see any of this as a train-smash, and we've read that Adobe is fixing-up certain things. I wouldn't read much more into this. All companies make mistakes - we all do - the more responsible ones will fix them and move on, as perhaps we should! :-)
Quite. It's a mistake. If you find malicious code embedded in your (non-pirated) version of PS, then get upset. If your money is stolen by the company, get upset. But if software doesn't work, be irritated, if you must, kick the cat and devote some attention to finding out why and fixing it.
Perhaps the lesson is that it's a mistake to assume that everything in an update will work exactly as expected. Some things require effort and understanding.
Jeremy
-
Fair enough Jeremy.
-
Jeremy, is it possible that many are dismissing the problem because they haven't experienced it themselves? Blaming the users isn't a great strategy for success.
-
Jeremy, is it possible that many are dismissing the problem because they haven't experienced it themselves?
Was it people dismissing the problem or dismissing Thom's title for his 'rant'? I haven't experienced what Thom reports. But I don't doubt it's a real issue for him and a few others. Doesn't dismiss Thom's soap box rant suggesting nobody trusts Adobe.
-
Thom's title was provocative and hyperbolic for sure. Quite likely a link bait tactic as well.
Trust should be hard earned and easily questioned. It should be given sparingly to corporations with a profit motive and extremely rare for politicians and governments.
-
Jeremy, is it possible that many are dismissing the problem because they haven't experienced it themselves? Blaming the users isn't a great strategy for success.
Of course: it's not only possible, it's highly likely. But that at least implies that for most people, there isn't a problem; and that implies that the programmers have got it pretty much right. Naturally, perfect would be better than pretty much right; but as the old dictum goes, all non-trivial programs have bugs (and it is a sufficient condition for program triviality that it have no bugs).
It's always frustrating when things don't go well, but it doesn't necessarily imply a systemic failure, as Hogan seemed to be suggesting it did.
Jeremy
-
You think you have download update problems. Check out this recent one...
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=105498.0
-
You think you have download update problems. Check out this recent one...
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=105498.0
So Thom Hogan is not the only one complaining about Adobe. Looks like some of the complainers on the LuLa thread are badmouthing Mr. Hogan. I posted the start of this thread only because it seemed to be interesting. Of course I should have realized that some folks would go after the author of the comment. I can only say that Thom Hogan's reviews of Nikon equipment and his manuals are first rate. He is also a very talented photographer as evidenced by the many images he posts. I know he uses Adobe products as he references them quite often.
It probably would have been better not to have posted in this in the first place. Live and learn I guess.
-
So Thom Hogan is not the only one complaining about Adobe. Looks like some of the complainers on the LuLa thread are badmouthing Mr. Hogan. I posted the start of this thread only because it seemed to be interesting. Of course I should have realized that some folks would go after the author of the comment. I can only say that Thom Hogan's reviews of Nikon equipment and his manuals are first rate. He is also a very talented photographer as evidenced by the many images he posts. I know he uses Adobe products as he references them quite often.
It probably would have been better not to have posted in this in the first place. Live and learn I guess.
No, I think you started an interesting and useful discussion about management issues in Adobe that judging from the LR update experience seem to be genuine.
-
Of course: it's not only possible, it's highly likely. But that at least implies that for most people, there isn't a problem; and that implies that the programmers have got it pretty much right. Naturally, perfect would be better than pretty much right; but as the old dictum goes, all non-trivial programs have bugs (and it is a sufficient condition for program triviality that it have no bugs).
It's always frustrating when things don't go well, but it doesn't necessarily imply a systemic failure, as Hogan seemed to be suggesting it did.
Jeremy
I understand what you're saying, Jeremy. I even developed software professionally for a number of years.
The potential for a systemic error is in the design and testing methodologies not just in the coding. Another perfect recent example is the new Lr Import which has now been regressed.
-
So Thom Hogan is not the only one complaining about Adobe.
Of course not. Thom and all Adobe customers are entitled to complain. That's not really what Thom did. As I pointed out, he spoke for everyone. So I'm ding'ing him a point just for that, silly action. Then he brings in trust which is different from complaining. It's pretty obvious Thom needs to stir controversy and add rhetoric to drive folks to his blog. I'm ding'ing him 2 points for that. If his blog title was:
Why many are upset with Adobe, or Why many are unhappy or pissed about the upgrade process, fine! Instead he has to flame.
Of course I should have realized that some folks would go after the author of the comment.
Comment or ridiculous title created to get attention which worked! He got yours. He had mine but now I know what blog to avoid now, thanks.
I can only say that Thom Hogan's reviews of Nikon equipment and his manuals are first rate.
They may be but he established for me, I suspect a few other's here, to put a grain of salt towards whatever he writes.
It probably would have been better not to have posted in this in the first place.
Well no, now I can prejudge whatever he might write in the future thanks to his recent and unnecessary rhetoric. So you did Thom no favors but you did for me!
-
Thom's title was provocative and hyperbolic for sure. Quite likely a link bait tactic as well.
Trust should be hard earned and easily questioned. It should be given sparingly to corporations with a profit motive and extremely rare for politicians and governments.
What about individuals that are profit motivated? Do you like making a profit from a job? I know I do or I would not be able to exist...sort of like those big gready corporations.
-
What about individuals that are profit motivated?
I've got no issues with profits. Got issues with folks using FUD to direct people to their sites just as I have issues with politicians using fear to get elected. It's not necessary. It's not appropriate.
-
I've got no issues with profits. Got issues with folks using FUD to direct people to their sites just as I have issues with politicians using fear to get elected. It's not necessary. It's not appropriate.
Andy, totally agree with you. The quote I replied to basically stated because a company is profit oriented, you should be very weary of them and not trust them. This is just crap as I'm sure the professional photographers here take on jobs to bring home some profit.
-
Andy, totally agree with you. The quote I replied to basically stated because a company is profit oriented, you should be very weary of them and not trust them. This is just crap as I'm sure the professional photographers here take on jobs to bring home some profit.
Boy, you really spun this waaaaaay beyond what I intended. Go back and read what I wrote not what you inferred. I NEVER said to not trust anyone.
-
I recall when Adobe changed their software to subscription model, they started with a number of "limited time specials".
The $9.99 price for PS & LR was supposed to last only till end of 2014 (or was it 2013?), and many people who trusted Adobe bought in just not to miss that deadline. In hindsight, it worked for Adobe, but not necessarily for the consumers who trusted Adobe.
-
I recall when Adobe changed their software to subscription model, they started with a number of "limited time specials".
The $9.99 price for PS & LR was supposed to last only till end of 2014 (or was it 2013?), and many people who trusted Adobe bought in just not to miss that deadline. In hindsight, it worked for Adobe, but not necessarily for the consumers who trusted Adobe.
I don't follow that argument.
Those who bought in early got the benefit of the software sooner than they otherwise might. So Adobe's policy helped them.
Those, like me, who were more cynical and waited were very pleased that the "special offers" were still running (and still are). We avoided losing out because of our tardiness.
Seems like a win-win-win situation.
-
I recall when Adobe changed their software to subscription model, they started with a number of "limited time specials".
The $9.99 price for PS & LR was supposed to last only till end of 2014 (or was it 2013?), and many people who trusted Adobe bought in just not to miss that deadline. In hindsight, it worked for Adobe, but not necessarily for the consumers who trusted Adobe.
The initial offer included 20GB of cloud storage, standard fonts and portfolio website (prosite) in addition to PS + LR. Now the photography plan is only PS + LR, so it is not the same thing.
-
There is nothing wrong with for profit companies and I think Adobe generally does a good job (though their problematic Flash player which is full of security holes really ought to be retired). I use LR and to a lesser extent PS and have been pleased with the performance of both programs. Unless there is a group with significant financial backing to create a Mozilla model of software development and maintenance we will require a for profit company for this kind of software. There are lots of small companies and individuals who have created adjunct programs/plug ins that improve LR/PS performance and I'm sure that this will continue. For those who are really upset with Adobe, get a Kickstarter campaign going and see how much money you can raise to develop a competing products (IMO it won't be much).
-
Boy, you really spun this waaaaaay beyond what I intended. Go back and read what I wrote not what you inferred. I NEVER said to not trust anyone.
That's the point...you automatically don't trust companies that are profit oriented...that basically means all companies. I just made the point that photographers are also profit oriented.
-
There is nothing wrong with for profit companies and I think Adobe generally does a good job (though their problematic Flash player which is full of security holes really ought to be retired). I use LR and to a lesser extent PS and have been pleased with the performance of both programs. Unless there is a group with significant financial backing to create a Mozilla model of software development and maintenance we will require a for profit company for this kind of software. There are lots of small companies and individuals who have created adjunct programs/plug ins that improve LR/PS performance and I'm sure that this will continue. For those who are really upset with Adobe, get a Kickstarter campaign going and see how much money you can raise to develop a competing products (IMO it won't be much).
Yep the key is longevity. It costs more money to keep an application current with the latest OS's and all the while adding new features to try get more clients on board. Once the honeymoon is over, many startup companies just fade away. We've seen many wannabes take a run at becoming the next LR, the next PS...but in the end they just go away.
-
....... I just made the point that photographers are also profit oriented.
I object to that slur on the character of photographers.
The only ones who are profit oriented are the parasitic "professionals" who prostitute their art in pursuit of filthy lucre.
Please do not tar as all with that brush.
-
I object to that slur on the character of photographers.
The only ones who are profit oriented are the parasitic "professionals" who prostitute their art in pursuit of filthy lucre.
Please do not tar as all with that brush.
While amateurs are only aiding and abetting those who are profit oriented. ;)
-
More to the point, does anyone trust Hogan?
Well, I've no particular reason not to.
I find most of his comments and observations quite apposite.
-
That's the point...you automatically don't trust companies that are profit oriented...that basically means all companies. I just made the point that photographers are also profit oriented.
Nonsense. Please go back and re-read my post. Let me paraphrase it for you if you can't find it.
Trust should be earned. It should be given sparingly to CORPORATIONS with a profit motive....
Most people are profit oriented in one way or another whether they are constituted as a company or not. Virtually everyone works toward more money in their pocket.
It is RARE that a photographer is a multinational corporation with a board of directors, CEO, Chairman of the Board, etc. issues stock, is traded publicly and is skewered by Wall Street each quarter to increase profits.
-
Maybe the POV should be taken that it's not about trusting the intent of the people behind Adobe, but the systems they put into place to run a business on a level of efficiency that creates obscurity and suspicion on whether the right hand knows what the left is up to when it comes to appreciating their customers as a valued investor in their time and money where very few receive a ROI using Adobe products.
Wish Adobe would just explain why something acts quirky/buggy after the fix just to make the customer feel reassured. Adobe just line items each occurrence and moves on.
I would feel better if I asked a question..."Why so many bug fixes this time?"...and got an answer something to the effect from Adobe that a programmer went on maternity leave and forgot to use the correct code compiler or spilled coffee on the keyboard? You know, a response a human would make instead of a cold, faceless corporate overlord.
-
I would feel better if I asked a question..."Why so many bug fixes this time?"...and got an answer something to the effect from Adobe that a programmer went on maternity leave and forgot to use the correct code compiler or spilled coffee on the keyboard? You know, a response a human would make instead of a cold, faceless corporate overlord.
Without saying too much to get myself in trouble, what you're asking is also being asked by some of those who attempt to assist Adobe in releasing products with as few bugs as possible. Some of those folks hang out here... So the question has merit but I doubt we'll get the answer. Let's just say, you are not alone in asking (if I can be so bold) WFT is going on these days with Adobe.
-
Without saying too much to get myself in trouble, what you're asking is also being asked by some of those who attempt to assist Adobe in releasing products with as few bugs as possible. Some of those folks hang out here... So the question has merit but I doubt we'll get the answer. Let's just say, you are not alone in asking (if I can be so bold) WFT is going on these days with Adobe.
Hey, at least Adobe has people watching us here at LuLa. I feel better just knowing that. They really like me! THEY REALLY LIKE ME! ;D
-
"I object to that slur on the character of photographers.
The only ones who are profit oriented are the parasitic "professionals" who prostitute their art in pursuit of filthy lucre.
Please do not tar as all with that brush."
I assume Jimbo57 is English and the above is irony.
Regards,
Dale
-
I didn't read past the title which proposes to speak for everyone (Nobody trusts Adobe). A sure sign the piece should be ignored.
Give that man a cigar.
-
Give that man a cigar.
Not my first choice for something to smoke :o
Did try a cigar once, couple years ago (a Cuban too), not bad but had to keep telling myself, don't inhale!
-
Did try a cigar once, couple years ago (a Cuban too), not bad but had to keep telling myself, don't inhale!
Just do it once. You won't need telling again!
Jeremy
-
Not my first choice for something to smoke :o
Did try a cigar once, couple years ago (a Cuban too), not bad but had to keep telling myself, don't inhale!
I didn't say you had to smoke it.
-
Give that man a cigar.
.....or even a coconut.
-
Well, despite the ad hominen attacks on Thom Hogan, and people pretending they don't know who he is... I just tried to remove Ps CS6 (perpetual) from my system. So, I went to the Help menu, and selected DEACTIVATE.
I was then presented with a dialog telling me that "Signing out of Creative Cloud" would remove my access to PS CS6, PS CC 2015, Lr CC 2015 (no mention of other Creative Studio CS6 applications, note).
I did not ask to "Sign Out of CC", I asked to "Deactivate CS6" on this computer.
Oh, and then when I decided "screw it, I'll just deinstall Ps CS6", I was asked if I wanted to deinstall InDesign, Illustrator and Acrobat Pro as well. No, Adobe, I don't. Oh, and then I hit the infamous "SafariCloudHist" bug.
So, confusion reigns. Mixed up dialogs, mixed up messages, no confidence in what will happen. Do I trust Adobe ? I don't really have an answer to that, it isn't a relevant question. But do I trust their installation / deinstallation / CC manager software ? Do I ****.
So, apologists, off you go with the Ad Hominen attacks. Don't forget to point out that I'm a crap photographer, as well.
-
So, apologists, off you go with the Ad Hominen attacks. Don't forget to point out that I'm a crap photographer, as well.
I think we should attack your manhood as well. ;)
I don't "trust" Adobe (nor any corporate enterprise) to do more than honour their carefully-worded contracts with me. Software products are especially complex, and software agreements are so careful worded that the provider is usually contractually obliged to do very little. You have little or no redress if the software doesn't work or even if it trashes your computer or your photographs.
Adobe software functions reasonably well compared to the industry average (not a very challenging target) but with some serious issues:
- Bug fixing is slow. Even major bugs usually wait until the next release (perhaps 3 or 4 months) and often longer.
- Software management (downloading, installation/removal, subscription management) is poor, and not improving very fast.
- The pace of innovation is slowing down. LR and especially PS are mature products produced by mature teams, and the natural rate of innovation is going to decline. In such cases, major innovation often comes from new companies.
- The slower pace of innovation is probably one reason why Adobe is so keen to move to a subscription model: to secure revenues from users for whom there is less and less incentive to upgrade. The subscription model also gives Adobe less incentive to invest in innovation, and this can become a vicious circle.
You can trust a corporate most when they face strong competition. Adobe doesn't.
-
Well, despite the ad hominen attacks on Thom Hogan, and people pretending they don't know who he is... I just tried to remove Ps CS6 (perpetual) from my system. So, I went to the Help menu, and selected DEACTIVATE.
The topic should be retitled 'why nobody trusts whiners people who don't RTFM'.
I did not ask to "Sign Out of CC", I asked to "Deactivate CS6" on this computer.
Doesn't matter, sign out then you can deactivate.
I was then presented with a dialog telling me that "Signing out of Creative Cloud" would remove my access to PS CS6, PS CC 2015, Lr CC 2015 (no mention of other Creative Studio CS6 applications, note).
Yes! Those products need for you to be signed in to use every X number of days, this is simply warning you of that possibility! Do you know how to sign back in?
So, confusion reigns
That much is clear.
As for uninstalling CS6 perpetual, piece of cake:
If you are removing Creative Suite software from you computer and installing it on another computer, you'll need to deactivate the software. Remember that you must first deactivate your software before you uninstall it on one computer and install it on another. Unistalling does not deactivate your Adobe software automatically.
Note: Lightroom does not have an activate/deactivate option.
To deactivate the software from your computer:
Make sure the computer that has the software installed is connected to the Internet.
Choose Help > Deactivate in the product you wish to deactivate. (you didn't do that) If you have a suite then choosing one of the products will Deactivate the entire sute. (and you can activate too)
Select Deactivate Permanently
For troubleshooting information related to Adobe activation and deactivation, see Activation, Deactivation | Adobe Products.
This document contains information on common questions related to activation and deactivation such as:
- Uninstalled the software without deactivating it.
- No access to previous computer : Lost, Stolen, and crashed computers.
- Deactivation option is disabled.
- Options to contact Customer support. The page is Chat enabled. You will be able to chat with a person as soon as a tech support person is available.
Issues with the uninstaller? https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/kb/cc-cleaner-tool-installation-problems.html (https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/kb/cc-cleaner-tool-installation-problems.html)
How do I uninstall a previous version of Photoshop?
On Mac, go into the Photoshop application folder and double-click the “Uninstall Adobe Photoshop CS6” icon:
uninstall
On Windows, see: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/uninstall-or-change-a-program (http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/uninstall-or-change-a-program)
I'll only speak for myself unlike you. Until this thread, I had no idea who Thom Hogan was. Sorry if I don't know who your preferred photo gods might be :-[
-
- The pace of innovation is slowing down. LR and especially PS are mature products produced by mature teams, and the natural rate of innovation is going to decline. In such cases, major innovation often comes from new companies.
I agree, the biggest worry I have is how Adobe's pace of innovation as well as much of the industry is slowing way down. But I started working with these products very early on (two months after the first version of Photoshop shipped), the pace of innovation was pretty staggering for 15+ years.
-
There may be some problems (where in life are there none), but the positive thing about the subscription model - in the case of LR - is that brilliant as this application is - there are a great many ways in which it can be further enhanced. Users are making useful suggestions all the time, and the company's scientists and engineers also have their bagfuls of good ideas. They take time to decide upon, try implementing, testing etc., so yes the pace of change will be gradual, but nonetheless I believe on-going and useful. With the subscription model, they release them to subscribers in small batches as they become available rather than waiting 18 months for a whole major program up-grade. I think this is to our benefit.
The cash flow implications for the company are not relevant to what I achieve from using the application - as long as they stay in business producing a good product (a reasonably safe bet), and in any case a matter of uncertain projections depending a lot on the expected timing of estimated inflows and outflows - a look at their SEC 10-K provides interesting insight, for those interested.
The one thing I would like to see them stop doing - much as I would have liked to see Microsoft stop doing years ago with Word and Excel, is introducing cosmetic changes for the sake of change which actually have the effect of reducing usability and productivity. Undoing perfectly satisfactory pieces of programming and replacing them with crap for the sole purpose of dumbing them down and faking progressive change is quite foolish and very annoying. In this regard, I really would like to see LR do a COMPLETE REVERSION to the old Import system - NO checkmarks on thumbnails, already catalogued images greyed-out and new ones showing in full brightness. This was so intuitive and so useful, but they wrecked it on both accounts. This kind of thing should not be allowed to happen, and for that they need MANAGEMENT in place to prevent it and keep a steady hand on the rudder. Otherwise LR remains an overall huge contribution to digital imaging, and I'm looking forward to more and better to come. E.G. when will we get catalog sync as easy as it is with "iTunes"?.
-
I didn't read past the title which proposes to speak for everyone (Nobody trusts Adobe). A sure sign the piece should be ignored.
Anyone who interprets "nobody" literally to mean "not a single person" surely needs their thinker adjusted.
Which brings to mind a Yogi Berra quote: "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."
-
The one thing I would like to see them stop doing - much as I would have liked to see Microsoft stop doing years ago with Word and Excel, is introducing cosmetic changes for the sake of change which actually have the effect of reducing usability and productivity.
Amen to that! The new Photoshop Export option comes to mind.
And it's going to get worse....
-
Anyone who interprets "nobody" literally to mean "not a single person" surely needs their thinker adjusted.
Words and their use are kind of important. I take people's language as literal, sorry. I've already suggested what could have been a much better use of language for Thom but the text was written to attract traffic to his blog and get unnecessary attention. It's rhetoric, not much more.
-
Amen to that! The new Photoshop Export option comes to mind.
And it's going to get worse....
It may well, but it should be contained if enough users would engage in the various forums Adobe watches and tell them in no uncertain terms that frivolous change is not welcome. I believe that at some point the more intelligent companies DO pay attention to their customers. They are in this for the long term, and over the long term growth of competition is usually seen as a serious possibility regardless of incumbent advantage.
-
It may well, but it should be contained if enough users would engage in the various forums Adobe watches and tell them in no uncertain terms that frivolous change is not welcome. I believe that at some point the more intelligent companies DO pay attention to their customers. They are in this for the long term, and over the long term growth of competition is usually seen as a serious possibility regardless of incumbent advantage.
We'll see Mark. Without getting into NDA trouble, the recent example of Export in PS was pointed out well before it was released. We have the example of Lightroom's Import dialog mess. All I can do is scratch my head and wonder what the various product managers today are thinking or perhaps being forced to do. I long for former Adobe PM's like John Nack and Mark Hamburg.
-
We'll see Mark. Without getting into NDA trouble, the recent example of Export in PS was pointed out well before it was released. We have the example of Lightroom's Import dialog mess. All I can do is scratch my head and wonder what the various product managers today are thinking or perhaps being forced to do. I long for former Adobe PM's like John Nack and Mark Hamburg.
Yes indeed Andrew, I too have good reason to understand the frustrations of that role. Part of the problem may be that Alpha testers and even Beta testers, regardless of the experience and expertise that got them to those levels, are a small enough number (and under fairly tight control) to be ignored if senior management has another mindset or agenda. Users, however, are huge numbers with spending power and unconstrained in respect of NDAs, so the best hope for improving corporate discipline is for many more users to become much more publicly engaged by letting the companies know what they like or dislike. The companies that don't listen become the dinosaurs of the industry and eventually fade - sometimes spectacularly. We've seen that already in this industry!
-
In software-speak Adobe are [maintaining[ LR & PS etc. When done well there's an art to it. I very much agree with the section "Only accept use cases" here: http://zee-nix.blogspot.com/2015/10/lessons-on-being-good-maintainer.html
One thing that piece doesn't mention is that users who are new to a program often have different insights to experienced users, especially those who have mastered it. Sometimes the new users' insights are extremely valuable, and are highly unlikely to be generated by a master or even moderately experienced user. This is an inescapable fact we see in different domains, including social anthropology, where it is widely known. You can see it for yourself when you enter a new and to you strange culture. You notice important things that people who are familiar with the culture take for granted and therefore don't notice.
The conclusion is, listen to both experienced users and new users, and cater to both.
-
I take people's language as literal, sorry.
Geez, you must get in a lot of trouble <g>!
-
Geez, you must get in a lot of trouble <g>!
Just the opposite actually if it matters. I expect people to be good to their word(s).
Cardinal Richelieu used to say: “Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him” 8)