Better open the windows, it's gonna get hot in here.
Gotta look good for those shareholders.
The monthly subscription cost is about twice what it costs to pay USD 200 on each 18 month upgrade cycle.
I wouldn't be surprised if an antitrust suit is filed.
Meanwhile.. how long before Adobe declares our current licenses null and void and finds a way to disable them. They're not past silent updates..
Is LR also moving in this direction with LR5?No, see http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html . But it doesn't say what the price will be to buy it.
Actually, they announced new aggressive upgrade pricing to the CC versions of apps which brings the price down-assuming you go with a longer term license.
Special pricing for existing customers
CS3 and later get Complete for $29.99
CS6 customers get Complete for $19.99
CS3 and later get Single App for $9.99
All offers require annual commitment
As far as the economics of the CC for Adobe, actually, it's been the success of the whole subscription model (and the technical difficulty in doing dual application versioning for subscription & perpetual licenses) that have driven Adobe toward doing this. Yes, it will alienate some users who reject the whole "cloud" thingie...which I understand (assuming the rejection is made based on real facts and not FUD).
As a book author, my life just way more complicated because I can't write for a fixed target with a known lifecycle...now it's a moving target that will be tough to do for paper based publishing (easier and perhaps better done with ebooks).
I'm also kinda melancholy about the whole change to the old model...as a long term alpha/beta tester, I always looked forward to a new dev cycle and seeing what the engineers came up with (and hammered on them to fix stuff). But this new model allows a freedom and flexibility that will, I think, lead to more rapid advances with new features on a more regular basis. But I'll miss the old way...
Edited to add the special offers...
Actually, they announced new aggressive upgrade pricing to the CC versions of apps which brings the price down-assuming you go with a longer term license.
Special pricing for existing customers
CS3 and later get Complete for $29.99
CS6 customers get Complete for $19.99
CS3 and later get Single App for $9.99
All offers require annual commitment
•Your assets, settings, styles, colors, and fonts are synced and available across your desktop and mobile devices
•You are able to share your work and get feedback from the community throughout the creative process
I wouldn't be surprised if an antitrust suit is filed.
Meanwhile.. how long before Adobe declares our current licenses null and void and finds a way to disable them. They're not past silent updates..
Why do I want to share my work? And why would I want it judged from people viewing it on a mobile device?
Good lord! Am I glad I got out of graphics when I did!
lead to more rapid advances with new features on a more regular basis.Just how much can you usefully add to Photoshop now ? or more importantly what can you add that will be worth £120 a year in perpetuity (=$180pa equiv here in the UK) ?
I didn't bother upgrading PS after CS4 when they started taking out more that I used than they put in that I might occasionally use.
Well, you said it, you aren't working in the field now...you don't have clients spread out all over the place with contract artists also spread out everywhere. It's a wired world bud (if you hadn't noticed) and "graphics" as an industry have undergone a revolution since you've been in it. That's why you don't understand...
NO SHIT?! Bud?!
Has Adobe and you ever figured that this internet thingy just might be a bubble seeing there's no facts on how people are making REAL money on it. I haven't seen any invoices. Are web ads really that smart of an approach for grabbing eyeballs?
If it's made easy for everybody don't you think the demand is going to become diluted. When is critical mass going to be reached and does anyone know how to calculate for that? It's like a pro photographer competing for attention among billions of images online made by amateurs.
And there is no bubble. The internet is here to stay, and grow and make more money for more people.
Peoples' time developing stuff is worth something. Amazing how much we get for free and that will continue and continue to draw millions to the net.
As a book author, my life just way more complicated because I can't write for a fixed target with a known lifecycle...now it's a moving target that will be tough to do for paper based publishing (easier and perhaps better done with ebooks).
Has Adobe and you ever figured that this internet thingy just might be a bubble seeing there's no facts on how people are making REAL money on it. I haven't seen any invoices. Are web ads really that smart of an approach for grabbing eyeballs?
That thought reminds me of the Photo Lab Index book from back in the "good old days". ;)
Actually, they announced new aggressive upgrade pricing to the CC versions of apps which brings the price down-assuming you go with a longer term license.
Special pricing for existing customers
CS3 and later get Complete for $29.99
CS6 customers get Complete for $19.99
CS3 and later get Single App for $9.99
All offers require annual commitment
As far as the economics of the CC for Adobe, actually, it's been the success of the whole subscription model (and the technical difficulty in doing dual application versioning for subscription & perpetual licenses) that have driven Adobe toward doing this. Yes, it will alienate some users who reject the whole "cloud" thingie...which I understand (assuming the rejection is made based on real facts and not FUD).
As a book author, my life just way more complicated because I can't write for a fixed target with a known lifecycle...now it's a moving target that will be tough to do for paper based publishing (easier and perhaps better done with ebooks).
I'm also kinda melancholy about the whole change to the old model...as a long term alpha/beta tester, I always looked forward to a new dev cycle and seeing what the engineers came up with (and hammered on them to fix stuff). But this new model allows a freedom and flexibility that will, I think, lead to more rapid advances with new features on a more regular basis. But I'll miss the old way...
Edited to add the special offers...
Is that a typo, Mark?
Maybe this is why YouTube is going to start charging for subscriptions to certain video feeds.
They've decided doing this for ad revenue isn't as lucrative as they thought.
Lets look at the actual numbers. If I am not mistaken they look something like this. I think a more realistic price comparison is to use 18 months. That has been the Adobe update cycle, and with CS6 Adobe had announced that you could only upgrade from the most recent version.
Costs (assuming you already own a valid license which fits most of the people here):
Old model = $200 every 18 months
New model (first year at $20/month, next 6 months at $30/month): $420 for 18 months
The deal looks a different for someone just now purchasing Photoshop, but you still lose over the long run with the subnscription model.
Still a very lousy deal like twice what it cost before? Am I right about this? They just doubled the price. I wish I could do that with my clients but oh yeah I don't have a monopoly.
You're kidding right? The entire world economy is now completely dependent on ecommerce...internet ads? That's nothing...the US Congress is just now waking up to the fact this Internet thingie is big business...I think the Senate was to vote today on charging sales tax (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/tech/web/internet-sales-tax/index.html?hpt=hp_t3) on all internet online sales...seems there were $225.5 billion in online sales in 2012, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.This is really a more complicated issue than Jeff presents it and one only needs to look at those companies supporting the Senate bill (Amazon and most other major Internet retailers). This will severely disadvantage the smaller retailers who will now have to institute complex software packages to collect and disburse sales taxes in the states that they don't have a physical presence. Sure there is a small retailer exemption but it's peanuts. In addition all us who purchase things over the net will now be subject to sales tax on virtually all transactions. Amazon will still make money and maybe this will also drive some of us back to local retailers who still have brick and mortar stores.
So, yeah, I think this whole Internet thingie is here to stay...
:~)
This is really a more complicated issue than Jeff presents it and one only needs to look at those companies supporting the Senate bill (Amazon and most other major Internet retailers). This will severely disadvantage the smaller retailers who will now have to institute complex software packages to collect and disburse sales taxes in the states that they don't have a physical presence. Sure there is a small retailer exemption but it's peanuts.
No non-subscription CS7.
You're exactly right. .
Actually, they announced new aggressive upgrade pricing to the CC versions of apps which brings the price down-assuming you go with a longer term license.
Special pricing for existing customers
CS3 and later get Complete for $29.99
CS6 customers get Complete for $19.99
CS3 and later get Single App for $9.99
All offers require annual commitment
As far as the economics of the CC for Adobe, actually, it's been the success of the whole subscription model (and the technical difficulty in doing dual application versioning for subscription & perpetual licenses) that have driven Adobe toward doing this. Yes, it will alienate some users who reject the whole "cloud" thingie...which I understand (assuming the rejection is made based on real facts and not FUD).
As a book author, my life just way more complicated because I can't write for a fixed target with a known lifecycle...now it's a moving target that will be tough to do for paper based publishing (easier and perhaps better done with ebooks).
I'm also kinda melancholy about the whole change to the old model...as a long term alpha/beta tester, I always looked forward to a new dev cycle and seeing what the engineers came up with (and hammered on them to fix stuff). But this new model allows a freedom and flexibility that will, I think, lead to more rapid advances with new features on a more regular basis. But I'll miss the old way...
Edited to add the special offers...
The exemption is $1,000,000 of interstate sales/year. So, I wouldn't call that "peanuts"...and whether you like or dislike sales tax in general, the fact is that states have been suffering from lost sales tax because in the past, the internet was considered a new thing that needed some help.I'm in full agreement with your general premise. I was just reflecting what I heard on NPR Radio (http://www.npr.org/2013/05/06/181644928/some-net-retailers-arent-buying-online-sales-tax-proposal) today.
The point I was making is a $225 Billion/year industry doesn't need the help anymore...and this was all said to refute Tim's whole validity of the internet as a place to make money.
Not clear he's exactly right. For a single application, on the 18 month depreciation cycle, a $200 upgrade price is $11/month. For the first year on CC, an existing qualifying PS user will pay $10/month, and thereafter $20/month. So there is one year of cost protection, then the price about doubles. But we are getting all the new features as they come out in real time, and some other services. So the comparison isn't exactly apples-to-apples. But the bottom line remains that Adobe converts us to renters, puts us on a treadmill and takes more money from us - eventually. Whether enough people believe the value returned is worthwhile will determine whether this model works.Don't forget about the 20GB cloud storage. You can really use this to store your images and not worry about onsite backup (he says with his voice dripping with sarcasm)!
Not clear he's exactly right. For a single application, on the 18 month depreciation cycle, a $200 upgrade price is $11/month. For the first year on CC, an existing qualifying PS user will pay $10/month, and thereafter $20/month. So there is one year of cost protection, then the price about doubles. But we are getting all the new features as they come out in real time, and some other services. So the comparison isn't exactly apples-to-apples. But the bottom line remains that Adobe converts us to renters, puts us on a treadmill and takes more money from us - eventually. Whether enough people believe the value returned is worthwhile will determine whether this model works.
This is complete and utter BS.
They have us by the nuts, and they know it. It's as simple as that.
Oh and those super duper sale prices if you are a current owner? Yeah two big issues there. First, they ONLY apply IF you bought directly from Adobe for your current version. I don't know any one that has, we all get stuff on sales through stores or through association discounts at retailers like B&H. Second, those nifty discounts are ONLY for the first 12 months. They you get the full unlubed shaft.
As to LR5, it's up in the air if it will still be standalone or not. I saw this notice earlier today and had a chat with support asking just that, since the website has contradictory info on the subject. Direct from support, they don't know.
I paid about $185 for my CS6 upgrade (shipped free!), so I think I was accurate enough to state "exactly". I agree that the comparison is not apples-to-apples: for the same price over the next year, we get access to new features and updates that we don't get to keep. And after that the price doubles for the same ephemeral product. The previous apple was MUCH tastier.
You're kidding right? The entire world economy is now completely dependent on ecommerce...internet ads? That's nothing...the US Congress is just now waking up to the fact this Internet thingie is big business...I think the Senate was to vote today on charging sales tax (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/tech/web/internet-sales-tax/index.html?hpt=hp_t3) on all internet online sales...seems there were $225.5 billion in online sales in 2012, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.
So, yeah, I think this whole Internet thingie is here to stay...
:~)
Yes I saw that page Rick, but like I posted...I JUST asked them...obviously someone/dept. doesn't know what they are talking about. I hope that would be be support, in this case. I would LOVE to just stay with CS6, I have ZERO reason to go to PS CC, and buy LR5 IF they add something good to it. I'm staying with 4 for now anyway, 5 beta is a joke.
So how is Adobe to profit from internet sales tax with this subscription and cloud approach?
Yes I saw that page Rick, but like I posted...I JUST asked them...obviously someone/dept. doesn't know what they are talking about. I hope that would be be support, in this case. I would LOVE to just stay with CS6, I have ZERO reason to go to PS CC, and buy LR5 IF they add something good to it. I'm staying with 4 for now anyway, 5 beta is a joke.
I mentioned the internet tax as proof that this whole internet thingie is the real deal with no "bubble" in sight, not to explain how Adobe was gonna make money.
I'm trying to make sense of this from a corporation's perspective (no idea how much of Adobe's CS income comes from Corporations, really, but if anyone has leverage with Adobe, it must be them)...
If I'm a large, bloated corporation who is slow to upgrade my employees' OS versions due to all the legacy software I'm using that isn't compatible with the latest and greatest, and I'm paying Adobe $50/month per license (or whatever the corporate rate will end up being), and Adobe comes out with an update I can't upgrade to without millions of dollars of expense and months and months of effort, yet I'm paying for a subscription to a service I can't make use of, what is my reasoning for agreeing to this?
Am I missing something?
I'm trying to make sense of this from a corporation's perspective (no idea how much of Adobe's CS income comes from Corporations, really, but if anyone has leverage with Adobe, it must be them)...
If I'm a large, bloated corporation who is slow to upgrade my employees' OS versions due to all the legacy software I'm using that isn't compatible with the latest and greatest, and I'm paying Adobe $50/month per license (or whatever the corporate rate will end up being), and Adobe comes out with an update I can't upgrade to without millions of dollars of expense and months and months of effort, yet I'm paying for a subscription to a service I can't make use of, what is my reasoning for agreeing to this?
Am I missing something?
This is complete and utter BS.
They have us by the nuts, and they know it. It's as simple as that.
Oh and those super duper sale prices if you are a current owner? Yeah two big issues there. First, they ONLY apply IF you bought directly from Adobe for your current version. I don't know any one that has, we all get stuff on sales through stores or through association discounts at retailers like B&H.
What direction for Adobe and its customers was that letter trying to communicate?
So here is how my brain works.....if I have to pay double I want something that is twice as good......
Well Rick, actually we do get to keep them as long as we continue to pay. It is a treadmill, no question about it; that said, for most of us, had we been able to remain on the old model we would continue to pay our $185~200 every 18 months - a voluntary treadmill. So when we get right down to it, in practical terms three things have changed: (i) we become renters, (ii) we pay more, and (iii) we get feature adds in real time instead of waiting 18 months for them. I'm ambivalent. The only downside I see apart from the eventual price increase is that the day I want to get off the treadmill (say because the incremental features just become less valuable than continuing to paying the rent), I shall have to revert to CS6 and lose the new features I had accumulated while renting. This is not good.
That's just the thing -- the treadmill. I've always upgraded, even when I could have skipped versions with no penalty, because I found value in the upgrade. I always thought that, because we COULD skip versions, Adobe had a real incentive to make sure there WAS value in the upgrade. That incentive pretty much ended today. I would have upgraded to a perpetual Photoshop CS7 license for the new features announced today, but I'm not going to get on a never ending treadmill to use them. I'm not ambivalent about Photoshop Credit Card at all.
The problem with staying with CS6 comes when we buy a new camera and need raw conversion.
Exactly! Adobe has zero incentive to add value now. "Trust us, we will keep improving the product just because we are so nice."
The problem with staying with CS6 comes when we buy a new camera and need raw conversion.
Adobe has zero incentive to add value now.
The problem with staying with CS6 comes when we buy a new camera and need raw conversion.
Exactly! Adobe has zero incentive to add value now. "Trust us, we will keep improving the product just because we are so nice."
There are legions of low end Photoshop users who will probably jump ship over the price increases, and they're ready for the picking.Perhaps pushed to PS Elements, but who knows where that is going with regards CC.
Actually, Adobe has already said that Camera Raw 8.x will run in both Photoshop CC (with the full new feature set) AND in Photoshop CS6 (which will run without the new features). So, for new camera support, Photoshop CS6 will get new cameras added by updating to ACR 8.x.
CS6 customers get Complete for $19.99
I'll use Lightroom for that. It'll be less convenient than keeping both versions current, but it works pretty well. If they decide to make Lightroom Cloud only, I'll get Capture 1, or DXO. Adobe doesn't have a monopoly on RAW conversion.
Actually, Adobe has already said that Camera Raw 8.x will run in both Photoshop CC (with the full new feature set) AND in Photoshop CS6 (which will run without the new features). So, for new camera support, Photoshop CS6 will get new cameras added by updating to ACR 8.x.
Can you provide a link when you make statements about what Adobe has said. You may be absolutely correct, but there is nothing like seeing it on an official Adobe web page.
I read it here:
https://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/adobe-camera-raw-8-support-for-photoshop-cc-and-photoshop-cs6.html
Yes things are better for lightroom users assuming they don't make that a "cloud" software.
If I understand correctly we can convert newer cameras files to dng and use our older version of camera raw as long as they continue supporting dng and don't move it off to a cloud.
...and society in general has moved to a whole new way of doing business...
What needs to get done that requires a Cloud system subscription for upgrading software?
That Adobe doesn't want to piss off users, but they realize some people will not be happy about the cloud and they're very sorry, but their mind has been made up...no more perpetual and subscription licenses only.
Thanks....looks like support for new cameras will probably end when CS6 stops shipping.
I would...there's no basis.
FUD isn't useful doode...in fact, recent behavior by Adobe indicates the exact opposite. You'll note that due to technical and security issues, the old Photoshop CS2 activation servers had to be taken down. So, what did Adobe do? The made the entire CR2 suite available for users and gave them serial numbers that didn't require activation–knowing full well a whole bunch of people who DID'T have a CS2 license would help themselves to the freebie (and they did).
It would be more useful if you actually kept things in the realm of reality when discussing this topic. Spreading FUD may be fun for you, but it doesn't anybody else any favors...
What needs to get done that requires a Cloud system subscription for upgrading software?
Question. I have CS6. So I go with CC but after a year (or three) decide to "drop out". Will files (TIFFs, JPEGs) that were originally opened in PS CC still be able to be opened & worked on in CS6? Will adjustments that were made with CC tools and features and don't exist in CS6 still be there? I'd assume so but just looking for some confirmation.
At least one advantage with CC is that we Oz Adobe customers are paying the same price as the US (actually a bit cheaper given the current exchange rate) instead of being charged a 100-200% mark up price for new or upgraded versions!
1. Is that your professional legal opinion? Anti-trust laws exist to protect against the creation of a monopoly and the abuse thereof. It could be argued Adobe has a monopoly on certain technologies. It could further be argued that Adobe by removing the most common method of purchase and ownership, is abusing their position in the marketplace. It could be argued their "cloud" method of activation and requiring an internet connection of sufficient quality alienates a good portion of the world (including many parts of our own country who live in rural areas without internet) without sufficient internet, and even if they allowed phone validation they'd be at a professional, creative, and financial disadvantage in obtaining fair access to the technology they're paying for.. but not receiving. Geez dude, I could write argument after argument from now till the upcoming court date. If I can do it don't you think there are Adobe haters and others out there already planning the same?
And let's keep in mind that anti-trust suits can be more/less successful based on content depending on which country's laws are being applied. Different countries not only have different requirements, but also different heights for the bar to validate the requirements.e Adobe is an international product. Losing such a case in the EU, Asia, or other large marketplace might or might not give them sufficient reason to standardize/revise their policies.
2. FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Fun? No sir. Reasonable and prudent as a consumer who has observed tech companies take advantage of the public time and again? Yes, it is. Lecturing me on my motivations which you know nothing about: it might be fun for you but it's not doing anyone any favours.
Reality? Seriously? The head in the sand approach doesn't benefit anyone. Adobe isn't innocent of questionable business practices. They've committed, and continue to commit, some surprisingly serious practices which leads me to believe they're not at all past finding a way to shut off activations at some point. Or that the language of our current licenses couldn't already be twisted/argued to this end. And we won't know until they decide to do it and we hear their defence in the courtrooms.
The truth is, money is the most common motivator for poor business behaviour. Many argue that without this motivation we wouldn't have wars. A corporation exists only to enrich their shareholders and when push comes to shove there are very few if any limits they'll stoop to. Only our laws and a vigilant (and I dare say skeptical) public who isn't afraid to ask questions keeps them in check. Perhaps it's more damaging when fanboys of certain corporations try to suppress such questioning.
How is Adobe products going to be used creating content (ads & web page design) on such small screens where ads often don't fit or are made difficult to see?If you ever see a full demonstration of the Adobe Marketing Cloud suite and how that integrates with CC for delivering ads tailor made for specific devices, in seconds, you'll know how all this fits together.
After contacting their telephone purchasing number I was informed that CS6(non-subscription version) is no longer being sold and that the reason is that CS7 is imminent and after probing further I was told that CS7 will be available as a non-subscription purchase, so go figure.
While not happy about being forced into a $ub$cription model I'll wait until the "imminent" release of CS7 (non-subscription version) before passing further judgement.
Cheers.
The monthly subscription cost is about twice what it costs to pay USD 200 on each 18 month upgrade cycle. The key issue is whether enough people will go for this to keep the shareholders smiling, or how many will just stop upgrading because they fell they have all the image processing power they really need.
Very reliable information in the USA indicates the contrary: CS7 will not be made available as a non-subscription version.
Suggest you double check.
While Adobe Creative Suite 6 products will continue to be supported and available for purchase, the company has no plans for future releases of Creative Suite or other CS products.
It's about four times the cost to the average non-core user around here who only upgraded every other cycle: that's less than $5/month. Less effort, more money: that's how kings lose their crowns.
What exactly did they take out of CS4 that you use?Printing without colour management being applied, more recently the option to display images at actual size. But we've had these discussions in the past and they don't need going over again. More importantly they didn't ADD anything I thought would be useful to me in recent versions.
You go right ahead and use GIMP...you haven't been a Photoshop customer since CS4, so it's not like Adobe is loosing you. You're already gone.Just because I'm not using the latest model doesn't mean I might not have come back and upgraded if they added something genuinely useful to me. By switching to a subscription model I'm being ruled out, and I've only missed one upgrade opportunity.
1. Is that your professional legal opinion? Anti-trust laws exist to protect against the creation of a monopoly and the abuse thereof. It could be argued Adobe has a monopoly on certain technologies. It could further be argued that Adobe by removing the most common method of purchase and ownership, is abusing their position in the marketplace. It could be argued their "cloud" method of activation and requiring an internet connection of sufficient quality alienates a good portion of the world (including many parts of our own country who live in rural areas without internet) without sufficient internet, and even if they allowed phone validation they'd be at a professional, creative, and financial disadvantage in obtaining fair access to the technology they're paying for.. but not receiving. Geez dude, I could write argument after argument from now till the upcoming court date. If I can do it don't you think there are Adobe haters and others out there already planning the same?
I find it pretty ironic that a company that makes software, ..... is held in such distain by photographers.I think you need to separate people's dislike of Adobe's practices from the software they produce.
It only requires authentication every 90 daysDoes it indicate how long to go before the next authentication ? Can you pre-empt routine authentication if you're expecting to be away from the net for an extended period of time ?
But at least they are thinking of these edge cases.They need to. I'd be livid if I'd paid in advance for a service that was unexpectedly withdrawn from me.
So here is how my brain works.....if I have to pay double I want something that is twice as good......
Add me to non-core extremely pissssssed users who feel totally disrespected, abused and gouged. Here's to hoping that others like Nik, Topaz, Corel or whoever move in quickly to fill the void these geniuses are leaving.
Bingo. So now Adobe is suddenly going to start regularly summiting the peak of a perceived-value mountain that it made itself? They're going to regularly release bug-free updates that their captive-in-the-cloud customers will find useful and worthy of the increased price?
Adobe essentially is ringing the dinner bell for third-party developers to fill the hole that it is digging for itself.
Place your bets, folks, on how many Adobe engineers will jump ship and start those third-party companies.I wouldn't bet a penny. I'm sure the developers are well enough briefed to realise that they'll be on the gravy train with CC & AMC.
It will also have an effect on the third-party plugin developers. Presumably most plug-ins are sold to those who will not be willing to pony up the monthly fee to keep the editor running.I pretty much agree with Jeff about the anti-trust issues but it is clear that the third party developers would have standing in court if Adobe foreclosed their option to develop new or insure compatibility of existing applications for the CC programs. That being said, it's likely that such developers are pretty small companies. The CC makes eminent sense for those who use the suite of programs but less so for those of us who don't. I'm happy to continue using Dreamweaver CS4 to maintain my little website and certainly could not justify moving up to the entire suite to access a new version that I use maybe only once a month. I'm also wondering what 'new' enhancements to PS would make it worthwhile to subscribe. For my purposes, CS6 is just fine.
And how about the video and book tutorial producers. They will see a significant potential market dry up, while being forced to do a lot of maintenance work on existing material for the intermediate new features that do not really warrant a fully new tutorial edition.
Cheers,
Bart
As far as the economics of the CC for Adobe, actually, it's been the success of the whole subscription model (and the technical difficulty in doing dual application versioning for subscription & perpetual licenses) that have driven Adobe toward doing this. Yes, it will alienate some users who reject the whole "cloud" thingie...which I understand (assuming the rejection is made based on real facts and not FUD).
As a book author, my life just way more complicated because I can't write for a fixed target with a known lifecycle...now it's a moving target that will be tough to do for paper based publishing (easier and perhaps better done with ebooks).
I'm also kinda melancholy about the whole change to the old model...as a long term alpha/beta tester, I always looked forward to a new dev cycle and seeing what the engineers came up with (and hammered on them to fix stuff). But this new model allows a freedom and flexibility that will, I think, lead to more rapid advances with new features on a more regular basis. But I'll miss the old way...
Existing CS3, CS4 CS5 and CS6 licence holders the fee is $9.99 per month - Photoshop CC only.
I would like to be able to download the software from US servers in dollars with the option to pay 12 months in advance at a slightly reduced rate - Adobe UK cannot offer this, just enquired.
http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotcom/2013/05/answering-your-questions-about-photoshop-cc.html
Clearly, it seems that Adobe is not listening to its customer base. Nor to its network of power users (you). Nor to the secondary market (ecosystem) that made Photoshop so successful (books, lessons, seminars, plug-ins development, sales of tools...)
Jeff,
I have a very good understanding of this business model. It works for corporations, mostly doesn't for isolated users.
I will personally not purchase software on a rental basis and a majority of photographers will take the same decision.
This Adobe decision is simply unacceptable.
I am really pissed because it means I will have to spend tens of hours learning how to use an alternative that will probably not be as good. I am very disappointed that the money I invested in Adobe product over the years resulted in so little interest by Adobe decision makers into my needs as a customer.
This, combined with the decision of Apple to speed up the rate of upgrade of new OS releases makes the Abobe/Apple combination a no go for photography moving forward. The odds that a valid alternative for PS show up quickly is much higher in the Windows world.
I am incredibly pissssssed. And I am weighting my words here.
Cheers,
Bernard
1. Is that your professional legal opinion? Anti-trust laws exist to protect against the creation of a monopoly and the abuse thereof. It could be argued Adobe has a monopoly on certain technologies. It could further be argued that Adobe by removing the most common method of purchase and ownership, is abusing their position in the marketplace. It could be argued their "cloud" method of activation and requiring an internet connection of sufficient quality alienates a good portion of the world (including many parts of our own country who live in rural areas without internet) without sufficient internet, and even if they allowed phone validation they'd be at a professional, creative, and financial disadvantage in obtaining fair access to the technology they're paying for.. but not receiving. Geez dude, I could write argument after argument from now till the upcoming court date. If I can do it don't you think there are Adobe haters and others out there already planning the same?
And let's keep in mind that anti-trust suits can be more/less successful based on content depending on which country's laws are being applied. Different countries not only have different requirements, but also different heights for the bar to validate the requirements.e Adobe is an international product. Losing such a case in the EU, Asia, or other large marketplace might or might not give them sufficient reason to standardize/revise their policies.
2. FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Fun? No sir. Reasonable and prudent as a consumer who has observed tech companies take advantage of the public time and again? Yes, it is. Lecturing me on my motivations which you know nothing about: it might be fun for you but it's not doing anyone any favours.
Reality? Seriously? The head in the sand approach doesn't benefit anyone. Adobe isn't innocent of questionable business practices. They've committed, and continue to commit, some surprisingly serious practices which leads me to believe they're not at all past finding a way to shut off activations at some point. Or that the language of our current licenses couldn't already be twisted/argued to this end. And we won't know until they decide to do it and we hear their defence in the courtrooms.
The truth is, money is the most common motivator for poor business behaviour. Many argue that without this motivation we wouldn't have wars. A corporation exists only to enrich their shareholders and when push comes to shove there are very few if any limits they'll stoop to. Only our laws and a vigilant (and I dare say skeptical) public who isn't afraid to ask questions keeps them in check. Perhaps it's more damaging when fanboys of certain corporations try to suppress such questioning.
I can't justify $50/month for access to software I don't use. I personally have no issue with the business model, but the price point isn't worth it (for me).
With apologies, and desiring no controversy, and without the subscription contract to review, there are at least 3 vulnerabilities in Adobe's Cloud. The Microsoft Explorer worldwide litigation is an instructive example of the power of anti-trust regulation and statutory prohibitions.
#1. Bundling/Tying
#2 Vertical Integration
#3. Restricting access to Add on/Accessory providers.
Assuming that Adobe legally vetted its plan, just as MS did with Explorer, we'll have to wait for full disclosure of the terms. At this point, the mere announcement seems destructive of middle men like B & H or even college book stores that inventory Adobe software.
There's no need for any blow torching here. It's going to be academically interesting to see how they legally navigate the the treacherous forests of litigation firms that see a hapless fat cow like Adobe capable of paying treble damages plus millions in plaintiff's attorney fees embarking on such a risky trek.
Thanks for the indulgence
Ken Richmond
My view....this is primarilyfinancial cash flow driven.
Unfortunately, I believe the history of anti-trust indicates that it is much less powerful than we would like to believe, companies can drive trucks through it before it comes back to bite them, and biting them costs a fortune in well-organized litigation. The three potential sources of violation you mention would need to survive various hurdles in terms of validating their impact on reducing competition to a point that violates the law. I wouldn't be too hopeful of seeing this happen. I think it will be more likely the market place that will determine the fate of this business model.Adobe doesn't have nearly the deep pockets that Microsoft and Google have and both them were subject to pretty significant litigation which they had to settle. I suspect that if there is any anti-trust, it will take place in Europe which is far more friendly to such legal action compared to the US. Adobe has a decent cash flow but at present is probably overvalued by about 20%. The move to the CC is one way to strengthen cash flow and while we may not like it, the bottom line is the company has a responsibility to its shareholders above all
It may be, but there may be other motivations for it. They are well aware of the financial risks they are taking introducing this model. There is a risk that it could well impair their cash flow for quite some time. There's no question that as of now it is the core of their business strategy going forward and they are making a long-term bet that it will eventually succeed. Time will tell. If anything, they will need to work all the more assiduously to keep it feature-rich so that existing users will hang-in and new ones will buy-in.
So, do the applications still live on my machine?
Yes. The cloud part is for uploading files and syncing if you so desire and for getting the software onto your machine. After you install it, it's physically there just like your current version.The big 'BUT' is that Adobe can inactivate the software if you decide at some future time to stop your subscription. Just to clarify.
The big 'BUT' is that Adobe can inactivate the software if you decide at some future time to stop your subscription. Just to clarify.
Yes. The cloud part is for uploading files and syncing if you so desire and for getting the software onto your machine. After you install it, it's physically there just like your current version.
Could they have done the same in terms of not activating a non cloud version?
I may be wrong but I think Photoshop makes a call about activation on a regular bases, so I assume that IF adobe wanted to inactivate that serial number, they could have done this already.I've never seen that happen on my Windows machines here.
Wouldn't that be a breach of contract? Having purchased a perpetual license should mean just that, perpetual.
A subscription licence on the other hand will be deactivated pretty quickly after the payments are interrupted. That's not a question but a given.
Early in this thread Jeff Schewe had quoted pricing:
- Special pricing for existing customers
CS3 and later get Complete for $29.99
CS6 customers get Complete for $19.99
CS3 and later get Single App for $9.99
All offers require annual commitment
I get the following from this Adobe link: http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/buying-guide.html
Single Ap will be 19.99 per month.
So even just PS alone will be $240 per year.
Ken
I am undoubtedly unaware of the complexity involved, but it escapes me why a mixed model (subscription or perpetual license) is not feasible, particularly for PS CS6 license holders who might wish to upgrade for putative feature enhancements. Once you are in the new subscription system, there does not seem to be a way to opt out and still retain the use of the software. You have nothing, whereas paying for a license allows you to make use of the program as long as you might wish to. This is all very regrettable. Brave new world.
Could they have done the same in terms of not activating a non cloud version? I may be wrong but I think Photoshop makes a call about activation on a regular bases, so I assume that IF adobe wanted to inactivate that serial number, they could have done this already.I'm not sure if it does or not. I know MS Windows makes an initial call following installation to make sure it is legitimate (a message box pops up) but I don't think there are subsequent calls. For those of us who purchased on-line directly from Adobe, you have access to all of your products on line. I just did a new computer build a couple of weeks ago (old machine was too noisy) and it was pretty straight forward downloading LR4 and PS CS6. I did have to input two sets of serial numbers for each program given that the current versions were upgrades and Adobe wanted proof that I knew the serial numbers of LR3 and PS CS5 as well. There's no reason for PS to make multiple calls for activation since Adobe already records the installation (and also when you remove the program through the normal Windows manner)
I know MS Windows makes an initial call following installation to make sure it is legitimate (a message box pops up) but I don't think there are subsequent calls.There can be if you're adding some features and updates. You have to download an authentication application. It will then only allow downloads to authentic copies of Windows.
Do you mean that, as a professional photographer, it wouldn't be worth more than £10 per month to you to use PS Elements + ACR?
I wonder how easy it will be to turn it on and turn it off. (Netflix which is a monthly fee is trivial to turn on and off. I do that often when on a photo shoot.) We shall see.In theory the 'buy it for a month' model might be great for some users, even at the higher rate.
You can continue to run which ever versions of the software that you want until YOU are ready to upgrade. You can continue using your current version of the product for one full year after the subsequent version is released.
I find it interesting when I used the term FUD to describe Jeff Schewe's arguments for why the OEM RAW manufacturers must provide DNG output (even though it was no benefit to them). He we quite insulted that his arguments were "attacked" that way.
Well...now with the shoe on the other foot, it appears he has taken the term on as his own. It is surprising how flexible his stories are. One day you full of 'doode' for your idea or words and the next, Jeff has discovered/invented/created this new concept or method that all show follow. (For example, follow his dissertations on PPI for printing and functionality or printer interpolation....it is an interesting insight into the supposed "guru")
Love the double-speak there. Use current versions as long as you want as long as it's a year or less.
I don't understand what you are saying. As far as I know you can keep using CS5 as long as it will run on your machine. (I have old versions of photoshops on my old laptop--they work just fine.)
Did I miss the point you are making?
thanks
ed
To be honest I was surprised by his response. And I understand he might hold allegiances with Adobe in one capacity or the other so it's not my intention to upset him or anyone else. But as adults we should deal in the reality of the situation and that means we should expect lawsuits on one side and poor business behaviour on the other.
Heck, Adobe just bought up NIK and sources tell me they've after most major plug-ins so in their pursuit to make this subscription thing fly with their customer base. It would be one thing to keep using CS6 and hold out on CS7 for a generation or two, but to find our your most popular plug-in's can't be owned either, that Adobe bought them and they're now part of their subscription.. It should be obvious Adobe has a monopoly at least in the photographic market, and buying up the smaller more popular programs to include in their base product or to encourage assimilation in their new subscription services is pretty much on par for the business world when you're trying to force your customer base into an unpopular position. It doesn't take a MBA grad to see exactly what they're doing and to know with so much money at stake they'll do whatever they think they can get away with.. and some. and I say "and some" because corporations routinely do things THEY KNOW will get them sued and they know they will lose, as a calculated business cost.
I don't understand what you are saying. As far as I know you can keep using CS5 as long as it will run on your machine. (I have old versions of photoshops on my old laptop--they work just fine.)If your question was in reference to my comment about proprietary formats, I wasn't speaking about the immediate future, but about one when your copy of CS5 or CS6 no longer works with your current machines. Yes, if you take good care of it, you might be able to keep a current computer running for quite some time, but sooner or later, the software will be too old to run on new computers. Can you still run your PowerPC apps? Certainly not on any Mac built in the last couple of years. Many people trusted their future with Adobe, and the message that was sent yesterday is that the status quo is not to be counted on. I'm sure that as long as Adobe is around, you will be fine, but will you be willing to pay the price for accessing your content that you locked into their format?
Did I miss the point you are making?
thanks
ed
My point is that if CS5 was a CC product you could longer be using it. That is the future with CC.
Can you still run your PowerPC apps? Certainly not on any Mac built in the last couple of years.
Yes, it's my option for what's it's worth, I didn't pass the bar (have you) so it's not my "professional legal opinion" but I've been exposed to enough FTC actions to have a pretty good understanding of the wat the FTC views the marketplace. Adobe has an enviable market share, but it doesn't have a monopoly in the legal sense. Look at all the real competitors out there for Adobe products...GIMP is free, Corel makes a competitor, there are a lot of niche image editors and more every day. There's direct competition with Capture One and all the camera makers software. You would have a very hard time claiming that Adobe's large market share is monopoly...they just make Photoshop which so many people use. They don't engage in any price fixing or collusion with competitors. Adobe's marketshare ain't illegal...
I find it pretty ironic that a company that makes software, which is in fact intellectual property that is copyrighted much like the copyright owned by photographers work is held in such distain by photographers. Adobe creates Photoshop and is entitled to license the use of their software any way they want to–that's a guarantee offered by copyright. Look at the original copyrights in the US Constitution–they are the only real "rights" granted (all other rights were added by amendment).
So, Adobe decides they want to change the model of how they license their copyrighted intellectual property. It's their right under the Constitution just as it's our right as photographers to dictate how we license our photos to clients. Yes, a client that you used to sign over all your rights to (or signed a work for hire) might be pissed off when you tell them that no, you are no longer gonna hand over the copyright and expect to be paid on a use basis for limited time. But doing that ain't illegal, is it?
I understand that people aren't happy with the changes...but it's silly to claim there's some sort of antitrust action possible. You go right ahead and find an attorney willing to file suit on your behalf (and take your money)...we'll see how far that will get ya.
Steve - Adobe has patents on their intellectual property. Patents are, in an important sense, intentionally created "legal monopolies" for reasons I needn't bore you with - you likely know. They cannot be charged for anti-trust violations by holding their legal monopoly rights. The way in which they choose to market their intellectual property is a matter of free choice. They can rent it, or they can sell perpetual licenses to it, or they can do both. There are no laws against this. You would be very hard-put to prove in a court of law why renting software frustrates the benefits to be achieved from competition as opposed to selling perpetual licenses to it. If any one could win that case, perhaps outfits such as Lynda.com would have to change their business model, because they rent access to tutorials rather than selling you copies of the product for your perpetual reference. You can be well-assured that Adobe has a whole legal department doing nothing else but advising senior management on how to keep out of trouble. You would have great difficulty proving in a court of law that the one business model or the other constitutes the kind of abuse of a dominant market position that would be unambiguous enough to constitute an anti-trust violation. If anything, this new business model invites the development of competition and a challenge to revenue on a scale they haven't seen to date. This is business risk that I know for a fact they clearly understand.If you can only see one vulnerability then you aren't looking hard enough.
The one potential vulnerability they MAY - but not likely - have is through the consequences of stopping to pay the rent. One loses access to software on which one depended for creating and amending images. It would prevent people from reverting to those photographs and revising them if they contained code that their last installed perpetual license version no longer recognized. But even that, as immoral as it would be, may not be a legally determinate abuse of a monopoly position, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a court that they ever made commitments to the perpetual usability of their software, and that is something no software vendor in his or her right mind would ever do, because it would frustrate the benefits of technological change by creating the need for an infinite change of backward compatibility that no-one guarantees - no-one.
Devil's Advocate here.
People line up to pay $100+ a month for a freaking silly iPhone to gossip and watch Youtube videosl, but grouse about paying $50/month for one of the cores of their professional businesses. It's all how you look at it. Switch to Net10, subscribe to CC, and you'll still be dollars ahead.
This is really a more complicated issue than Jeff presents it and one only needs to look at those companies supporting the Senate bill (Amazon and most other major Internet retailers). This will severely disadvantage the smaller retailers who will now have to institute complex software packages to collect and disburse sales taxes in the states that they don't have a physical presence.
Adobe just bought up NIKCan I be the second person to correct you on this; Google bought NIK, NOT Adobe.
I do understand the issue. We're all really pissed that Adobe is now doing what everybody else is doing and the steam is venting. That's the issue.
Two months down the road, almost everybody here will be subscribed to CC, and the wounds will slowly heal. And I bet Adobe will continue to supply with new, useful stuff. And any viable alternative will be a long time coming. That's the reality we're going to see.
Thank you for the clarity. I'm assuming then that I should be able to work locally, off line for extended periods of time as long as I'm paid up.
Must say, I don't like the idea much, though. Has anything been said about Lightroom going cloud only?
Perhaps this will provide a new space in the market for smaller companies to capture significant market share with similar products. I've been meaning to test others available & now have impetus to do so.
It also now makes me rethink the wisdom of my "convert to DNG on import" as a default.
Rand
I do understand the issue. We're all really pissed that Adobe is now doing what everybody else is doing and the steam is venting. That's the issue.
Two months down the road, almost everybody here will be subscribed to CC, and the wounds will slowly heal. And I bet Adobe will continue to supply with new, useful stuff. And any viable alternative will be a long time coming. That's the reality we're going to see.
I pretty much agree with Jeff about the anti-trust issues but it is clear that the third party developers would have standing in court if Adobe foreclosed their option to develop new or insure compatibility of existing applications for the CC programs. That being said, it's likely that such developers are pretty small companies. The CC makes eminent sense for those who use the suite of programs but less so for those of us who don't. I'm happy to continue using Dreamweaver CS4 to maintain my little website and certainly could not justify moving up to the entire suite to access a new version that I use maybe only once a month. I'm also wondering what 'new' enhancements to PS would make it worthwhile to subscribe. For my purposes, CS6 is just fine.
"if mother had balls she'd be the dad." <g>
Yes, that's the future of subscriptions for software, just like we use cell phone's, ISP providers, magazines or video services. You stop paying, you stop getting.
Adobe doesn't have nearly the deep pockets that Microsoft and Google have and both them were subject to pretty significant litigation which they had to settle. I suspect that if there is any anti-trust, it will take place in Europe which is far more friendly to such legal action compared to the US. Adobe has a decent cash flow but at present is probably overvalued by about 20%. The move to the CC is one way to strengthen cash flow and while we may not like it, the bottom line is the company has a responsibility to its shareholders above all
But Andrew....I still have the old copies of the magazine.
It is interesting that Mr. Schewe makes a big FUD case on losing the ability to process proprietary RAW in the future (promoting Adobe's DNG strategy), but does not see how Adobe's subscription strategy will subject us to a similar risk to our processed images.
The big 'BUT' is that Adobe can inactivate the software if you decide at some future time to stop your subscription. Just to clarify.
To be honest I was surprised by his response. And I understand he might hold allegiances with Adobe in one capacity or the other so it's not my intention to upset him or anyone else. But as adults we should deal in the reality of the situation and that means we should expect lawsuits on one side and poor business behaviour on the other.
Heck, Adobe just bought up NIK and sources tell me they've after most major plug-ins so in their pursuit to make this subscription thing fly with their customer base. It would be one thing to keep using CS6 and hold out on CS7 for a generation or two, but to find our your most popular plug-in's can't be owned either, that Adobe bought them and they're now part of their subscription.. It should be obvious Adobe has a monopoly at least in the photographic market, and buying up the smaller more popular programs to include in their base product or to encourage assimilation in their new subscription services is pretty much on par for the business world when you're trying to force your customer base into an unpopular position. It doesn't take a MBA grad to see exactly what they're doing and to know with so much money at stake they'll do whatever they think they can get away with.. and some. and I say "and some" because corporations routinely do things THEY KNOW will get them sued and they know they will lose, as a calculated business cost.
Which is just one kind of subscription. You can't say the same for the subscription for cable can you? Or phone, IP? Isn't the software you're using to write posts here in a way part of a cloud and subscription and stops working for you the second you stop paying that subscription (for internet?). Adobe isn't taking away the files you create so the move to phone analogy doesn't wash.
Devil's Advocate here.
People line up to pay $100+ a month for a freaking silly iPhone to gossip and watch Youtube videosl, but grouse about paying $50/month for one of the cores of their professional businesses. It's all how you look at it. Switch to Net10, subscribe to CC, and you'll still be dollars ahead.
Thought I covered some of those.And you can go from Adobe to someone else's software. You can't re-use the stuff you didn't see from your cable subscription last month (DVR not withstanding).
Cable - I can go from Time Warner to Local phone provide (ATT, Verizon). I can get service via phone.
Phone-talked about that...numbers a portable.So are TIFFs. The phone is the phone. What is it without a subscription plan? It's a little computer but it's not a phone. You stop paying Sprint, you stop getting phone service. The numbers on that phone or the phone itself is totally different. That's hardware.
Write Posts - IE, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, multiple phone apps.Which are useful to do what if you don't pay the subscription to get onto the web? There IS software back there allowing you to do that. And the software stops working when you stop paying your ISP's subscription. Just like HBO stops when you don't pay the cable bill. What good is Safari if you can't use it to access the data on the web you subscribe to?
You sound like you really don't fully understand the whole issue. According to Wiki, Rentier Capitalism is a term currently used to describe economic practices of parasitic monopolization of access to any (physical, financial, intellectual, etc.) kind of property and gaining significant amount of profit without contribution to society. Let me put it in the simplest term: this whole Adobe shit is about renter vs rentier. Adobe "believes" it is a monopoly and behaves as a such. Innovation? Forget about it. Improvements? Forget about it. What would you say if Microsoft or Apple started to charge you some monthly fee for Windows or Mac OS?
Consider the following scenario:
At this point, Adobe is giving him one year to make the following choice: spend thousands of dollars upgrading his computer or abandon Adobe CC entirely and potentially lose access to all his files.
This is an effort to save the small retailers. I myself lose at least 2 or 3 camera sales a week to someone who spends my employees time deciding what camera to buy, looking at and playing with my demo's including sometimes shooting cards, only to leave saying "they'll think about it". In reality they are going to buy it online to save the sales tax. So it's bad enough I lose the sale because I can't compete on a level playing field, it's like pouring salt into a wound because I'm the showroom for B&H and the like with no compensation. (Personally I think Canon, Nikon and others should recognize this and offer me lower prices and surcharge them. Of course that's never going to happen) Forcing them to collect sales tax and I can then compete close enough on price I could close most of those sales, and actually may have a chance at surviving.
Anyone who meets the $1m year internet sales number can easily afford the software and systems to collect and remit the tax, and in fact the bill requires the states to furnish the software to the retailers.
As far as unfair taxation, the issue is states losing revenue because some of their residents are avoiding taxes this way. They owe it, and it isn't fair to the other residents who pay it. Whether sales tax in general is "fair" is another discussion, but what isn't fair is some not paying their share. The states have no way to police or enforce this.
Maybe you are looking too hard.
I should be more banal?
Are you sure Adobe forces them to upgrade? As long as one pays the subscription, why shouldn’t they be able to use that locally installed (older) version so they don't have to hurry out and buy a new computer? Are you sure there is this mandatory upgrade process? It doesn't make sense as long as you pay for the subscription, you should be able to use whatever 'version' or build you wish.A previous post had a quote from Adobe that the subscribers have 1 year to upgrade. I have not independently verified this, however.
A previous post had a quote from Adobe that the subscribers have 1 year to upgrade. I have not independently verified this, however.
And you can go from Adobe to someone else's software. You can't re-use the stuff you didn't see from your cable subscription last month (DVR not withstanding).
So are TIFFs. The phone is the phone. What is it without a subscription plan? It's a little computer but it's not a phone. You stop paying Sprint, you stop getting phone service. The numbers on that phone or the phone itself is totally different. That's hardware.
Which are useful to do what if you don't pay the subscription to get onto the web? There IS software back there allowing you to do that. And the software stops working when you stop paying your ISP's subscription. Just like HBO stops when you don't pay the cable bill. What good is Safari if you can't use it to access the data on the web you subscribe to?
It is even worse if we consider Lightroom (which is available separately, but available currently CC). If the CC sub ends, so does LR....where most of the work product is not stored or saved as tiff or jpeg. What a disaster that would be...!!
I'm not sure where that came from but the CC FAQ seems to imply otherwise:
Myth #5: I will be forced to always run the latest version of the software
You are not forced to upgrade. You can continue to run which ever versions of the software that you want until YOU are ready to upgrade. This is crucial for workflows that involve working with clients or vendors that may not be on the latest versions of the software. You can continue using your current version of the product for one full year after the subsequent version is released.
I'm not sure where that came from but the CC FAQ seems to imply otherwise:
Excellent, thanks. So nix that last scenario, no forced updates. Keep the old hardware.I hope that's the case, but we seem to have conflicting information from Adobe (not surprising given the scope of this change). Hopefully, they'll be able to clear it up. I really can't see Adobe FORCING such an update as that really does cross the boundaries into monopolistic behavior.
The other examples are examples of fluid, on-going access to new material (TV, Cable, phone/text activity) or stored material (movies, internet sites, TV replays, social media). Continued access to these is a choice we can make and start/stop easily at our will.
This is an effort to save the small retailers.
I hope that's the case, but we seem to have conflicting information from Adobe (not surprising given the scope of this change). Hopefully, they'll be able to clear it up. I really can't see Adobe FORCING such an update as that really does cross the boundaries into monopolistic behavior.
We may suffer workflow inconveniences and the loss of unreadable edits if what we use next is incompatible with the latest version of LR in which the file was worked. That would be bad, but not necessarily a disaster.I wonder if Phase One, DXO or ACDSee are working on a migration tool ?
It IS the case:Yes, I've seen that. Unfortunately, there is another Adobe FAQ (of sorts) that conflicts with this...
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.html
As a Creative Cloud member, am I required to install an upgrade to a desktop application when it becomes available?
No. You are not required to install any new version of the desktop applications available in Creative Cloud. You can continue using your current version of the product as long as you have an active membership. You have flexibility on when you install a new release to take advantage of new product features, if you choose to do so.
Yes, I've seen that. Unfortunately, there is another Adobe FAQ (of sorts) that conflicts with this...
http://blogs.adobe.com/dreamweaver/2013/03/5-myths-about-adobe-creative-cloud.html (http://blogs.adobe.com/dreamweaver/2013/03/5-myths-about-adobe-creative-cloud.html)
Hold on. We still have LR as a perpetual license product. We don't know, if/when that status will be changed.I don't think you could find a wagering partner that would be willing to bet that Adobe will ultimately not consolidate their approach and treat LR the same way as the rest of CS. Just look at John Nack's blog, and his stating that with the advent of CC that perpetual licensing was destined to remain a parallel option to subscription. He's trying to back off of being called for that about face now, but it is obvious that they want to force their customer's hand, but head fake until they actually make their move.
That link seems equally clear:
Myth #5: I will be forced to always run the latest version of the software.
You are not forced to upgrade.
Hold on. We still have LR as a perpetual license product. We don't know, if/when that status will be changed. BUT, LR does preserve our original raw files in their raw format, or in DNG or in both depending on how we format our LR arrangements. We will always be able to open our original raw files - and even worked ones with any version of LR or other software that recognizes the raw format and perhaps the XMP metadata if we edited using that. So even IF LR were to become a rented service to which we choose not to subscribe, it's not clear to me that our raw files would become inaccessible. We may suffer workflow inconveniences and the loss of unreadable edits if what we use next is incompatible with the latest version of LR in which the file was worked. That would be bad, but not necessarily a disaster.
Endless paying for something you will never truely own? Sounds like a Wall Street wet dream.
What are they going to call it, the "got you by the package" package?
Somebody in marketing needs to be fired.
The tried and true pay once model has worked well for decades, and I see this as little more than a ploy to stretch profits across the 18-24 month version cycle.
Even if I were to accept this model, there is no way I would use it all year, I would just use my older (locally installed) versions for the bulk of my work, and maybe use the Cloud version once in a while... So Adobe will loose my money 90% of the time.
I just hope this drives more options from other vendors, as businesses refuse to budget in this fee based model.
Subscription based billing leads to unfinished/mediocre software releases with the classic “premium service” upgrades to follow soon afterward. Look what happen to video games… I haven’t touched my Xbox in almost a year because now the software developers nickel & dime you for every little add on under the sun. 14 year olds will put up with that, but not businesses already struggling to make ends meet.
Apparently Adobe is now being run by Mayor Carmine De Pasto.
Sorry, Mark...thought I made it clear that LR was available as perpetual license...but was anticipating problems if it became ONLY CC...or if someone was using it under CC license, which ended and could not then get a perpetual license.
The problem I see is not relative to RAWs. They are unchanged.
Don't know about your workflow, but if you do most/all of your processing, printing, emailing, website update (Smugmug, Flickr, Zenfolio, etc) you probably have rendered tiffs or jpegs, but you have probably not saved them. Anytime you need to do something, you just need to recreate it and print/send it. All the LR instructions of what changes you made are in XMP (catalog and/or file). Without a working copy of LR available, all your development work is lost.
In addition, without the catalog, any organizational structures, such as collections are also gone.
I guess what I was trying to point out is LR as subscription only has more concerns than PS. At least with PS, when you save you will create a file. With LR, no such file exists, unless you work outside the workflow that, I believe, LR was designed for.
In Europe, the rates are even higher, as has been pointed out above, even for the English language version. This whole matter is very disappointing and alienating.
I have Photoshop CS6, standard version (not the extended). If I go to the cloud as an individual and want only Photoshop CC, it seemed to me that the $9.99/month promotion would obtain for a year, followed by an increase to the $19.99/month cost.That all looks right. You can certainly see the business logic.
The Adobe chat guy started by saying that was so, but then said I would have to get the $29.99/month plan, and then go to an increase from that after a year.
Does anybody here know for sure?
Maybe in Europe VAT needs to be factored in - are the European prices more than 20% greater than the US prices?Adobe quote £17.58/month inc vat for a single app = $27.22 at today's exchange rate
I'm not clear on what happens after you cancel a subscription. IF it leaves you with a working copy but stops all future enhancements it will be much better received in the marketplace. If it turns off and you're not able to use it, forcing you back to CS6 then it will likely open the market for competition.
JRS, my workflow is this: I ingest the images from the camera card to folders bespoke per subject on my hard-drive, which is backed-up with Time Machine. And those remain "forever". I import them into the LR catalog using the option to leave them where they are. All that does is create a catalog "shortcut" and a thumbnail in LR for reviewing the images and keeping them organized within LR. Whatever happens to LR, the original raw files are still present and properly organized in my hard-drive. So if LR disappeared tomorrow, the images and their organization are unaffected. To process the images, I don't DNG them; I keep the OEM raw format and copy all changes to XMP sidecars. Those sidecars remain as permanent files with their corresponding images on my drive. ANY application that can, or at some time in the future can be made to read that XMP data will be able to use it. So yes, loosing LR for this function may be problematic, but not necessarily a train-smash. And once I've printed the photos I consider keepers that deserve printing, realistcally how often will I want to come back to how many of those files in the future? I'll worry about LR if and when the time comes. For now I'm pretty relaxed about it. There are things in life to lose sleep over but this isn't one of them - yet.
An interesting view from CD Tobie:
http://cdtobie.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/adobe-angst-and-the-creative-cloud/
To be honest I was surprised by his response. And I understand he might hold allegiances with Adobe in one capacity or the other so it's not my intention to upset him or anyone else. But as adults we should deal in the reality of the situation and that means we should expect lawsuits on one side and poor business behaviour on the other.
An interesting view from CD Tobie:Yep, and a more interesting rebuttal ! Check the website again...
http://cdtobie.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/adobe-angst-and-the-creative-cloud/
The person you wrote this to is somebody who I ignore on LuLa, so I won't bother to respond to his bullshit, however, regarding this and my original response to YOU however, I will.
As for why I defend Adobe? Because, on this forum, they can't defend themselves...but I can. So, I do. What are my motives? I have a lot of friends at Adobe. I know the people of Adobe very well. I've watched as they have bent over backwards over the years to try to do the "right thing" and have a bunch of yahoos sniping from the sidelines spouting FUD, bullshit and whatever. So, yes, I like to set the records straight. If that pisses you off, screw you, ya know?
If you want to discuss the the facts (not wild speculations), I'm all in...otherwise, move on, find someplace else to hang your hat.
...
As for why I defend Adobe? Because, on this forum, they can't defend themselves...but I can. So, I do. What are my motives? I have a lot of friends at Adobe. I know the people of Adobe very well. I've watched as they have bent over backwards over the years to try to do the "right thing" and have a bunch of yahoos sniping from the sidelines spouting FUD, bullshit and whatever. So, yes, I like to set the records straight. If that pisses you off, screw you, ya know?
If you want to discuss the the facts (not wild speculations), I'm all in...otherwise, move on, find someplace else to hang your hat.
I am thinking of starting a Facebook page focused on raising awareness about this issue...
Any idea on how to call it?
Cheers,
Bernard
But I must say I'm disappointed that you not seems see anything bad about this move for a lot of users... You will earn a lot more respect if you in this situation use your authority to push Adobe in a better direction to support many of your own customers...
Trying to maintain both a subscription model AND a perpetual model is unsustainable...engineering had all sorts of problems with the recent 13.1/13.0.4 updates and the engineering staff gave up their holidays to pitch in and fix them.
Surely for the vast majority of us this just comes down to price. If Adobe charged $20 a year everyone would be blissfully happy. If they charged $100 a month, almost nobody would subscribe. So it's mainly a price thing. Do you agree?
Jim
Surely for the vast majority of us this just comes down to price. If Adobe charged $20 a year everyone would be blissfully happy. If they charged $100 a month, almost nobody would subscribe. So it's mainly a price thing. Do you agree?
Jim
...
As I said, I think Adobe is doing the right thing for Adobe. Yes, I understand a lot of people are pissed–I get it. Adobe didn't do this simply to piss of customers. ....
...Just understand that it's highly unlikely that Adobe will back down from the paradigm shift. So far this new models has just been too successful for Adobe–even if it does piss of some people. You really can't please all the people all the time, foolish to even try :~)
Jeff Schewe is a Photoshop Guru’s Guru. He’s on the inside of the development and testing of Photoshop and has helped guide and direct many features since Photoshop 4.0. Short of some of the Photoshop engineers, there’s probably not many people who knows Photoshop like Jeff.
As an indication of his skills and knowledge of fine art printing, he has been named an Epson Stylus Pro. He is a past Apple Master of the Medium and has been inducted into the Photoshop Hall of Fame. He speaks regularly at Photoshop World.
He is the coauthor of Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS5 and Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom (along with the late Bruce Fraser) and is also coauthoring a book with Martin Evening titled Photoshop For Photographers: The Ultimate Workshop.
Jeff has a variety of video tutorials available with Michael Reichmann of the Luminious Landscape on digital printing, Camera Raw and Adobe Photoshop Lightroom.
No I don't. Of course price matters, but there may also be some workflow implications for some people down the road.
As for why I defend Adobe? Because, on this forum, they can't defend themselves...but I can. So, I do. What are my motives? I have a lot of friends at Adobe. I know the people of Adobe very well. I've watched as they have bent over backwards over the years to try to do the "right thing" and have a bunch of yahoos sniping from the sidelines spouting FUD, bullshit and whatever. So, yes, I like to set the records straight. If that pisses you off, screw you, ya know?
If you want to discuss the the facts (not wild speculations), I'm all in...otherwise, move on, find someplace else to hang your hat.
Do you see Adobe going CC with Lightroom?
I really don't know...the fact is, it's Adobe's only App Store app and that changes the nature of the app and updates. Also, since Adobe decided to make the license cross platform it broke the Adobe mold–no activation! So it would be a LOT of work to turn LR into an activation type of registration. Also, considering the price point I don't think it's a good ROI.
I do think that there may be room for some new registration options-matbe a Photoshop/LR combo. But don't quote me on that, I'm just speculating. So, bottom line, I doubt it but things could change.
And regarding your claim of not having customers? --- http://www.schewephoto.com :
You seem to suffer from the same illness as Adobe: a total disregard to your customer base.
Jeff,
Do you see Adobe going CC with Lightroom?
Rand
Surely for the vast majority of us this just comes down to price. If Adobe charged $20 a year everyone would be blissfully happy. If they charged $100 a month, almost nobody would subscribe. So it's mainly a price thing. Do you agree?
- I just don't buy the proposition that the rental model is mandatory for technical reasons because of the way Adobe wants to roll out more frequent updates.
Do you understand the implications of revenue recognition relating to generally accepted accounting practices here in the USA? Google it...it starts with Enron...it means that based on the way Adobe had previously set up it's accounting for R&D for Photoshop (and other apps), once a product version was shipped, after the end of the quarter that the product shipped, Adobe was specifically precluded from adding any new features, only bug and maintenance fixes.
With the perpetual license model, Adobe was precluded (meaning that they literally could not) add any new features to the perpetual version.
Now, with the subscription model, Adobe was able to change the way that they accounted for R&D...since the subscription is an on going pay/time model, Adobe is now able to create and add new features and release them when they are ready without delaying the features till the next major version.
The problem (highlighted by the 13.1/13.0.4 technical issues) is that keeping a dual licensing model alive proved to be impossible, so they dropped the perpetual license model so they could go all in on the subscription model.
Jeeesh, I really feel embarrassed by all the photographers who completely and totally misunderstand intellectual property and copyrights. You buy Photoshop? You don't own Photoshop, you own the right to use Photoshop for either a limited period of time or an unlimited period of time. Both transaction are the same principal. The only difference is with a subscription you lose the right to use after your subscription expires. With a perpetual license, it doesn't expire until such time as you no longer have a computer it will run on.
The only difference is with a subscription you lose the right to use after your subscription expires. With a perpetual license, it doesn't expire until such time as you no longer have a computer it will run on.
Right... and the practical difference between ownership and right to use for an unlimited amount of time is?
All this stuff about buy vs rent is a distraction...whether you pay as you go or pay once for an unlimited time, it's still a license. You don't "own" anything other than rights...so an analogy dealing with tangible property (car, house, camera) are totally irrelevant. The only difference between a perpetual license and a subscription is the time terms of the license. Unlimited time vs time limited. In either case, the only thing you own are rights, not property.
Jeeesh, I really feel embarrassed by all the photographers who completely and totally misunderstand intellectual property and copyrights. You buy Photoshop? You don't own Photoshop, you own the right to use Photoshop for either a limited period of time or an unlimited period of time. Both transaction are the same principal. The only difference is with a subscription you lose the right to use after your subscription expires. With a perpetual license, it doesn't expire until such time as you no longer have a computer it will run on.
And that the software engineers would become more like gerbils in a barrel. This new biz model eliminates that, and this is fantastic. Both from a programmer's POV and an end user's POV. Now we will get enhancements as they are released and folded into each program. Updates occur almost on-the-fly. We also get an incredible amount of instructional info on using & implementing these new features.
However, looking at the yearly profits they have gone from 675 million in 1994 to 4.4 billion in 2012,
Unlimited is de facto ownership.
For the modest edification of those who feel Adobe is immune to Anti-Trust actions:
Graphic design professionals may continue with their claims that Adobe Systems Inc. violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act when, after acquiring FreeHand, a professional vector graphic illustration software, it failed to update the program and increased the price of its own software, a federal judge in California ruled Feb. 10 in denying Adobe's motion to dismiss (Free FreeHand Corp., et al. v. Adobe Systems Inc., No. 11-CV-02174-LHK, N.D. Calif.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17254).
just sayin....
Ken Richmond
I recommend the naysayers try it out. The 30 day trial is 100% free, and includes all applications. Check out what's behind the curtain.
Since subscribing a few weeks ago, I've drilled into the CC and watched many of the "learn more" videos. I think it's pretty amazing actually. Now a content creator can utilize any of Adobe's products for a simple fee. No longer do I have to juggle multiple licenses for more than a dozen programs and spend a day upgrading workstations & laptops, and track & archive serial numbers.
The full-meal-deal is $600 per year for a small, 2-seat studio. This is too much? Really? Are you selling portraits for $1.99 each? Time for that to change.
This also includes web site hosting (up to 5 sites) and various programs to build a site.
Obviously, this CC plan is great for those who create works for clients, and get fairly compensated for it. For those who have photography as a hobby, it's now decision time.
Back when Adobe announced that they would deliver a PS upgrade every 18–24 months, I was very discouraged by the announcement. My fear was that Adobe would release versions of PS that had minor improvements or simple UI changes for $200 per license, and that true product enhancements (computational improvements, new algorithms, radical concepts such as Layers, etc.) would become more scarce. And that the software engineers would become more like gerbils in a barrel. This new biz model eliminates that, and this is fantastic. Both from a programmer's POV and an end user's POV. Now we will get enhancements as they are released and folded into each program. Updates occur almost on-the-fly. We also get an incredible amount of instructional info on using & implementing these new features.
From the standpoint of running a studio that uses this software as a tool, as a profit making tool, it's obviously worth a try.
Yeah, ya know, you still don't get it...you have no ownership rights, you have rights to use. If you don't understand the differences, I suggest you learn a bit about copyright.
To continue.......
"Turning to the plaintiffs' argument that Adobe "bundled Illustrator with other Adobe graphic design products, raising significant entry barriers for potential rivals to enter the market without a full array of graphics software," the judge said that although the plaintiffs' allegations of bundling were not sufficient to demonstrate a "standalone" bundling claim, the allegations are "relevant" to the Section 2 claims below."
just saying s'more...
Ken Richmond
Sorry, I still don't buy the proposition in bold above.
Right... and the practical difference between ownership and right to use for an unlimited amount of time is?
It also seems to debunk their statements that they did not want two versions, yet they are doing two versions of ACR now, one with features added, one without....
The relevance, as I first posted is bundling/tying and the potential damage that it causes to existing rivals or those who are now discouraged from entering the market.
Ken Richmond
Come on folks...get a grip...licensing software gives you no "ownership" rights, you don't own the software, you own a right to USE the software (subject to the End User License Agreement–EULA), and if you don't understand the differences, you need a refresher course in intellectual property law (something I'm actually very well versed it).
How does this change in the manner of payment for the right to use the software create the kind of bundling and tying that violates competition laws? What damage does it cause existing rivals? Who will it discourage from entering the market? From everything I'm reading it could well have the reverse of these impacts. Ken look, you're not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer, but in another context I've had training in competition law from way-back-when, I follow prominent cases of interest to me, and I think anyone who believes that pushing this avenue of redress will get very far may well be dreaming in Technicolor - not even sRGB. OK? That's my story and I'm sticking with it whether it astounds you or not. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I'm not there yet based on what I've read through all these pages.
Do you understand copyrights and property rights? The only "ownership" you get with software is the right to use...it's usage rights not ownership rights. The whole ownership issue is something photographers should friggin' understand. When you license a photo, does the client "own" the photo? No...not unless you sold all rights or do a total transfer of copyright or agreed to a work for hire agreement.
Come on folks...get a grip...licensing software gives you no "ownership" rights, you don't own the software, you own a right to USE the software (subject to the End User License Agreement–EULA), and if you don't understand the differences, you need a refresher course in intellectual property law (something I'm actually very well versed it).
The main practical difference between a perpetual license and a subscription license is the period of time the license runs.
I get that people don't like having a limited use vs unlimited use. I used to fight this battle with clients all the time. Adobe is no only offering a limited time license. Does that make them evil? No more than me telling a client I won't do a total transfer of rights to a photo (and while I no longer shoot assignments, I do still license the rights to use my photos, so I'm still fighting that battle too).
For the modest edification of those who feel Adobe is immune to Anti-Trust actions:
Believe it...dual dev of perpetual & subscription would have been a disaster (was a disaster) and that was ultimately the deciding factor in killing perpetual (and I'm not sure Adobe would be happy having me say that, but it's true).
Google me. I am a lawyer.
Ken Richmond
I'm not saying Adobe is immune to Anti-Trust actions in general...Adobe does have to do a very delicate dance with their position in the marketplace...there are always snakes in the grass looking to try to take advantage–I've actually got experience with Adobe having to defend itself against litigation (but I can say no more). Adobe has a team of legal beagles whose job it is to advise and defend Adobe against all comers.
But the likelihood of Adobe facing an Anti-Trust action based on changing the manner in which users license software isn't likely to catch the attention of the FTC. Could individuals try to sue? You bet, Adobe gets sued all the time. Has Adobe engaged in any-competitive, predatory behavior? In my experience (and I don't work for Adobe but I hear things) Adobe bend over backwards to avoid even the hint of any-competitive, predatory behavior.
A photograph and a piece of software are very different items.
Snakes/Beagles Nice objective imagery.
If you don't understand the fact that a photograph and a piece of software is treated EXACTLY THE SAME as it relates to copyright, well, you need to do some learning bud.
Have you ever even read the EULA for Photoshop? Do you actually know what rights you have licensed?
Go ahead and read it...then get back to me an explain how usage rights for a photo are different than usage rights for a piece of software.
Hint, you might not like it, but I'm right and you are wrong...I spent a decade fighting for photographers' rights in the 1980's and got schooled in intellectual property rights/copyrights by some of the top attorneys in the field. In the eyes of the law, there is zero difference in the manner or treatment of ANY copyrighted material whether is photos, music, movies, books or software.
The owner of a copyright is granted by the US Constitution with the exclusive right to exploit as a monopoly, the intellectual rights to their creation. Whether it's an individual author, photographer of corporation producing commercial software, the rules are all the same.
When you buy software, all you are buying is a right, no ownership is involved except you own the right to use it for whatever period of time you agree to. Perpetual or subscription, as it relates to copyright, they are the same. The only difference is the period.
And of course, consumers are protected, according to Judge Koh,
"....Turning to the state law claims, [we] found that because the plaintiffs adequately stated a claim for their federal antitrust claims, they also stated claims [against Adobe] under Section 17200, the Washington Consumer Protection Act and the Washington antitrust statutes."
It would seem, to me at least, that the wolves are slathering at that fat greedy cow already. There is more to report.
Adobe has failed to correct my CS6 from expiring every thirty days unless I re enter my license key after 3 time consuming exchanges. If the "manager" gets deleted on the 30th. day, a long phone hold will be required to get the premium software I purchased up and running again.
According to this, I have purchased absolutely nothing,
"“DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES: YOU AGREE THAT ADOBE HAS MADE NO EXPRESS WARRANTIES TO YOU REGARDING THE SOFTWARE AND THAT THE SOFTWARE IS BEING PROVIDED TO YOU "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. ADOBE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE; EXPRESS OR IMPLIED; INCLUDING; WITHOUT LIMITATION; ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE; MERCHANTABILITY; MERCHANTABLE QUALITY OR NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS.”
This is a Contract of Adhesion. Adobe is the 90% market share dominate player and there is no other software with its features. By the above Warranty (sic) Adobe denies and abnigates its own advertising (like most other software marketers) Who here is going to rationally defend Adobe's business ethics? What professionals among you, of any ilk-legal, artist, surgeon, would give your client, your patient, your enemy, such a warranty?
Ken Richmond
Google me. I am a lawyer.
Well, you may want to start by answering about the differences I have already highlighted in my previous post? Or do they make too much sense?
Ken, ever do any IP/patent/copyright law? Care to explain to these photographers exactly what the deal is with software vs photos vs music vs any other copyright IP?
there is zero difference in the manner or treatment of ANY copyrighted material whether is photos, music, movies, books or software.
They are irrelevant...you see a difference where there is no difference in the eye of the copyright law.
A license is a license...the terms of the license can be as expansive or limited as both parties agree to. But it is a license, not an transfer of any sort of ownership other the the specified right to use the copyrighted works for a specific purpose (detailed in the EULA) for a specific period of time. In the case of CS6, you can buy a perceptual license...in the case of CC you buy a license limited by the period of time you agree to. It's the same license transaction...the only difference it the period of time. Unlimited vs limited.
Do you understand the implications of revenue recognition relating to generally accepted accounting practices here in the USA? Google it...it starts with Enron...it means that based on the way Adobe had previously set up it's accounting for R&D for Photoshop (and other apps), once a product version was shipped, after the end of the quarter that the product shipped, Adobe was specifically precluded from adding any new features, only bug and maintenance fixes.So your embarrassed by us..........I will turn this around and say I am embarrassed by you. As intelligent as you seem some times it is embarrassing that you can't understand what a lot of people are trying to say. So I will spell it out for you ! The way Adobe's license as worked in the past is......if I choose to stop paying Adobe any time for up grades I can still access my files and use Photoshop as long as I want or as long as my computer supports it. With the cloud they are shoving down my throat I could pay them for the next ten years......the 1st month I stop paying Photoshop becomes a BRICK ! I still have all these files on my computer BUT I can not access them nor do anything with them ! Do you feel this is right ? Can you at least understand our concern ? Or is your credibility gone with Adobe's ?
With the perpetual license model, Adobe was precluded (meaning that they literally could not) add any new features to the perpetual version.
Now, with the subscription model, Adobe was able to change the way that they accounted for R&D...since the subscription is an on going pay/time model, Adobe is now able to create and add new features and release them when they are ready without delaying the features till the next major version.
The problem (highlighted by the 13.1/13.0.4 technical issues) is that keeping a dual licensing model alive proved to be impossible, so they dropped the perpetual license model so they could go all in on the subscription model.
All this stuff about buy vs rent is a distraction...whether you pay as you go or pay once for an unlimited time, it's still a license. You don't "own" anything other than rights...so an analogy dealing with tangible property (car, house, camera) are totally irrelevant. The only difference between a perpetual license and a subscription is the time terms of the license. Unlimited time vs time limited. In either case, the only thing you own are rights, not property.
Jeeesh, I really feel embarrassed by all the photographers who completely and totally misunderstand intellectual property and copyrights. You buy Photoshop? You don't own Photoshop, you own the right to use Photoshop for either a limited period of time or an unlimited period of time. Both transaction are the same principal. The only difference is with a subscription you lose the right to use after your subscription expires. With a perpetual license, it doesn't expire until such time as you no longer have a computer it will run on.
We are buying tools, not creative works.
Will you be releasing a The Gimp version of photokit Sharpener Jeff?
Can you at least understand our concern ? Or is your credibility gone with Adobe's ?
I see a contradiction in your assertions. You claim Adobe made this decision "...to capture more market share and destroy competition" but later you say they are "dominant" and have no competitors. You can't have it both ways. I agree that Adobe is dominant and doesn't really have competitors for Photoshop so I don't see how how their motivation was to destroy. I also see this as having the opposite affect; an increase in competion. Now is the perfect time for a strong competitor to rise and offer what Adobe no longer will; a strong image editor with a perpetual license that a large portion of the market desires.
And I have "prolly" spent my last $$ on the "Doode" dude's various Adobe publications & videos.
I seriously couldn't care less what my credibility may or may not be. I just don't care what people think. Sorry, maybe that's a character flaw (not in my mind :~), but guess what, I don't care...it means nothing to me...zilch, zero, nada, nothing. Get it?
More importantly, in your role of LuLa guru, unofficial Adobe spokesman and Adobe defender, you've also made it exceedingly clear what you think of those of us who have a different opinion than yours.
I think that the ironic thing here is that the old licensing model is being referred to as the Perpetual model, when, in reality, it's the new subscription model that is the one that is truly perpetual.
Get a hold of yourselves...this ain't the end of the world...a meteor is not on a direct path to crash on Earth (as far as I know), nobody has assassinated the President, North Korea has not launched missiles to hit Austin, TX.
Jeeesh, get a grip on yourselves...chill out, take a pill, read a book, have a life. If what Adobe does or doesn't do is ruining your life, how good was your life to begin with? Seriously, get over yourselves. It ain't like Adobe has been discovered to be involved with human trafficking or pedifilia...all they are trying to do is exploit the results of their efforts–their art (and make some money for their shareholders).
...a very vocal group (but a small % of the installed user-base)...That sounds plausible. Does anyone outside Adobe have quality information about who is using the different versions of Photoshop, and of Lightroom, and who is buying upgrades? I am assuming Adobe has reason to believe that its decision won't lose it money and that seems to suggest that it is mostly interested in the professional and hence tax-deductible (in some countries at least) market for PS. As a hobbyist who decided some time ago that PS 5.5 would be my last upgrade, I have no personal stake in this, but I might feel differently if Adobe abandoned perpetual licenses for Lightroom. How differently would depend on what they wanted to charge for time-limited licenses. I would probably pay $5 a month, given the possibility (as I understand it) of converting all my images to an appropriate flavor of DNG and reverting to my current perpetual licence if I wanted to bale out of the Cloud. Or am I missing something there (probably). I don't entirely buy the moral outrage. Adobe provides Lightroom for hobbyists - a good product at a good price.
I've been doing some investigating on just why Adobe is going headlong with this Cloud subscription route. Tell me if I've got it right or way off...
And what's this BS about having 'two' different products to support?
You'd need a lot more breakdown about what's in that 70% and about future projections.
Scroll down to the second page where it lists product classifications for "Digital Media". It comprises a ton of obscurely named software I've never heard of or used as a photographer. Clearly Photos/Videos is not just what "Digital Media" stands for. Adobe is getting knee deep in servicing corporate workflows with their software. Look at all the weird names that don't tell you what the software does.You're right.
Somebody is using this software and they don't seem to hang out at LuLa.
I don't want to keep banging on about this but.....I spent last week working at Adobe's EMEA digital marketing summit in London. Having seen how this all the AMC products link together with Creative Cloud it's not difficult to see how for some commercial photographers working via the Cloud could make business sense. It could quite easily become a requirement of employment that they provide their photographs via CC.The key acronym you're missing, and most photographers aren't aware of it anyway, is AMC = Adobe Marketing Cloud
That stuff isn't relevant to the change to a subscription model.
Adobe got lazy with photoshop many, many years ago, and have only been just sliding by on sheer entrenchment alone.You certainly have a point there. For example, Photoshop's multithreading support still sucks years after multi-core processors became commonplace.
The term "ransomware" comes to mind, except in this case you voluntarily allow yourself to be held to ransom.
To be honest I use Lightroom for most of my work, so I expect to be able to make do with Photoshop CS6 for years to come. I may continue to upgrade Lightroom if Adobe continue to sell it, but I already feel uneasy about investing my time in it. I'll certainly be looking around for any feasible alternative.
I for one would pony up a year's worth of Adobe subscription fees to the developer who promises to make the next generation of still image processing software, and offers a perpetual license with upgrades. If a million of us did the same thing, it would underwrite new product development, and we'd be free of Adobe once and for all.
In the grand scheme of things, is Adobe's CC initiative the most important issue in your life?No, not by a long shot. I've survived far worse disappointments in life. It is, however, rather annoying to learn that I will never be able to buy a new version of one of my most frequently used pieces of software. I'll make do with CS6 for a while, eventually migrate to something else, and life will go on.
There are excellent alternatives to LR today. C1 Pro and DxO 8 come to mind. They are very close overall and superior in some ways.
Cheers,
Bernard
As far as I know, these programs do not include a data base/library the way Lightroom does. Is this right, wrong?C1 v7 does, though it's not as integral to the app.
C1 v7 does, though it's not as integral to the app.
Trying to maintain both a subscription model AND a perpetual model is unsustainable...
The problem (highlighted by the 13.1/13.0.4 technical issues) is that keeping a dual licensing model alive proved to be impossible, so they dropped the perpetual license model so they could go all in on the subscription model.
Believe it...dual dev of perpetual & subscription would have been a disaster (was a disaster) and that was ultimately the deciding factor in killing perpetual (and I'm not sure Adobe would be happy having me say that, but it's true).
"the Lightroom team is very aware of the reaction by photographers to Photoshop CC. We don't have plans to make Lightroom a subscription-only option ..."
"... but we do envision added functionality for the CC version of Lightroom."
I really don't know...the fact is, it's Adobe's only App Store app and that changes the nature of the app and updates.
So it would be a LOT of work to turn LR into an activation type of registration.
To be honest I use Lightroom for most of my work, so I expect to be able to make do with Photoshop CS6 for years to come. I may continue to upgrade Lightroom if Adobe continue to sell it, but I already feel uneasy about investing my time in it. I'll certainly be looking around for any feasible alternative.
We get it. You've made it exceedingly clear that you don't care in the slightest what any of us think of you.
More importantly, in your role of LuLa guru, unofficial Adobe spokesman and Adobe defender, you've also made it exceedingly clear what you think of those of us who have a different opinion than yours.
"Ken, I assume we agree that the clause you have bolded is very common in software licenses and I assume we both understand the reasons for it, and that it is not relevant to competition law in this context. I assume also you would agree that being X% of a market is legally innocuous per se, unless it can be proven that they used dominant market power to frustrate competition in a manner that is proscribed by the law. So what's your point that makes this change in pricing policy actionable? I still don't get it."
I agree only that it is common practice for software companies to include those disclaimers. I do not agree with anything else you assert. If you read the legal opinion of Koh your questions about relevance and Adobe's market share are both addressed. Market share has everything to do with the Sherman Act. Indeed, it is the very foundation of all Anti-Trust litigation. Adobe's conduct is NOT merely changing a price point. It's willingness to rent Photoshop CS as a stand alone was driven by the California case that I cited you to. It won't be enough to save it for this reason. It has bundled it's entire suite for $49.00 per month in precisely the manner objected to by Judge Koh. It is anti competitive under Section 2 when viewed against the former $2,000.00 and up prices charged for the suites. It is anti-competitive when Adobe argues that it will "lose" money. Well that's irrational! The only explanation is to capture more market and destroy competition. You MAY NOT price competitors, and accessory providers out of business.
As to the warranty, we have grown accustomed to the practice of the click through, but that does not make it ethical to disclaim one's advertising. More importantly, as the only real provider in the business, Adobe can disclaim it's advertising and all of the expectations it created because of it's dominant market share. It will not negotiate because it has no competitors. Do you really think we should not be legally protected from this when we have invested time and money in training, in DNG files, Raw camera software?
Ken Richmond
C1 v7 does, though it's not as integral to the app.
I'll go to the capture one site, see if they have a trial available and check it out for myself.Yes, a sixty day trial is available. There looks to be a lot to like in C1P7 too.
Yes, a sixty day trial is available. There looks to be a lot to like in C1P7 too.
Even better I can get a discounted upgrade from having owned a previous version in 2004 :-)
The difficulty will be migration, but even that might be addressed if there's sufficient interest.
Somehow giving my money in future to a company based around high quality photography seems much more appealing let a company focused on internet marketing suck all my cash away.
...I understand that people don't like to feel strong-armed into something they don't understand
There are some interesting comments regarding the photographic workflow and how it is ostensibly migrating to mobile devices, including Kelby's assertion that one may actually want to be editing files on a tablet (iPad) because that is where the majority of people view photos nowadays. That is, it is better to edit on that device with that output device in mind, because that is where most people will view your images - color management is not controllable per se, but at least iPads displays across users are relatively similar, so one would hope to have a better shot at having their iPad-viewed images be more consistent across users. It is definitely a different way to look at the issue of preparing images for public consumption versus a fully color-managed workflow likely targeting print output.
BTW...a side thought on Jeff's response to not creating a PKS version for GIMP. I would not be surprised that the lucrative PixelGenius deal with Adobe precludes providing a plugin for any other product.
Awww don't go Jeff... Your rude offensive replies have always been the highlight of posts on LL subjects. I shall miss you 'shoot from the lip' replies. Do you pack a pair of pistols ? I bet you've got the boots too.
Trying to maintain both a subscription model AND a perpetual model is unsustainable...engineering had all sorts of problems with the recent 13.1/13.0.4 updates and the engineering staff gave up their holidays to pitch in and fix them. That was the end of the idea of trying to maintain both models.
Couldn't expect any more or any less from mr. Kelby. I place him just a hair above mr. Rockwell with his comments.
It really is a different way to look at things, but bearing in mind that while all iPad displays might be quite similar, all tablets aren't i-Products. On top of that the notion about "most people" even owning tablets (or similar portable devices) in the first place is pretty ignorant (don't know if to cry or laugh at these assumptions).
The rest of it is pretty much how I'd see this thing boiling down to with a few exceptions. For example Lightroom isn't going to be a tool for serious retouching even with "brusheable" content aware heal or just adding layers to it. It would definitely go a long way for most people, but I don't see techniques like frequency separation or D&B at pixel level inside a RAW-editor happening. Also not all photo editing or retouching is just about editing or retouching. LR doesn't cut it if you have to actually draw or write something (a collage etc.).
In addition, this change may drastically reduce the opportunity for software piracy. All by itself, this will work to undermine some large piracy based enterprises everywhere they exist, and that will translate into a big revenue increase.
Taking instruction from Mr. Schewe's lead, I'll make a final post on this Anti-Trust subject. Below are selections from the lengthy opinion that permits the case to go to a jury. I will not repeat the mistake of offering this kind of information to lay people. So read it for what it's worth to you or discard it. 'Nuther words, for all of those steeped in the complexities of the Sherman Act, I yield. (the emphasis below has been added by me)And my final post on this issue too, because life is too short so we will obviously agree to disagree - but that's fine: first you need a case before it can to a jury, and I would argue that nothing above is *necessarily* relevant to the facts of the situation at hand; and it is by no means obvious, at least to me and I know others, that the situation at hand could be successfully litigated as "anti-trust" regardless of Adobe's market power. So we let it rest and just observe what happens.
"...Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it a crime to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations . . . ." 15 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). Section 4 of the Clayton Act, in turn, establishes a private right of action to "any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws" and provides "threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee." 15 U.S.C. § 15 (2006). Section 16 of the Clayton Act establishes a right to injunctive relief "against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws." 15 U.S.C. § 26 (2006).
To state an unlawful monopolization claim, a plaintiff must allege "(1) [p]ossession of monopoly power in the relevant market; (2) willful acquisition or maintenance of that power; and (3) causal antitrust injury." SmileCare Dental Group v. Delta Dental Plan of Cal., Inc., 88 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiffs have alleged, and Adobe does not dispute, that Adobe has monopoly power in the global and/or national Macintosh and Windows markets for professional vector graphic illustration software. FAC ¶¶ 32, 33, 47-48, 52-53, 56. Thus, Plaintiffs have alleged possession of monopoly power in the relevant market, the first element of a monopolization claim. Accordingly, the Court looks to whether Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Adobe willfully acquired or maintained that power, and whether Adobe's conduct caused Plaintiffs' antitrust injury. FAC ¶¶ 110-11.
Plaintiffs allege that since acquiring FreeHand in 2005, Adobe has not delivered any new features for FreeHand and has actively driven existing users of FreeHand to use Illustrator instead. FAC ¶¶ 70-72. Plaintiffs claim that Adobe acknowledged its intent to cease development of FreeHand and to cripple FreeHand's functionality on May 16, 2007. Id.
Adobe argues that all companies are entitled to make unilateral product line decisions, including discontinuing products,
But the Ninth Circuit also noted that "
- ne form of antitrust injury is coercive activity that prevents its victims from making free choices between market alternatives" and found that the alleged injury "flowed from the discontinuation of the only competing product on the market by agreement between the only two competitors in the market," resulting in "no viable choice between market alternatives." Id. at 374. Thus, Glen Holly does not preclude the possibility that a unilateral decision to discontinue a product line can be anticompetitive.
Could someone provide a corporate insight into adobes thinking. Im thinking colleges, universities on why they would buy into the "CC" thing. I know some colleges would upgrade every 2nd upgrade.
Could someone provide a corporate insight into adobes thinking. Im thinking colleges, universities on why they would buy into the "CC" thing. I know some colleges would upgrade every 2nd upgrade.
Somehow giving my money in future to a company based around high quality photography seems much more appealing let a company focused on internet marketing suck all my cash away.
There is a petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model?share_id=PYmyLrpyAG&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition)going, which I just signed.
The idea that we'd lose all access to all of our work if we chose to get off the train for any reason is inexplicable and inexcusable. Note that I said "work", not "files". I'm sure nobody wants to confiscate our data. But by removing access to the software tools, Adobe is essentially confiscating at least some of the work we put into manipulating our original camera data. All work in progress is disabled. Only flattened, completed work stored in open file formats remains accessible to other software.[/i]
Trying to maintain both a subscription model AND a perpetual model is unsustainable...engineering had all sorts of problems with the recent 13.1/13.0.4 updates and the engineering staff gave up their holidays to pitch in and fix them. That was the end of the idea of trying to maintain both models.
Hi,
Always a recommendation for when emotions get to a high, What the Duck (http://www.whattheduck.net):(http://www.whattheduck.net/sites/default/files/WTD1382.gif)
Cheers,
Bart
A lot of the outrage can be summed up in one word: "equity".
fwiw "Myth #4: (http://blogs.adobe.com/dreamweaver/2013/03/5-myths-about-adobe-creative-cloud.html) I lose access to my files in the Creative Cloud as soon as I unsubscribe"
While you won’t have access to your Creative Cloud applications anymore, you’ll be able to open your files on any previous version of the software on your computer. This is provided that you’ve saved your files to compatible formats with your older applications or other 3rd party Applications.
Wonderful....
A reminder to several members of this thread – refrain from personal attacks and negative insinuations.
Only warning.
Michael
No one's listening. 500,000 Adobe product users are over on the Cloud. Wonder if they allow petitioning on the Cloud.
It's a brave new world of centrally-controlled cloud computing out there, but it remains to be seen if Adobe will get to bend it to its will with Creative Cloud. By strong arming people into a pay-as-you go software rental scheme they are pissing off the majority of their customer base who before now saw no reason to buy every new CS version in lockstep with Adobe's absurdly brief 14-month product cycle. I predict this will eventually bite Adobe in the ass, big time.
. When has Thomas Knoll ever been motivated by anything other than doing the right thing...or our own Eric Chan?
No one's listening. 500,000 Adobe product users are over on the Cloud. Wonder if they allow petitioning on the Cloud.
Actually photographers are a small fraction of their userbase, and they have stated that, read the response on Dpreview. They are even stating the they consider Lightroom for photographers and Photoshop for designers and graphic artists, essentially. So all the moaning and outrage in the forum is pretty much what they expected and it looks like they don't give a crap about it. Their customer base is mostly large clients and more business oriented. And in a L.A. Times article they state that they give larger corporate entities very favorable pricing and substantial discounts. So there you have it. Either jump on their bandwagon or get off, they are not listening and it most likely does not make a difference. I wish it would and wish they would listen but I don't see it happening. Basically time to move on.
Alan
I for one, like the the subscription plan. I have enough unusable (for various reasons) software laying around that I "bought".
What I don't understand is the price increase. I think everyone agrees that at least the single Photoshop subscription will end up costing an existing user more than they would pay for 18 month upgrades.
Why is it more in a day and age where most business software is going down in price?
Why is it more when Adobe is streamlining their services (and costs, one would assume) by eliminating the purchase versions?
Why is it more when it eliminates piracy, therefore creating a new customer base?
On the one hand, this may be a good time to invest in Adobe stock. I predict they have several internal estimates on what this change will do to their revenue over the next couple of years, especially around the end of year 1, when their rental rates will double. They probably expect that the results will bring in another mountain of cash and they will do everything they can to make this added revenue image shine. We can’t credibly expect them to be anything but dazzlingly narcissistic about their projections.Actually no, the company is probably overvalued right now by about 20% based on current financials. My analysis indicates that this will likely have only a 5% impact on cash flow if that. In addition they are not sitting on a mountain of cash as are Microsoft and Apple. There are better places to deploy your money.
You could ask the same questions from pretty much any company at any line of business and at any time.
More money and greed would be the answer here no matter what the company representatives say.
And if you think about it, Adobes way of making money is in fact quite harmless compared to a company which is profitable and still lays off people by the hundreds. Although Adobe might still do that on top of added revenue from the new business model...
Did you gain more than you paid, for using those products in the past?
If so, you're good; if not, why did you keep paying?
You can't stop there. Here is the full statement (once again): You are not forced to upgrade. You can continue to run which ever versions of the software that you want until YOU are ready to upgrade. This is crucial for workflows that involve working with clients or vendors that may not be on the latest versions of the software. You can continue using your current version of the product for one full year after the subsequent version is released.
Confusing and conflicting? Yes indeed.
Actually photographers are a small fraction of their userbase, and they have stated that, read the response on Dpreview. They are even stating the they consider Lightroom for photographers and Photoshop for designers and graphic artists, essentially. So all the moaning and outrage in the forum is pretty much what they expected and it looks like they don't give a crap about it. Their customer base is mostly large clients and more business oriented. And in a L.A. Times article they state that they give larger corporate entities very favorable pricing and substantial discounts. So there you have it. Either jump on their bandwagon or get off, they are not listening and it most likely does not make a difference. I wish it would and wish they would listen but I don't see it happening. Basically time to move on.
Alan
Actually imaging software from other companies seems to be going down in price through the years so my questions are pretty much targeted towards Adobe.
I've been impressed by the excellence of your previous comments on LuLa, so please help me understand:
-- How exactly will stopping paying for PS CC prevent anyone from showing JPG and TIFF images wherever and whenever they like?
I was told by Jeffrey Tranberry at Adobe that's an old URL and incorrect and hopefully it will be removed. There is no such restriction on updating a CC build. Download and install the first release, run it as long as you pay the subscription.Thanks. That's what I was hoping. I also found references to the plan to "archive" earlier versions of the applications so they are available for those who can't use the latest and greatest. They are naturally vague as to how many versions back they plan to archive, but it sounds like there is hope for those who can't stay current with regards to OS and hardware (who can?)
I've been impressed by the excellence of your previous comments on LuLa, so please help me understand:
-- How exactly will stopping paying for PS CC prevent anyone from showing JPG and TIFF images wherever and whenever they like?
As I said in an earlier post....Lightroom would create an even greater problem if it were CC only, as often, finished output (jpegs, tiffs) are not saved as they can so easily be recreated for printing, email, etc. Virtual copies will be lost. Collections no longer exist. Etc.It's not impossible that at least part of the catalogue could be migrated to another product.
The cartoon you posted shows the "end product" framed on a wall, as a broken image, and a direct consequence of "What happens if I stop paying?"
As you have confirmed -- that is not true.
The cartoon you posted shows the "end product" framed on a wall, as a broken image, and a direct consequence of "What happens if I stop paying?"
As you have confirmed -- that is not true.
The cartoon you posted shows the "end product" framed on a wall, as a broken image, and broken as a direct consequence of "What happens if I stop paying?"
As you have confirmed -- that is not true.
Stopping paying for PS CC won't prevent anyone from showing JPG and TIFF and RAW on a screen.
As Bartvander Wolf also said -- " Do not save your files as PSDs but as TIFFs instead."
Maybe the cartoon is just scare mongering.
The cartoon you posted shows the "end product" framed on a wall, as a broken image, and broken as a direct consequence of "What happens if I stop paying?"
As you have confirmed -- that is not true.
I must say I don't understand Schewe's insensitivity to the situation, as exemplified by his response to somebody else, "you haven't been a Photoshop customer since CS4, so it's not like Adobe is loosing you. You're already gone." Hey, I am an Adobe customer! I bought CS5, didn't I? And I bought Lightroom! I like these tools and would like to (infrequently) upgrade them. But there's no way I want to or can afford to fork over much more money to Adobe, every month, forever.
I don't even dare post here for fear I might get beat up by the "mobs with pitchforks" - oh well, here goes......
I have (3) perpetual (old, normal) licenses for PSCS6; (1) perpetual license for Premiere Pro CS6; (2) Lightroom perpetuals.....
(So far so good - nobody can hate me for that)
I just purchased a Creative Cloud US$49.00 a month, "Individual" cloud seat. I am the only person in my office, besides a free lance assistant hired per job, free lance stylists, talent, and my bookkeeper. Oh yeah, someone cleans once a week. And I have an accountant and a lawyer.
I do ALL of my photo retouching, photo management - my assistant doesn't touch the data - call me crazy. Just the way it is.
I own/use (5) Mac computers; MBPro 17 MAIN laptop; MB Air emergency Laptop; iMac 27 (Studio); one "old" MacPro; one "newer" MacPro (for video editing) SSD in this one. Five machines - one person only, no assistant. ONE USER.
So here's my question:
I am allowed (2) activations at a time as I understand it, for my individual Cloud subscription. I assume I can install the software on ALL machines, leave it activated it on my main machine (Laptop 17"), and activate/deactivate the software as needed on the other machines, correct? (2) activations at a time, as explained for an individual cloud seat.
I actually tried to purchase an additional "individual" cloud seat, but Adobe wanted a different email address/ user ID.
I use only ONE email address - life is too short.
Hence the question.
Bonus question - I assume that since PSCS6 remains a perpetual license, I can still run it on more than (2) machines at a time - remember I have (3) seats of PSCS6 - perpetual.
Warning to those who simply want to throw poo today. I am NOT interested in a hostile rant, speculation, tin hats, or assumptions; If you don't really KNOW, please refrain from pontificating/speculating - this is an HONEST question (maybe too early in the anger cycle for a real question/answer thing..), from a working pro, who is interested in a REAL answer. I don't "hate" a software company, nor am I angry. I just want a strategy to work going forward. $50 bucks a month is a bargain if you are a working pro - sorry - hate me if you must, but I spend more each year on ftp services, stamps, inkjet ink, inkjet paper, book-keeping, CPS membership, equipment repairs, Internet services, etc. Not meaning this to sound like bragging; it's just what I do for a living. $50 bucks a month - if you're a pro, please keep this in perspective
Anybody remember Live Picture? Xres? I can still access ALL of my digital images from 1993 forward - figure it out folks, it's not rocket science. If you don't want to use Adobe's products, don't; I do, and am not upset - life goes on.
And, as one might suspect, I own three licenses for PhotoKitSharpener - love it - so Jeff, If you have any ideas how my situation might work, I am all ears, and, I do respect all that you do here - met you at Photo plus; own most of your books - thanks for all you do. Let the hater's ear's burn.
Sorry folks; Jeff is "copy" right, in the USofA at least - read the EULA. I always own ALL of my images, even if someone is licensing them for "temporary" or "perpetual" use.
(Couldn't help drop that in)
Anyone want to genuinely help, I'd appreciate that.
Michael Schoenfeld
I don't even dare post here for fear I might get beat up by the "mobs with pitchforks" - oh well, here goes......
(So far so good - nobody can hate me for that)
... call me crazy. Just the way it is.
...Warning to those who simply want to throw poo today. I am NOT interested in a hostile rant, speculation, tin hats, or assumptions; If you don't really KNOW, please refrain from pontificating/speculating - this is an HONEST question (maybe too early in the anger cycle for a real question/answer thing..), from a working pro, who is interested in a REAL answer.
... Not meaning this to sound like bragging; it's just what I do for a living.
... Let the hater's ear's burn.
...Anyone want to genuinely help, I'd appreciate that.
Michael Schoenfeld
Are you aware of how confused people are about PS CC ?Er, yes. Now tell me if you recognized it was a joke which made a point pretty well.
Sorry folks; Jeff is "copy" right, in the USofA at least - read the EULA. I always own ALL of my images, even if someone is licensing them for "temporary" or "perpetual" use.
Analogy does not always show what is true.
Maybe the cartoon is just scare mongering.
Bad analogy -- that's not true of PS CC.
Are you aware of how confused people are about PS CC ?
The image was that of a photographer who was Renting" his images "subscribe to my photography". The rental was for access to viewing the jpeg. Rental stops...access stops.
It's called an analog :)
Thanks Janne,
As I said, I only bought ONE CC seat - a second seat requires a second Adobe ID - I only want to manage ONE Adobe ID.
From what I've read you can activate/deactivate the software on machines without limitations - I've tried it, and so far it works fine.
Michael Schoenfeld
I'm thinking colleges, universities on why they would buy into the "CC" thing. I know some colleges would upgrade every 2nd upgrade.As someone who handles software installation in a computer lab at an academic institution, I think that
Remember: Adobe is not our friend. Adobe is here to squeeze you for every last penny they can and they'll do everything in their power to leverage their virtual monopoly to that end.
If you sell me a print, I own the print. I can view it whenever I want, forever. I can sell it or pass it down in my will. I have perpetual rights to that print.
I do not have any copyrights to the image on the print. I cannot reproduce it or create additional copies.
In my view, the print is similar to a perpetual license of software. I can use it whenever I want, forever. I do not own any copyrights. Using the copyright verbage...and continuing on ad nauseum...was just a "fox" to muddy the argument in Adobe's favor.
If you cancel your subscription you can still show your images.
If you cancel your subscription you cannot use PS CC to make new images.
That's why I asked that question Janne - I'm actually interested in a real answer.
Maybe this is the wrong "bar" to try a get a shot of whiskey in right now........
Thanks for replying.
Michael Schoenfeld
www.michaelschoenfeld.com
I quite often do re-edits and refinements to my files, so there the "losing work" part comes in.
Edits create a new image.
So you are using the later version that has those much improved features, to create new images.
That's why I asked that question Janne - I'm actually interested in a real answer.
Maybe this is the wrong "bar" to try a get a shot of whiskey in right now........
Thanks for replying.
Michael Schoenfeld
www.michaelschoenfeld.com
Now if I use CC version of say Photoshop to create the file, use the latest and greatest techniques available, they won't open in "legacy" versions of Photoshop if I cancel my subscription.
I really don't get what's so difficult about this for you to grasp. Either you are trolling or just refusing to understand what we are trying to say.
If I open a layered TIFF or PSD - file, do some work on it and save it, it's not a new image, it's the same image which I'm working on. I'm not exporting nearly all the images that I work on to "a final and baked form" eg. jpg or equivalent.
Now if I use CC version of say Photoshop to create the file, use the latest and greatest techniques available, they won't open in "legacy" versions of Photoshop if I cancel my subscription.
Is this scenario clear enough for you?
Edit: On top of that, if you are a new customer and go with the CC subscription, you won't even have a version to fall back to.
This is PURE speculation! Where did Adobe say that CC will save formats (TIFF, PSD) that can't be opened in legacy versions? Even if they didn't, even if they will, Adobe has been very good about keeping legacy options open, down to silly things like legacy Contrast and Brightness settings. We've seen no less than three Process Versions in ACR and all are backwards compatible.
IF and WHEN Adobe provides a process in CC that will save in some new TIFF or PSD format that can't be accessed in earlier versions, raise the alarm. Especially if Adobe did this and didn't tell you (which I would find quite shocking and out of tradition).
Of course the grassy knoll conspiracy folks will say this is just around the corner.
I think what they meant was that new things, like new adjustment layers and new tools and smart filters will not open in legacy versions.
This is PURE speculation! Where did Adobe say that CC will save formats (TIFF, PSD) that can't be opened in legacy versions? Even if they didn't, even if they will, Adobe has been very good about keeping legacy options open, down to silly things like legacy Contrast and Brightness settings. We've seen no less than three Process Versions in ACR and all are backwards compatible.
IF and WHEN Adobe provides a process in CC that will save in some new TIFF or PSD format that can't be accessed in earlier versions, raise the alarm. Especially if Adobe did this and didn't tell you (which I would find quite shocking and out of tradition).
Of course the grassy knoll conspiracy folks will say this is just around the corner.
This is provided that you’ve saved your files to compatible formats with your older applications or other 3rd party Applications.
Well have you tried to activate the CC package on two computers? I'd say that that's the fastest way to find out.
I've been reading so many sources that I can't remember where I read it, but at some point there was a mention of the CC package firstly being somewhat OS agnostic, so you can install it on Mac and Pc and if I recall right, it's great for someone who has a Windows Pc at work and a Mac at home, so I don't think they would mention that if it would involve activation bouncing between the two machines. And also, I don't think you need to have a Mac and a Pc for this, two of the same kind should work just fine.
Also, remember to report back if you get a definitive answer :)
So my questions are simple. What is now going to be the safest method of archiving my RAW files and does anyone produce a good book on the Gimp?
And this has happened in the last 20 years when? The file will not open? The flattened TIFF part of the TIFF file isn't accessible?
What is now going to be the safest method of archiving my RAW files?
Have I captured this dilemma clearly and correctly enough with this?
And this has happened in the last 20 years when? The file will not open? The flattened TIFF part of the TIFF file isn't accessible?
I've always had a healthy distrust towards DNG, so all my RAW files are just that, in the proprietary formats of the camera used to take the photo.
Although I kind of could see the benefit of camera manufacturers using just one format (at least Michael and Jeff have been advocates for this format to be DNG), it's just another proprietary format amongst others. And with a small turn of the tables the DNG as a format seems far worse than what all the camera manufacturers have cooked up combined.
So yeah, my view is that what comes out of the camera is treated as "sacred" and kept in its original format. I'd go with that approach from now on and if you happen to have backups in the original formats, I'd dig them out too.
I also bought into the DNG for long term file security stuff too. Why on Earth would I trust Adobe with that format anymore?
Isaac, one thing to understand here is how jokes work. Explaining a joke is probably always futile, but here goes anyway. The analogy is, as you rightly point out, and have convincingly maintained against all opposition, a long way from perfect. But as far as the functioning of the cartoon as a joke is concerned, that is actually the opposite of a problem. The cartoon dramatizes the sense of outrage some people feel at a real consequence of Adobe's change - that is, losing access to something important if you stop subscribing - and releases the associated tension in a smile. It does so by portraying a scenario which exaggerates the occasion for surprise and outrage to the point of absurdity. It is the absurdity which allows people to smile. Then, refreshed in mind, they can go on to discuss the pros and cons of the change rationally. It is no reflection on you that it apparently doesn't work that way for you, that you go straight for the deficits in the analogy, and identify them unerringly. But by the time you do that, those for whom it does work have smiled and passed on.
I've been impressed by the excellence of your previous comments on LuLa, so please help me understand:
-- How exactly will stopping paying for PS CC prevent anyone from showing JPG and TIFF images wherever and whenever they like?
DNG doesn't scare me. To Adobe's credit, they have made the DNG format open to anyone to use as they see fit without licensing fees. It is itself based on the open TIFF/EP standard. DNG is as close as we'll probably ever get to a generic RAW file format.
And presumptuous.
There lies the presumption.
Right or wrong, I think this move to CC is really going to hurt the acceptance of DNG as that universal RAW format.
DNG needed the support of photographers and I think that support was steadily increasing.
To Adobe's credit, they have made the DNG format open to anyone to use as they see fit without licensing fees.
I'm an Adobe customer and I bought in to all the non destructive editing stuff.
Save that layered TIFF using a different file name.
Now you have the old TIFF and a new TIFF -- you've created something new.
How many people will not upgrade their cameras fearing that they will have to get on the clouds with Adobe just to post process their new camera's photos. That could hurt the camera and other hardware manufacturers. It's going to be interesting to see how it plays out. Watch for other non-photo software companies going the Adobe route too.
-troubleshoot my way through the layers that use technology found only in the CC - versionsSpecifically which layers would that be?
-remove the layers that are not compatible with CSSpecifically which layers are not compatible with CS what?
-rework the image with "legacy" methods to get it to resemble the image when it was processed with CCKind of your fault for: buying into something new and hopefully useful and billable, then deciding it wasn't that cool so it goes away, then asking why you can't go back because you didn't handle your options with much wiggle room. It's OK to paint yourself into corners from time to time <g>.
-and then save the "new" file in CS
Well there's a set of some mind boggling workflow options, thanks but no thanks.
How many people will not upgrade their cameras fearing that they will have to get on the clouds with Adobe just to post process their new camera's photos. That could hurt the camera and other hardware manufacturers. It's going to be interesting to see how it plays out. Watch for other non-photo software companies going the Adobe route too.most people use in camera JPG, then go those who just use OEM supplied raw converters, then go those who do not mind Adobe's new subscription model and those who use alternative raw converters and only then go those who use raw files, use Adobe's raw converters like ACR and do mind subscription model... so it is a non issue for camera manufacturers at all... it is like the question of DNG for a native raw format - they simply do not care as if DNG is not existing, that's it...
And presumptuous.In the circumstances, no. Your comment on the cartoon, and your subsequent comments, allow two alternatives - that you didn't get it, or that you were pretending not to get it. Familiarity with your previous LuLa posts (most of which I admire) still leaves me genuinely uncertain as to which might be the case, so I am not inclined to apologize for a polite explanation.
Andrew,
To answer your "Specifically which layers would that be?" comment.
Lots of possibilities we cannot imagine right now.well, you shall know that here it is OK to imagine various fears about proprietary raw files and it is NOT OK to imagine the same about anything Adobe's...
OK, Andrew. Here are some new PS-CC features:
- Camera Shake Reduction
- All-new Smart Sharpen
- Editable Rounded Rectangles
- ACR as a filter
At some point in the future, for whatever reason, I want to open the layer TIFF in PS-CS6. What happens? Can I adjust/modify the settings of the layers using these, such as change the rounded rectangle or adjust sharpening, etc?
well, you shall know that here it is OK to imagine various fears about proprietary raw files and it is NOT OK to imagine the same about anything Adobe's...
well, you shall know that here it is OK to imagine various fears about proprietary raw files and it is NOT OK to imagine the same about anything Adobe's...
Specifically which layers would that be?
Specifically which layers are not compatible with CS what?
Kind of your fault for: buying into something new and hopefully useful and billable, then deciding it wasn't that cool so it goes away, then asking why you can't go back because you didn't handle your options with much wiggle room. It's OK to paint yourself into corners from time to time <g>.
IF you get this far in your story, you decide maybe, those features you thought were cool and paid for, are still cool and the alternative is to stop processing files, so you'll just pay the fee to Adobe and move on.
I think that's the right answer for you! Don't upgrade. Stick with CS6 which at some time in the future may die and you're forced to do..... All those years without the cool new features?
The issue is this: you subscribe to CC. They introduce new features with new code that work fine on the current CC version. So let us say you use those new features on a file and they create new adjustment layers, or you use new layers for them. You decide at the end of your contract to de-subscribe. You have your files alright, but you are only left with legacy CS6 to open them. If CS6 doesn't have the code that enabled the new features you used on that file while you were subscribed, those edits likely won't be accessible in CS6 which is all you are left with (if you had it to begin with - people starting fresh won't even have that). So if you think at some point you may jump off the train, you need to at least create a version of the file that merges all the layers created with new CC code into the background layer. By doing so you lose the non-destructive reversible workflow approach with respect to those things you did in CC that may not be recognizable in CS6. You can avoid this inconvenience only by either staying aboard the train or merging nonCS6-compliant edits into the background if you ever think you will jump off the train. So people feel "chained".
Yes and which of them will not be backwards compatible with CS6 after you apply the edits?
One CAN apply the new Shake Reduction on a layer, save that and open it in CS6. The new filter creates new edited pixels that end up on a layer, that layer is no different in CC than CS6. The same is true for Smart Sharpen or ACR as a filter.
In an older version, nope. The functionality doesn't exist. Editable Rounded Rectangles, so what? Just like Layers today can't be used in Photoshop 2.0!
If you want new functionality you want new functionality and expecting to be able to re-edit the data in a older version of software that doesn't support new functionality is kind of par for the course.
It is not that I want to do this (use old version of CS6). I really have no problem with the CC rental strategy. I just want to protect myself.
Adobe could go out of business....or change their strategy and find photography products not profitable enough, so they stop investing or discontinue PS. (basically a Kodak scenario). The price could go out of sight or circumstances could change where I could no longer afford to pay the monthly fee. Lots of possibilities we cannot imagine right now.
Don't you think we have the right....in fact the need and the responsibility to protect our image work efforts?
If you want new functionality you want new functionality and expecting to be able to re-edit the data in a older version of software that doesn't support new functionality is kind of par for the course.
I think the whole thing will turn into a great victory for traditional photography. With the predicted demise of Photoshop (for photographers), perhaps once again photographers will be photographers, not photoshoppographers, i.e., do it right the first time, in-camera.
This might also turn into a great victory for Ken Rockwell's mantra: shoot only jpeg, do it right in-camera, use Canon's Print button, forget about post-processing.
I think the whole thing will turn into a great victory for traditional photography. With the predicted demise of Photoshop (for photographers), perhaps once again photographers will be photographers, not photoshoppographers, i.e., do it right the first time, in-camera.Hmmm. Do you think KR owns a lot of Adobe stock?
This might also turn into a great victory for Ken Rockwell's mantra: shoot only jpeg, do it right in-camera, use Canon's Print button, forget about post-processing.
;)
perhaps once again photographers will be photographers, not photoshoppographersnope, they rather turn into lightroomographers... in the sense that ACR/LR becoming more and more about postprocessing actually
Of course the grassy knoll conspiracy folks will say this is just around the corner.
I for one expect CS6 to be my final version of Photoshop. I realize that Adobe don't care about losing my business, and in fact will probably be glad to be rid of an unworthy amateur customer like me.Probably you (like me) didn't pass Jeff's competency test for PS ownership, so screw you.
Probably you (like me) didn't pass Jeff's competency test for PS ownership, so screw you.
As has been implied again and again, fear is a major factor. Count the number of people in this thread who have noted that should they abandon PS, they will lose access to their files. In the end, Adobe is very confident that most will pay their toll.Yes, fear is a major factor - it's a major factor in my decision to never rent software under any circumstances.
If you want new functionality you want new functionality and expecting to be able to re-edit the data in a older version of software that doesn't support new functionality is kind of par for the course.
To me it sounds like internal divisions fighting over territory and the future of their products.Only if that's what you want to hear?
I approach this from the point of view of an amateur or hobbyist photographer, so from Adobe's point I'm probably in the minority of the minority. And a hobbyist who will soon be retiring and will at some point have less to spend on this wonderful hobby than I have had in the past. Nonetheless, my intention is to subscribe for as long as I can afford to do so precisely because I do want the new functionality. But I think your analogy about re-editing in an older version is not appropriate. For instance, if I did not subscribe, I would continue to be able to use CS6 and I could continue to edit and re-edit any images I had edited in it. I have lost no functionality. But if I subscribe to CC and use its new functionality in my editing, then at some point drop my subscription, as I understand things, I would no longer be able to use CC and so I would no longer be able to re-edit any images that incorporated CC functionality that was not in CS6. So the two situations are not at all analogous.
On the other hand, if Adobe were to 'freeze' your version of CC at the point at which you stopped subscribing, then I could continue to re-edit images previously edited in CC. That would be entirely analogous to the current situation with perpetually licensed software. While not entirely happy with the subscription idea, I can live with it (until I can no longer afford it) if Adobe would allow subscribers to freeze their version of PS CC at the point in time the choose to stop subscribing.
Best regards,
David
Do you understand the implications of revenue recognition relating to generally accepted accounting practices here in the USA? Google it...it starts with Enron...it means that based on the way Adobe had previously set up it's accounting for R&D for Photoshop (and other apps), once a product version was shipped, after the end of the quarter that the product shipped, Adobe was specifically precluded from adding any new features, only bug and maintenance fixes.Please site specific rules that support your statement.
With the perpetual license model, Adobe was precluded (meaning that they literally could not) add any new features to the perpetual version.
Did you not read my entire post?
Why selective responses just to poke holes, but not have a complete dialog.
Please respond and give your views on what you conveniently left out
For painting oneself to a corner, are there much options?
I notice that CC is $49 Dollars (£31 pounds) via adobe.com
yet it is £46 pounds via adobe.co.uk
How does this work as it is now a download? Why do Uk pay more for same product?
But to expect you can move back to an older version that doesn't support new functionality and be upset that you can't is as silly as deciding you'll go back to Photoshop 2.5 and complain it can't open any of your layered files.
What I sense people want is the ability to retain "in perpetuity" the most recent version of CC they used once their contract expires and they wish to jump off the train. That way they retain access to all the features they were using. I think this would be completely reasonable, solve most of the issues and something Adobe should consider making possible on some terms or other.
What I sense people want is the ability to retain "in perpetuity" the most recent version of CC they used once their contract expires and they wish to jump off the train.
Add another member to the club. I just remembered that we have an ignore function here, so enter "J.........." and at least this is resolved almost immediately :)
Interesting for anybody? http://corelblogs.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/corel-is-all-about-giving-users-choice/
I suggested in a previous post one could flatten into the background those things that wouldn't be compliant with the latest *perpetual* version one *owns* - a workable compromise of course but less than ideal.
What the great minds at Adobe also do not seem to understand is that the discretionary income of many people in the next 2 decades is probably going to drop significantly...
What the great minds at Adobe also do not seem to understand is that the discretionary income of many people in the next 2 decades is probably going to drop significantly, because the baby-boomers have started retiring in greater numbers than the number of people flowing into the workforce population. Or maybe they did understand and thought, let's rip them off while they think they can afford it.
Cheers,
Bart
And this misses a major point of Jeff's arguments. You're talking about hobbyists.
On the other hand, if Adobe were to 'freeze' your version of CC at the point at which you stopped subscribing, then I could continue to re-edit images previously edited in CC. That would be entirely analogous to the current situation with perpetually licensed software. While not entirely happy with the subscription idea, I can live with it (until I can no longer afford it) if Adobe would allow subscribers to freeze their version of PS CC at the point in time the choose to stop subscribing.
David
Hi Bob,
No, not exclusively. Look at the greater economic picture of the western world. Bankruptcies and layoffs, a shrinking workforce, and a rapid change in demographics. Adobe seems to want to compensate by raising prices ...
Cheers,
Bart
What did I leave out?
Please respond and give your views on what you conveniently left outQuoteIt is not that I want to do this (use old version of CS6). I really have no problem with the CC rental strategy. I just want to protect myself.
Adobe could go out of business....or change their strategy and find photography products not profitable enough, so they stop investing or discontinue PS. (basically a Kodak scenario). The price could go out of sight or circumstances could change where I could no longer afford to pay the monthly fee. Lots of possibilities we cannot imagine right now.
Don't you think we have the right....in fact the need and the responsibility to protect our image work efforts?
Bart, to be reasonable, Adobe isn't in the business of solving the world's economic problems, which dwarf this CC issue a thousand-fold if not a quantum more, nor are they conceived as a massive international income redistribution scheme. It's simply a corporation with employees, managers and shareholders doing the things such entities do.
Hi Mark,
I absolutely agree. I'm just making an observation that the change of direction will speed up the process of people dropping out (either voluntary or forced by circumstances beyond their control) of their potential customer base, large corporations last. They can either compensate by growing their customer base, or by raising prices for the remaining customers.
Cheers,
Bart
ANdrew, you were all over me on the need for DNG to protect our assests, yet you fail to recognise the very potential loss of Adobe's actions.Not at all. I've told you how to handle this issue: Upgrade and move on, don't upgrade and move on.
Do you not think that this Adobe action is a problem?
Should we bury our collective heads in the sand....and years from now bemoan that we cannot get at or adjust the images that we thought were safe?Yes, if there is no software to access that data. But there probably will be, meaning you'll have to pay for that accessibly, buying into CC. And by being smart how we store our rendered data (as a TIFF with a flattened version inside).
The Corel actions show that a caring company can find a solution
http://corelblogs.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/corel-is-all-about-giving-users-choice/
Corel is a company that has been on the brink of failure for years. It's photo application used to be pretty much akin to Elements but now lags even that. Corel has no choice because it's not in a position to dictate any terms to its customers.
It will be interesting to see how all that plays out.
Instead of this silly idea that we can move to future versions of software, then back when we wish and obtain all the same functionally, the same people should just start working on a time machine. Their efforts might be better served.
The proprietary raw I can't open isn't even a rendered image, it's a raw neg. In one scenario, I have my image, I can edit it such I could use hundreds of applications to see and print that data. In the other scenario I can't. In the first scenario yes I am no longer able to edit that data using the new tools. In the other scenario there's no tool to even access the data. One is far worse than the other.
But the thing is that if you now board the Adobe "moneytrain", there really is no turning back if you want to preserve the functionality and editability of your files for the foreseeable future.And to be fair, you could remove Adobe and add Intuit, or MS, or any other company that makes software.
So it's either "bend over" and pay a lot more than you're used to and with no mattress to fall on to if for some reason you can't pay anymore. Or to use the old tools, search for better ones and move on to them.After hundreds of posts here, that sum's it up damn well!
I really must be happy for you, since I guess you either have sufficient amount of money that you can subscribe or you have to do it, but get the money back as revenue or you get the subscription free from Adobe (again speculation here). But not all of us are as fortunate as you, so why can't you put yourself into other peoples place and think about how much this move from Adobe sucks then instead of making witty remarks about building time machines etc.
Corel is a company that has been on the brink of failure for years. It's photo application used to be pretty much akin to Elements but now lags even that. Corel has no choice because it's not in a position to dictate any terms to its customers.
The proprietary RAW has a large embedded JPEG, which many utility software can extract. It is analogous to your TIFF.
With the flattened TIFF, you lose all of your effort in creating the steps to modify the image....and no means to build on or easily modify that work.
I was pointing out that there is a potential solution....not commenting/promoting on Corel as a company or their products.
And to be fair, you could remove Adobe and add Intuit, or MS, or any other company that makes software.
After hundreds of posts here, that sum's it up damn well!
I don't know if that's directed specifically at me or not. But the yes, I make my living using Photoshop and other such tools and in my case, I have no options even if many parts of this new scheme I don't care for. I don't like it when the price of gas goes up but I still have to do a 170 mile round trip to get to the airport with the laptop running Photoshop I use to make a living.
The issue is your potential solutions are so beyond ridiculous they seem like a form of digital imaging comedy. The bit about the JPEG in the raw was a riot.
If I stick with CS6, for which I own a perpetual licence, I can be confident that I will be able to open my files for the foreseeable future.
Instead of this silly idea that we can move to future versions of software, then back when we wish and obtain all the same functionally, the same people should just start working on a time machine. Their efforts might be better served.
There is a whole cottage industry which exists solely to teach and explain Adobe PS and LR to the unwashed masses. Some in that industry are Adobe apologists who to some degree exist because Adobe has little-to-no interest in providing useful help to their users.
Absolutely.
Here are some other views from different angles:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/microsoft-office-wont-go-subscription-only-anytime-soon/
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1412811-adobe-jumps-off-a-cliff-leaves-parachute-behind?source=yahoo
Cheers,
Bart
5D3 jpegs are quite large, btw.Tell me more, how big?
I guess you never have any desire or need to go back an modify a wip image, rather than restarting the raw or modifying the flattened tiff. As you know, things like sharpening or blurring in a flattened cannot be easily fix, but are easy in the layered version.I was editing images in Photoshop years before there was anything but a flatted image.
What I want / hope for is the ability to continue editing and re-editing images in the version of CC that was current at the time I decided to 'jump off the train.' That would be directly analogous to how software with a perpetual license works.
I understand that's what you want. I'd like it too. It isn't in the works and I wouldn’t hold your breath. If that was how it worked, it wouldn't be a subscription.
sub·scrip·tion
/səbˈskripSHən/
Noun
The action of making or agreeing to make an advance payment in order to receive or participate in something.
An arrangement by which access is granted to an online service.
Huh? No help? Really? Ever watched any of the tutorials on Adobe TV? Julianne Kost, for example, offers some of the best training for PS and LR available anywhere. Superb instruction. Inspiration, even. Free.
Hmm. Most things I subscribe to, like magazines (yes, I still get print magazines), leave me with something tangible when I end my subscription.We've been over this but... Many subscriptions don't (subscriptions to rent a video on NetFlix, your cell phone and cable).
As to what's in the works or not, one can hope if enough people express dissatisfaction then Adobe might modify their plans (or not). So that is what I am doing, expressing my dissatisfaction in what I hope is a reasoned manner.
Adobe's gross margins are 89%?!! Jesus, and they want to wring even more money out of their customers?? http://seekingalpha.com/article/1412811-adobe-jumps-off-a-cliff-leaves-parachute-behind?source=yahoo
Sorry to disappoint you but, I actually agree with the direction Adobe is going. I think it makes good technical sense to get out of the 18-24 month dev cycle and out from underneath the accounting constraints caused by revenue recognition restrictions that will allow the engineers to add new features when you are ready instead of waiting till the next big product launch. Trying to maintain both a subscription model AND a perpetual model is unsustainable...engineering had all sorts of problems with the recent 13.1/13.0.4 updates and the engineering staff gave up their holidays to pitch in and fix them. That was the end of the idea of trying to maintain both models.
As far as pushing Adobe in a "better direction to support many of your own customers" exactly who do you think are my customers? I don't have any customers....I gave up working for clients years ago. If you are referring to software or video tutorials, sorry, that's not my responsibility.
Perhaps I even raise my own fee to compensate.
And contribute with sharpening technology for free?
I approach this from the point of view of an amateur or hobbyist photographer, so from Adobe's point I'm probably in the minority of the minority. And a hobbyist who will soon be retiring and will at some point have less to spend on this wonderful hobby than I have had in the past. Nonetheless, my intention is to subscribe for as long as I can afford to do so precisely because I do want the new functionality. But I think your analogy about re-editing in an older version is not appropriate. For instance, if I did not subscribe, I would continue to be able to use CS6 and I could continue to edit and re-edit any images I had edited in it. I have lost no functionality. But if I subscribe to CC and use its new functionality in my editing, then at some point drop my subscription, as I understand things, I would no longer be able to use CC and so I would no longer be able to re-edit any images that incorporated CC functionality that was not in CS6. So the two situations are not at all analogous.
On the other hand, if Adobe were to 'freeze' your version of CC at the point at which you stopped subscribing, then I could continue to re-edit images previously edited in CC. That would be entirely analogous to the current situation with perpetually licensed software. While not entirely happy with the subscription idea, I can live with it (until I can no longer afford it) if Adobe would allow subscribers to freeze their version of PS CC at the point in time the choose to stop subscribing.
Best regards,
David
We've been over this but... Many subscriptions don't (subscriptions to rent a video on NetFlix, your cell phone and cable).
.......... I kind of suspect Adobe's thought of this but heck, if the blowback is so huge, maybe something will change.
This is in my view the key mistake Adobe made. If they have done as you suggest David many would be quite happy with the new model.
I don't think those are fair comparisons. Yes, when I stop paying for cable and Netflix I no longer receive the movies and TV shows.And when you stop paying Adobe, the same happens to your software. What am I missing?
However, the movie studios and networks that provide the shows and movies also provide ways for me to own those shows via DVDs, Blu-ray, downloads etc. So I have the choice to rent or to own.
Adobe no longer gives that option.Yup, and I think that's the big issue most are pissed at, but from their side, it's very smart. If I give you an option to hire me for 1 day on-site or 2, what's a better option for you financially? If I tell you my on site minimum is 2 days I control this. You can tell me to bugger off, you'll find someone else just as you can tell Adobe to bugger off and use another software product. BUT, if you've already invested 4 days with me, or 4 years with Adobe software, the bugger off idea has severe negative implications for you.
This will severely disadvantage the smaller retailers who will now have to institute complex software packages to collect and disburse sales taxes in the states that they don't have a physical presence.
... if the ballpark to date is somewhere in the neighbourhood of half a million subscribers versus a few dozen - even very loud and reasonable - complainers - not so clear...........A few dozen? You don't get out much, Mark?
It is the key here, but freezing the version as such doesn't work. This way you could get a subscription for a month, then "freeze" it and you'd have a new version for 20$. Not going to work.
We've been over this but... Many subscriptions don't (subscriptions to rent a video on NetFlix, your cell phone and cable).
One can argue that the tangible item the CC subscription provides you is an document with an image in it. What's the net result, the something tangible of subscribing to CC and not using it?
I don't think those are fair comparisons. Yes, when I stop paying for cable and Netflix I no longer receive the movies and TV shows. However, the movie studios and networks that provide the shows and movies also provide ways for me to own those shows via DVDs, Blu-ray, downloads etc. So I have the choice to rent or to own. Adobe no longer gives that option. And, while I think the subscription service is great for medium to large businesses it doesn't make sense for individuals and small businesses.
Tell me more, how big?
Tell me that equates to the rendering I want, in the color space I want, in the bit depth I want and the full resolution I expect.
I was editing images in Photoshop years before there was anything but a flatted image.
Look, I don't know who you are, what you do for a living, anything about your 'chops' because you find it necessary to post here anonymously. That alone says a lot.
The idea of yours that the embedded JPEG in a raw in any way comes close to equating the raw itself is the kind of idea you'll get more traction from less educated users on DP Review. You should try talking with far less educated users there, LuLa is the place where most people will laugh out at such ideas. I've tried to explain my points to you a number of times and now, with your last concept of embedded JPEGs in raws, you've convinced me I'm reading DP Review newbie misunderstanding of image processing.
Wikipedia...Analogy (from Greek ἀναλογία, analogia, "proportion"[1][2]) is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general. The word analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often, though not necessarily, a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy.
Dictionary.com...
a·nal·o·gy
[uh-nal-uh-jee] Show IPA
noun, plural a·nal·o·gies.
1.
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2.
similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
Like Andrew said before, good for Adobe, not so good to the customers.
We are less important customers for that reason (and because our narrow focus on photography makes it less likely that we'll pay for other Adobe products).
We don't really qualify as customers for PS CC -- we qualify as customers for LR and PS Elements.
So you will key-word outside PS/LR.
So you will export/save developed/edited work as TIFF.
OK, how's this for conspiracy theories: Adobe thinks the current CC pricing (full or just single application) is too high but go for it, see if it sticks. If it does, great, we'll need a 2nd shovel to pickup all that cash. If there's a huge backlash (which is what's happening big time), release a lower price for both and come across as listening to their customers and then perceived (by some) as good guys.
Suppose after say a week of thinking you'll pay $50/19 per month you find out both fall in price by half. Would you then sign on?
I understand the difference between a jpeg and a TiffDoesn't appear that way with the posts you made, trying unsuccessfully to equate a JPEG in a raw with a raw!
I guess you never have any desire or need to go back an modify a wip image, rather than restarting the raw or modifying the flattened tiff. As you know, things like sharpening or blurring in a flattened cannot be easily fix, but are easy in the layered version.
Your signon is 'DigitalDog'; mine is 'jrsforums'. As you (I think) I have the same signon for all of the forums I participate in. You want yourself know for promotional purposes. I have no need to.Again you've missed the point and the functionality. First, there's full transparency as to who I am, links to my web page etc. You could be a 10 year old boy or girl, playing on daddy's computer. There is no transparency as to who you are, what you do, and other than some odd ideas about image processing, you could be the CEO of Corel as far as anyone know.
I am an amateur, retired from years working in sales, marketing, product development/planning/support/management for a major computer manufacturer. I have never claimed to be anything else.
While I disagree with you, I try to respond in a civil manner. I see no need for you to make personal attacks....don't you read Michael's posts...or can you just ignore them.My apologies if you were insulted.
I never equated jpeg and a tiff...and clearly said it was analogousNo, it seems you equated a JPEG pulled out of a raw with the raw. If you didn't, you were equally unclear as to what your point was. You're apparently trying to link an issue with old proprietary raws that can't be rendered but can have a JPEG extracted as being analogous to a fully rendered high bit, high gamut image which isn't close to warrant an analogy. I'm not buying it for the reasons I illustrated.
It is the key here, but freezing the version as such doesn't work. This way you could get a subscription for a month, then "freeze" it and you'd have a new version for 20$. Not going to work.
What could work would be the "cell phone" approach, where you pay monthly for a phone & service and at the end of the subscription you'd own the phone. This would need versioning in predictable intervals inside the CC system and different subscription plans with limited duration. At the end you could renew the subscription and start paying for the next version and its updates within CC.
But that again would wreck the whole continuous update scheme Adobe has intended. It's a tough nut to crack, I'll give them that.
You bought into a technology. Someone somewhere mentioned VHS. Just because the technology changes doesn't mean the old VHS data is no longer any good or even accessible. If you decide to buy VHS then move to DVD, you've make the decision to change technology.
Yup, and I think that's the big issue most are pissed at, but from their side, it's very smart. If I give you an option to hire me for 1 day on-site or 2, what's a better option for you financially? If I tell you my on site minimum is 2 days I control this. You can tell me to bugger off, you'll find someone else just as you can tell Adobe to bugger off and use another software product. BUT, if you've already invested 4 days with me, or 4 years with Adobe software, the bugger off idea has severe negative implications for you.
Ultimately you have to decide to pay or tell us to bugger off.
I do understand many people don't like such severe changes or being forced to do something they didn't have to do in the past.
Wikipedia...Work in process,[1][2][3][4] work in progress,[5][6][7] (WIP) goods in process,[8] or in-process inventory are a company's partially finished goods waiting for completion and eventual sale or the value of these items.[9] These items are either just being fabricated or waiting for further processing in a queue or a buffer storage. The term is used in production and supply chain management.
Again, not a great analogy. When I upgraded from from VHS to DVD all the VHS tapes I created still worked because I still had my player. No one took it away from me when I stopped buying VHS tapes.
Who's taking away the version of Photoshop you used to create the documents you'll take into CC?
No one at the moment, but CC subscription model changes this down the road.So assuming:
When I upgraded from from VHS to DVD all the VHS tapes I created still worked because I still had my player.Isn't the same then true again? What stops you from using CS6? We both agree in this analogy, you can't put the DVD into the VCR player and vise versa.
Isn't the same then true again? What stops you from using CS6? We both agree in this analogy, you can't put the DVD into the VCR player and vise versa.
[quote
I guess you never have any desire or need to go back an modify a wip image, rather than restarting the raw or modifying the unflattened tiff. As you know, things like sharpening or blurring in a flattened cannot be easily fix, but are easy in the layered version.
OK, how's this for conspiracy theories: Adobe thinks the current CC pricing (full or just single application) is too high but go for it, see if it sticks. If it does, great, we'll need a 2nd shovel to pickup all that cash. If there's a huge backlash (which is what's happening big time), release a lower price for both and come across as listening to their customers and then perceived (by some) as good guys.
Suppose after say a week of thinking you'll pay $50/19 per month you find out both fall in price by half. Would you then sign on?
So...never go back to the RAW..OK. Go back to the layered TIFF(PSD)?Yes.
I think that's what everyone is afraid of losing. I would be more than willing to get "on the (rental) train", if when I wanted/needed to get off, I could retain the processing I had.I understand that's what they are afraid of losing. They can move forward and not lose or deal with the current data 'as is'. What they can't do is move forward then backwards for what I thought were obvious reasons. Further, as I pointed out but which hasn't been commented on, if you get off the train with those layers, they are going to be inaccessible outside of an Adobe product that edits said layers. If you get on and off the train, before doing so, you better deal with new technology embedded in that data that the older technology can't handle. I discussed ways of doing this. But frankly, this on the train, off the train concept has far more problems than it solves.
...concerning CC's target market toward professionals, I'm curious if this is going to reduce the amount of online Adobe app troubleshooting posts and general digital imaging discussions since CC integrates bug fixes and feature additions through the Cloud that seems to require a call to Adobe customer service for any trouble encountered. Is this what the Cloud is designed for with regard to professionals?Whether you like Microsoft or not (and I've always been a WinOS user) they manage to update Windows, in some cases weekly, to address problems in a dynamic manner. Their installed base dwarfs Adobe by orders of magnitude. You also get plenty of help through their website so I think that this is a false analogy.
I also found some other very interesting "Mashable.com" articles on CC from an interview with Adobe CEO and other articles explaining Adobe's other plans to expand like bringing prime time TV to the internet.Newsflash to Adobe, prime time TV is already on the Internet.
http://mashable.com/2012/11/15/adobe-project-primetime/
So with CC, if you want to play with the pros and/or come across or be perceived as a pro (with pro problems for Adobe to deal with), then pay the price with a subscription. As a former professional creative it makes perfect sense.I am still trying to grasp what new enhancements will be made to photoshop other than incremental and support for new cameras.
I think you're on to something. In addition to a lower price, Adobe might consider addressing the concerns (not all valid) that people will lose access to their files should they stop their subscriptions.
But they will not lose access to their files, that's a point that needs to be understood. If overnight, CC disappeared from the planet, that might be an issue. If you know you're getting off that train and you know you'll have a backwards compatibles issue in some rare cases, you deal with it before you jump ship. And you only have two options as I see it: Get on an older Adobe train, the likelihood is outside using Smart Collections with new CC processes, your files are not lost and neither were the edits. OR find a different train or mode of transportation then kiss all that away until you flatten a version to feed to that new product.
The problem is that you know that but 99% of all those who are up in arms do not.Let's get the message out, only then can people make intelligent decisions to which train they want to ride.
I am still trying to grasp what new enhancements will be made to photoshop other than incremental and support for new cameras.
It is the key here, but freezing the version as such doesn't work. This way you could get a subscription for a month, then "freeze" it and you'd have a new version for 20$. Not going to work.
What could work would be the "cell phone" approach, where you pay monthly for a phone & service and at the end of the subscription you'd own the phone. This would need versioning in predictable intervals inside the CC system and different subscription plans with limited duration. At the end you could renew the subscription and start paying for the next version and its updates within CC.
But that again would wreck the whole continuous update scheme Adobe has intended. It's a tough nut to crack, I'll give them that.
You hit the reason which is probably far and beyond above the "difficulty in maintaining two versions of the software".
And it probably doesn't just limit to Photoshop. Pretty much every major application of the CS suite is quite mature at least from a feature standpoint.
This leads to no revolutionary innovations, which in turn leads to people and businesses skipping over versions and reluctance to upgrade.
The signs of this have been around with Adobe for ages, for example supporting new cameras in only the new versions of the software effectively making people upgrade if they want to keep hold of a reasonable workflow.
To that i reply: Have you ever tried the product help?
As an aerial photographer I can tell you that the new "anti-blur" feature could be huge.
Not really. They will allow people in CC not to upgrade. This means they will also have to cater to those people who decide against several upgrades and then a year or so later, process all the upgrades they skipped. If they can do that in CC for subscribers, then they can do it for others.
I understand that's what you want. I'd like it too. It isn't in the works and I wouldn’t hold your breath. If that was how it worked, it wouldn't be a subscription.
sub·scrip·tion
/səbˈskripSHən/
Noun
The action of making or agreeing to make an advance payment in order to receive or participate in something.
An arrangement by which access is granted to an online service.
If the subscriber doesn't renew the subscription at the end of the term, they lose access to the server and to any subsequent software programs/upgrades made available on the server but they can continue to use, in perpetuity, any software that they acquired from the program during the term of their subscription.
As an aerial photographer I can tell you that the new "anti-blur" feature could be huge.
A few dozen? You don't get out much, Mark?
Just continuing to play devils advocate (cause Adobe will too): the same could be said of CC. You no longer have access to the software, you always have access to the documents you created with the software prior to cancelation of subscription of software.
But yes, Adobe could and probably should alter the restrictions of their current CC schema.
Well, since you obviously get out much more than I do, what's your estimate?
Hi Rick,
You mean something like this (http://smartdeblur.net/), or this (http://www.adptools.com/en/deblurmyimage-description.html)?
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
I had no idea those existed, thanks! Now can you show me some Mac versions? :)
Not to worry Ron. And I agree - 3700 is indeed more than a few dozen. I think we agree it will likely take some kind of critical mass, whatever number that is, to move changes in Adobe's current offering structure; but perhaps not - maybe they will see corporate PR benefit in at least being seen trying to address these concerns, even if only for a smaller but important niche of their total market base. Let's hope.
>>The ONLY way a subscription is acceptable is if at the end of the subscription period I own my software and can do whatever I want with it…AND I can reinstall my featurelocked software if I need to.
Hi Rick,
Unfortunately not. Most of this type of development is done on the Windows OS platform, but you can probably use Parallels to run Windows applications on a Mac. Maybe this (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2344661,00.asp) helps.
Cheers,
Bart
Andrew - at the end of a care lease you pay the REMAINING VALUE - i.e depreciated value. 700 is the FULL NEW price for Photoshop. Upgrades cost 200. People may find a 100~200 "keep it" fee reasonable after paying a year or two of rent.
I know <g>. But 700 WAS the full price and it bought you a perceptual licenses too, so thinking different (like Adobe <G>):
Here's the deal. Adobe can't have you subscribe for 3 weeks, then decide to end the lease. They would probably have to have a minimum subscription (or like your phone, you pay a fee to get out). So you pay $20 a month or whatever for just Photoshop. 1 year, $240. Then after that year, let's just say you can 'buy out your lease" for $500. But what about the fellow who's leased, I mean subscribed for 2 years? Can't change them $500. Or can you?
IT can't be too complicated but should be a lot simpler than figuring out a end of car lease fee. Since Adobe knows how long you've subscribed, maybe they have a 1-2-3 year fee for the buyout that differs. Remember however, Adobe got it's $700 initially and wants to stop you from doing that once and never again, so I suspect if there is an out, it's going to cost you big time. But at least, there's an out!
You mean something like this (http://smartdeblur.net/), or this (http://www.adptools.com/en/deblurmyimage-description.html)?
Yes I agree - something that is ostensibly fair to both parties should be workable.
Bart, I do run Windows and I will definitely give both these applications a look. I will be interested to see how they do with large files. Thanks again, I really appreciate the heads up!
Well we must be having some effect as Adobe stock is down 3% today.
This is in my view the key mistake Adobe made. If they have done as you suggest David many would be quite happy with the new model.
Could this whole outrage (which I agree with, btw) be summarized in four points?
1. Loss of a traditional method of ownership (or "ownership")
2. Forced move to the cloud, which many detest for a number or reasons
3. Forced rental/lease without the option to buy after a certain period
4. Effective price increase
Could this whole outrage (which I agree with, btw) be summarized in four points?
1. Loss of a traditional method of ownership (or "ownership")
2. Forced move to the cloud, which many detest for a number or reasons
3. Forced rental/lease without the option to buy after a certain period
4. Effective price increase
"Creative Cloud members download and install their Apps as Adobe customers always have (http://blogs.adobe.com/dreamweaver/2013/03/5-myths-about-adobe-creative-cloud.html)."
"Creative Cloud members download and install their Apps as Adobe customers always have (http://blogs.adobe.com/dreamweaver/2013/03/5-myths-about-adobe-creative-cloud.html)."
Could this whole outrage (which I agree with, btw) be summarized in four points?
1. Loss of a traditional method of ownership (or "ownership")
2. Forced move to the cloud, which many detest for a number or reasons
3. Forced rental/lease without the option to buy after a certain period
4. Effective price increase
No, that's how it works -- Adobe's Creative Cloud Subscription Service has already been operating for one year (http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/22/adobe-officially-unveils-cs6-and-its-49month-all-inclusive-creative-cloud-subscription-service/).
What made you think that Adobe are not free to change the content, cost and terms of their services?
Could this whole outrage (which I agree with, btw) be summarized in four points?
1. Loss of a traditional method of ownership (or "ownership")
2. Forced move to the cloud, which many detest for a number or reasons
3. Forced rental/lease without the option to buy after a certain period
4. Effective price increase
What made you think that anything Adobe tells you can be trusted to be the truth?
My expectations of Adobe Systems Incorporated are that they will provide software as described, under license conditions as described -- and they have.A line of argument that can justify any behaviour whatsoever and doesn't invalidate people's objections. Maybe you should go back to trying to understand the humour in that cartoon....
Unless Adobe shuts down the activation servers, in which case CS6 will not run (without a crack). The perpetual license does not insualte you from all bad things.That is true, and it does worry me, but I imagine that Adobe would be in serious trouble if they dishonoured software licences that they'd already sold. Even if they managed to find a legal loophole that enabled them to do so without being sued, their credibility as a legitimate company would be destroyed.
Where does it say that Adobe Systems Incorporated gave up their freedom to change previously announced plans?
afaict history's great painters didconstantlyupgrade their materials -- new synthetic pigments ...etc
One of the advantages of CC is that Adobe has made Australian prices the same as US. This is significant as there was a price difference for one of the suites of $1000. Adobe was asked to front the Australian parliament over its pricing (http://petapixel.com/2013/03/25/adobe-offers-justification-for-higher-prices-to-australian-parliamentary-committee/).They haven't reduced the Australian price, they've just increased it less than the American ones. I paid $307 for each of my last two Photoshop upgrades, which works out to just over 15 months rent at the current price. Even at the rip-off Australian upgrade price, you'd still pay less to own the software and upgrade at every new version than you'd pay to rent it. If you want a few of the CS applications the new pricing may admittedly save you money.
Outstanding diversionary move, even by your standards, Isaac, and your standards are high. One example of a change of artistic technology in the entire 19th century is not evidence of constant change, as you almost certainly know but of course could never admit. I am beginning to see a pattern here.
I agree; they probably didn't upgrade their materials while taking a bathroom break, debauchery break, breakfast break, sleeping, ... or when no upgrades were available...
I'm so pleased that we have that correction in-place ;)
Happy now? :-)Yes, thanks, and apologies if my tone became narky. My original "one line" correction was as discreet as I could possibly make it, but I think worth making, as the the topic is an interesting one. A couple of observations. Painters' studios are sometimes preserved after their deaths (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=francis+bacon,+studio&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=SJGNUf_SM--0iQfUmIHAAQ&ved=0CC4QsAQ&biw=1920&bih=1113), and provide a record of their use of materials. I am always struck by the number and variety of brushes and half-squeezed paint tubes and wonder if these are area where they do look for improvements, constant or otherwise, or whether they just don't do garbage disposal. I also wonder whether great photographers actually do constantly change their tools - I suspect it may be less often than many amateurs.
...what is your position at Adobe. You seem to have taken this on as a personal crusade...
Jeeesh, I really feel embarrassed by all the photographers who completely and totally misunderstand intellectual property and copyrights. You buy Photoshop? You don't own Photoshop, you own the right to use Photoshop for either a limited period of time or an unlimited period of time. Both transaction are the same principal. The only difference is with a subscription you lose the right to use after your subscription expires. With a perpetual license, it doesn't expire until such time as you no longer have a computer it will run on.
Simon, I think even in the EU all you own is the right to use the software by virtue of your license, and to resell the use of the license. You don't own the intellectual property, and if you don't own the intellectual property you don't really own the software. Maybe this is all just semantics in terms of its end-effects, but nonetheless a real distinction.
...I have been considering the nic package but now will definitely pass on it. I would not buy photokit sharpener today. I won't buy any plugins for a software that may not have a future for me.
In the EU we buy the software license we own it and can resell it.
Yes, it is a matter of semantics. What the users are concerned about is the issue of a permanent license, versus a temporary license to use the software which is paid for by some kind of subscription. End the subscription and you end your use of the program, with any of the functionality it provided. In the previous model you could elect to not upgrade, but you still retained the use of the older software. Now, you won't.
Despite any claims to the contrary, no one has been suggesting that the users owned the intellectual property contained in the product, its respective software code, or the right to copy and resell the product. It's been strictly about use of that product by the licensee, although that may not always be clear from the posts.
If PS users break down into three main categories, as I think they generally do:
1 - Large corporations and multi license users, with constant upgrades to the latest versions across all platforms. Substantially the largest group size.
2 - Home/small business and amateur photographers with single user licenses, with upgrades when they can afford it. Unknown group size.
3 - Pirated/hacked illegal users of PS with no intention of ever buying a license, yet with almost immediate access to the latest versions across all platforms. Anyone who cares to Google to find the URL of a torrent/download website.
If Adobe has now changed its PS delivery and licensing method to cater more for the requirements of group 1, as this is the targeted market PS was always supposed to be aimed at, but in so doing was fully aware it would alienate a large proportion of group 2, which way does Adobe think group 2 will now migrate towards the next time they want to upgrade, group 1 or group 3?
What if the subscription software reverted to CS6 functionality when the subscription expires? That would take care of the proprietary Adobe file obsolescence problem as computer hardware and operating systems change.
What happens when computer operating systems evolve such that CS6 becomes unusable legacy software? I already have software I use, which the developers will not update, that is compatible with Mac OSX 10.6.8 but not 10.7+. The provision for long-term access to our files needs to be more forward-looking than CS6.
What happens when computer operating systems evolve such that CS6 becomes unusable legacy software? I already have software I use, which the developers will not update, that is compatible with Mac OSX 10.6.8 but not 10.7+. The provision for long-term access to our files needs to be more forward-looking than CS6.Of course that's an Apple OS problem and not one for us Windows users! ;D
Of course that's an Apple OS problem and not one for us Windows users! ;D
Cummon Alan - I used to use Windows also ya know. I have applications that are XP-compliant , not 7 or 8 compliant and the vendor won't upgrade them. I need to maintain an old Toshiba laptop to access them. Ugh. :-)
Gulag, what's the link for the MS VM?
Downloaded and installed it a few years back when I upgraded to W7. Here is a link that can work:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/install-and-use-windows-xp-mode-in-windows-7
Alan and Mark, that's a great idea! Let's add a Mac/Windows discussion to this thread! Can't get any hotter ;-)
Very interesting: now here is one for you (and sorry if a bit OT - but a good opportunity). I have Windows 7 Professional already running as a VM under Parallels 8 in Mac OSX 10.6.8. So, any idea whether I could run Windows XP mode as a VM within the Windows 7 VM under Parallels on a Mac? :-) Whew.
any idea whether I could run Windows XP mode as a VM within the Windows 7 VM under Parallels on a Mac?
What happens when computer operating systems evolve such that CS6 becomes unusable legacy software? I already have software I use, which the developers will not update, that is compatible with Mac OSX 10.6.8 but not 10.7+. The provision for long-term access to our files needs to be more forward-looking than CS6.
I just cancelled my NAPP membership. If I stay with CS6 I don't need NAPP.
Are you feeling tempted?
Do you want to subscribe to a service that, if you choose to stop the subscription at any time later in life, you will lose the capability to further edit those images with Photoshop?
I've gone back and forth from CC to CS6 but you have to be smart about doing something that traditionally (moving backwards) has seemed unnecessary and to some, rather silly.
What happens when you have to fall back on CS6 in the middle of a project that depends on access to a new feature layer, because there is an issue with the subscription verification of your CC (could be as simple as no internet available at a somewhat remote location, or a moron severing the local fiber connection by digging in the wrong place, or something more malicious such as a DDOS attack crippling access to the verification servers)? What happens when Adobe increases the monthly subscription rate to an unacceptable level?If you moved back to CS6 with new CC data like Round Rectangle layers SO's with CC only processing, and you open that TIFF or PSD, Photoshop will pop a dialog:
This document contains unknown data which will be discarded to keep layers editable. To preserve the original appearance instead, choose Flatten to load composite data as a flattened image.You now have a number of options! The above two do allow you to open the documents despite the web filled with people saying you can't.
It's not always about being silly, or irrational, or to stingy, or temporarily broke because you have to pay to cure a life threatening disease ..., it's also about contingency planning and being prudent and prepared and not risking one's livelihood.What happens if an Earthquake or meteor or bird flu shut down Adobe servers?
What happens if an Earthquake or meteor or bird flu shut down Adobe servers?
In my line of business, when dealing with the contractual underpinnings of projects, we make a distinction between "Force Majeure Events"(FME) and normal business risk. What you are talking about above is FME, and what Bart is talking about is normal business risk. The former by definition is beyond anyone's control, but the latter is controllable, can be shaped, and the risk can be mitigated by design and allocated. I don't think it makes sense to confuse these things.
I would suspect Photoshop CC has phoned home as my understanding is it runs for a period of time without the need to activate (30 days? I need to check because I've heard other figures far higher).
You will need to be online when you install and license your software. If you have an annual membership, you'll be asked to connect to the web to validate your software licenses every 30 days. However, you'll be able to use products for 3 months (99 days) even if you're offline.
Just a quick technical question/note:That's correct, Ed, though it's hard to say whether it's something good about CC or just that they've stopped doing something pernicious.
Didn't you have to pay for both a PC version and a Mac version of all those Adobe programs?
If you went to the CC version, wouldn't you just have to buy one version? (I thought you could pay your monthly fee and down load either version--up to two copies. So you could have your mac version and you pc version.)
Would this save you a bundle or have I gotten confused?
Just a quick technical question/note:
Didn't you have to pay for both a PC version and a Mac version of all those Adobe programs?
If you went to the CC version, wouldn't you just have to buy one version? (I thought you could pay your monthly fee and down load either version--up to two copies. So you could have your mac version and you pc version.)
Would this save you a bundle or have I gotten confused?
ed
baltimore
It does work on both platforms but you both can't use it at the same time on a single subscription, if I understand it correctly.
I think it's two activations per serial/license so you should be free to mix and match.
You may install software on up to two computers. These two computers can be Windows, Mac OS, or one each.
If you install on a third computer, it will request you to de-activate on the other two computers. You can then reactivate one of the previous two computers, and use Creative Cloud apps on it.
If you regularly need to use the Creative Cloud on more than two computers then it would be best to purchase an additional subscription. This is the same licensing btw which we have for our prepetual product. An advantage though for Creative Cloud over the prepetural product is that you can install on Mac and Windows with the same subscription!
One final thought. Note that Adobe has NOT made Lightroom subscription only. Can you guess why? I'll give you at least three big reasons: Apple Aperture, Capture One and DxO Optics. All very credible alternatives. I'm glad I work with the later two. Maybe I need to hone my skills better with those for the future.Agreed. I don't share the widespread belief that LR6 will be cloud only, not because I particularly love or trust Adobe, but because there is real competition which would welcome the resulting flood of Adobe deserters with open cash registers. The belief it will be cloud only seems largely to be based on the fact that Adobe says it won't. This is some kind of evidence, I grant you, but I think self-interest will trump any natural desire to upset their users.
Nemo >:(
For anyone who want s a great Illustrator alternate, try Canvas. Ten times better a program, easier to use. Illustrator is simply a backup to that for me.
Hey Nemo,
A bit OT, but is this (http://www.acdsee.com/en/products/canvas-14) the software you are recommending here?
That's the only Canvas-named program that does vector graphics, but I'm still not sure about it, so if you could clarify, thanks.
No connection to Adobe Systems Incorporated.
No personal crusade.
Like someone said in one of these discussion threads - there's enough not to like about the Adobe announcement without endlessly repeating misunderstandings, misinformation and cynical speculation.
Schewe, a few questions if you don't mind. Am I right in thinking that ACR 8 will be released next month? Are you saying that once released more updates to ACR 8 will become available over time to those with CS6 and these will continue until ACR 9 comes along?
I feel I am vindicated in my assessment that Adobe will keep Lightroom separate from CC because the competition is fierce. They just confirmed that in will remain standalone. Pity there aren't many credible options for Photoshop -- which really does set the standard. I've played now with GIMP, Photoline and Paintshop Pro. All decent programs on their own, but the re-learning curve is steep, and they really aren't as good. Pisses me off really, because then Adobe can pull their CC business. For almost everything else, there are vey good alternate programs. I'll update my InDesign and Illustrator to the "last" independent versions -- CS6. Then, I really don't know.
Now the CC is not available. At all. This is unacceptable for us subscribers working under a deadline. >:(
But the real problem here isn't cost, it's the fact that Adobe holds the future of everyone's PSD files (and I think layered TIFFs) in their hands.
And that was true the day you saved a layered document or any document using proprietary Adobe processing. Kind of true for every software product out there.
If the problem isn't the cost, continue to pay to use proprietary Adobe processing.
Yes, I know Adobe has always been in control of those files, but prior to recent times Adobe was less mercenary and more reasonable in their decisions so it didn't seem to matter. This has been a real wake-up call.
At $20/month cost isn't the problem yet. I think the lack of reliability in Adobe's recent statements about what its policies will be indicate a willingness to make rash and unpredictable changes to the detriment of customers like me in the future. Since subscribing is essentially a lifetime commitment if you want to retain use of your files, I see the lack of reliability and small customer be damned attitude as being the root problem. A year ago a customer relationship with Adobe felt comfortable and stable. Huge overnight changes in policies and price of a license had never happened and were thus unexpected. The future no longer seems so comfortable and stable, and with so many people locked in, huge overnight policy and price changes are virtually a given. IMO, of course.
Mine too. I think you've hit the nail on the head. The stability and predictability of contractual relationships and understandings with clients are hugely important aspects of business ethics regardless of the legal fine print in the license agreements, and much of our commerce depends on it. Not to say that things mustn't and can't change - they must and they do, but it's the manner in which it's done and the transitional arrangements for mitigating negative impacts on customers that make all the difference in the world. This recent episode has, to my mind, revealed serious managerial lacunae in the corporation. No matter what all the technical advantages of the new arrangements may be, these other aspects are equally important - perhaps they will learn something from this; remains to be seen.
That seems like an argument for ignoring uninformed speculation :-)
That seems like an argument for ignoring uninformed speculation :-)
Show me the uninformed speculation you attribute to them and I'll see what I think.
You seem to feel that Adobe Systems Incorporated made you some kind of promise -- please show me where they made that promise.There is an expectation that results from the relationship people have enjoyed with Adobe for many years. You're merely splitting hairs, as well as being irritating.
You seem to feel that Adobe Systems Incorporated made you some kind of promise -- please show me where they made that promise.
The relationship has been that Adobe are free to offer or not-offer whatever products or services they think will work for them, and we're free to accept or decline what they offer.Master of the bleedin' obvious, eh?
Many have said that they regularly declined what Adobe offered.
You seem to feel that Adobe Systems Incorporated made you some kind of promise -- please show me where they made that promise.
Please show me where "Adobe's public faces..." etc because I now know your comments are "not meant to be taken seriously".
I don't really have the time or energy to play along with your game right now to Google for specific citations, but can assure you that there were both implied and explicit promises made about the fact that Creative Cloud offerings were to be a complement, not replacement for the traditional licensing model.
In any of the EULA's we may or may not have read and agreed to, is that specified? Or in any other agreement between Adobe and end users?
Please say what implicit promise you feel exists, and why you feel there is that implicit promise.
Please say what implicit promise you feel exists, and why you feel there is that implicit promise.
Keep calm and don't feed the trolls ;D
When all you've got is name-calling...
How strange that the Troll is always someone else ;-)
When all you've got is name-calling...I don't throw the word lightly, but you wear it well.
How strange that the Troll is always someone else ;-)
To learn what in this commentary is baseless gossip and what is sound information worthy of attention.
When I pay to see a movie performance, I don't imagine that I have formed a relationship with the leading actress :-)So you were only brushing away popcorn when they threw you out of the movie theatre?
So you were only brushing away popcorn when they threw you out of the movie theatre?
Has anyone actually signed up with the CC service here?
Well I sort of inadvertently ended up signing up, entering my date of birth and agreeing to Adobe marketing by phone, mail or email just trying to download the trial version of CS6 after discovering my options with LR4 due to no other download options available on Adobe's site.
Now I have a new app on my system called AAM (Adobe Application Manager) permanently on my Mac system which now controls BOTH CC subscription apps (I'm not using) and perpetual licenses of existing Adobe apps.
I'm willing to believe that others have better information than I do.
I'm willing to believe there was something I misunderstood and others understood.
So far it just seems that I expected less. When I pay to see a movie performance, I don't imagine that I have formed a relationship with the leading actress :-)
I think this has been at least mentioned before and I thought it worth elaborating upon a little. Photoshop is a very mature product, and it may be that there isn't a lot left to improve about it or add to it. Certainly there are small improvements to be made and maybe a few more "wow" features could be dreamed up, but are there enough such things to keep people upgrading for, say, five more upgrade cycles? When the answer is "no" many products go into a maintenance mode, receiving updates only for new operating system requirements and security threats. The subscription model keeps a big stream of revenue flowing regardless of what Adobe does in the way of improvements, while removing much of the incentive for Adobe to come up with such improvements. Those who want or need to keep using their PSD files will eventually subscribe just in order to maintain compatibility with future operating systems and hardware even if Adobe makes no improvements at all.
This is at least food for thought. If it's true what's happening makes more sense.
Photoshop is beyond mature, it is obsolete in every technical sense.
...Photoshop is beyond mature, it is obsolete in every technical sense...
This is a very broad, sweeping, unsupported swipe at one of the deepest and most sophisticated imaging applications ever devised by mankind. Could you please substantiate what you are saying? And who is providing equivalent functionality in a manner that is less "obsolete"? Note that I do not work for Adobe, I have no particular relationship with Adobe except as a user of their software, but when I see comments of this ilk it leaves me kind of breathless.
because somehow I would think if this were so much better, those guys at Adobe would have been on top of it long ago.Sure ? There are a lot of reasons why making radical changes to the way Photoshop works could be regarded as a very bad idea.
Nuke is a compositing application for the film industry. Not clear to me whether you're comparing apples with apples. Is it truly appropriate to cherry-pick technologies developed for different purposes and then dump on Photoshop for not using them? A whole architecture and structure of a multi-purpose application is at play, so I wonder about that - I have no reason to say you are incorrect, but I wonder.
Are you so sure an "N-dimensional data workflow" would work in Photoshop? I'd like to hear from the professional digital imaging engineers on that one, because somehow I would think if this were so much better, those guys at Adobe would have been on top of it long ago.
I also don't understand why you say that anything needs to be "baked-in" when compositing with Photoshop. Everything can be done with layers and adjustment layers and people who know what they are about in that application can reverse anything they do. Have you every since how Bert Monroy, perhaps one of the great masters of all compositors, uses Photoshop? There is quite an education there about intricate, reversible workflows.
Sure ? There are a lot of reasons why making radical changes to the way Photoshop works could be regarded as a very bad idea.
Part of it's success has been the slow steady progress and ease of moving to new versions without having to learn a lot of new things.
Maybe you should learn to use Photoshop a little bit better first if you think there is no going back to revise composited images. I've used a non-destructive workflow in PS for years, it's not as simple as the parametric workflow in LR, but it can still be non destructive, when using smart objects, layer masks, adjustment layers...etc.
- In photoshop, it is necessary to "bake in" intermediate results in order to align them to a one-dimensional flow. There is no going back to revise parts of your composited image, all of which might have required extensive independent treatments, as well as a level of /coordination/................
........ In photoshop, several hacks have been devised in order to accommodate different needs, such as "Apply Image..." which is completely unnecessary in an N-dimensional dataflow architecture.
And that's just a start. Thanks for the question though. I'm thinking of teaching a course on this over the summer. It's a timely topic.
Consider also the GEGL library being developed for GIMP. It uses the same N-dimensional dataflow architecture.
All comers are welcome. In my view, Adobe, as a business decision, did not want to spend $200M to make a product that had a future so long as they felt they had a cash cow. Technically, though, photoshop was always vulnerable. I consulted on a competing design ten years ago, and undertook a study back then.
I didn't say (quantitatively) that "everything" needs to be baked in, I did say that at some point one needed to bake in intermediate results. Try for example to use a single source file for multiple purposes within a single layer stack, and without duplicating it or importing it from another stack.
Example, use a single source file as a layer mask, a multi-frequency sharpening mask, a "hard light" layer within a single stack. Then decide that you need to change the source file just slightly. Can you reverse and re-do all of those derived images in a single click?
The ability of people to push the bounds of the existing photoshop does not speak to the extent to which those same people could push another architecture and with less effort.
Maybe you should learn to use Photoshop a little bit better first if you think there is no going back to revise composited images. I've used a non-destructive workflow in PS for years, it's not as simple as the parametric workflow in LR, but it can still be non destructive, when using smart objects, layer masks, adjustment layers...etc.
I'd still like to know why this new technology hasn't found its way into Photoshop or into alternative competing products. Especially if it has been worked on for a decade or more. People can and do adjust to new ways of doing things. We need only back-cast the rapid transition from film to digital.
If I had to guess, I'd say there are two reasons:
If I had to guess, I'd say there are two reasons:
1) Adobe felt they had a cash cow with photoshop, and felt no reason to innovate while they were deeply entrenched. User expectations were matched to the (limitations on) possibilities as marketing by Adobe.
2) Competing interests did not want to invest $200M or so to try to go up against Adobe's business machine.
No, there is one simple reason:
Photoshop is not a Compositing tool.
It started as a digital image editor, and grew up during a time when such processing on the desktop was simply unique, and nodal processing totally and utterly impossible.
It is fine that you want to propose doing stuff differently now, and starting from scratch, but you should realise that what you are proposing is a compositing application (say and InDesign aimed at imaging), which allows you to edit separate components in the composition with a flexibility that pales the complexity of photoshop.
I have mentioned it before: I am not a great proponent of flexibility for its own sake. Just because you can come up with infinite possibilities, that doesn't mean it is in any way efficient of effective for its purpose. Define your workflow, define the average workflow of the target audience, then build a relatively flexible product to suite. You apparently expect the application to help you make compositions, while the majority of the photographers maybe just want to edit a single file.
(I don't know that, I am just stating this as an example).
So, how are those users helped when giving them an infinitely powerful compositer?
(Again, I am not dismissing your point of a total new approach to image editing and compositing, just wondering where and how you think it will fit a workflow in both a professional production environment, and a single user case).
Why would a company build a product that does all things for everyone, and then charge a mere 200usd for it and hope to survive?
But N-dimensional dataflow allows for journaling for infinite undo, or baking in just as in photoshop.
1) Compositing is just a common task for which to compare two architectures.
3) N-dimensional dataflow is efficient for tasks that aren't computing intensive.
It also exploits inherent parallelism for efficient use of multiple cores, threads, or networked processors.
4) Pixel editing can be done using a choice of methods. You can do it just as before. But N-dimensional dataflow allows for journaling for infinite undo, or baking in just as in photoshop.
Imagine that you want to use a single source file for three purposes, for example (1) a layer mask, (2) a sharpening layer, and (3) an "overlay" blend (blending with itself for purposes of local contrast enhancement). How would you do that without duplicating? Remember, loading a layer mask is an implied duplication. I don't know of any way to both derive and load a layer mask with a smart object. Think about it. You'll see it. You could even have layers with controlled feedback, something that is patently impossible in photoshop. There is an entire world beyond photoshop.So you arbitrarily say I cannot do something in PS that is quick and simple to do as justification for a new workflow. Not a good way to make your point is it?
There are many things you can do with photoshop with considerable work. With an N-dimensional dataflow, there are ways to do the same things with a trivial amount of work.Not saying there are not ways in which you can do things better, but I find doing what you say is 'considerable work' in fact quite trivial to do. Cntrl/Cmd+j is not exactly a challenge is it?
Why would a company build a product that does all things for everyone, and then charge a mere 200usd for it and hope to survive?Because they could wipe out the competition would be my first thought.
Since work of just this sort is being done for GIMP 3, it might be worthwhile to look in on that discussion.I did just that and thought this was of note.
http://blog.mmiworks.net/2012/01/gimp-full-gegl-ahead.html (http://blog.mmiworks.net/2012/01/gimp-full-gegl-ahead.html)
However, at the moment, you quite often see the following: ‘if you want this feature, you’ll have to use it on its own, extra layer.’ This is layer abuse. I get misquoted on this so let me clarify: users never abuse layers, developers do. Here are some examples of layer abuse:
the only way to do a non‐destructive operation is via an adjustment layer
only one vector shape per vector layer;
only one block of text on a text layer;
the output of a filter plugin is always put on a new layer;
the result of using a toolbox tool is always put on a new layer.
The problem is with ‘only,’ ‘always’ and ever more layers, whether users want them or not.
Reformation
The abuse listed above is straightforward to fix. Quite a bit of it has to do with enabling users to redo or revisit the image manipulation. That is solved by the operations dialog.
(http://mmiworks.net/pics/blog12/sublayers.png)
Furthermore, there can be as many vector shapes and text blocks on a layer as one likes. Just show them—and stack ’em—as sub‑layer elements in the layers dialog. And when then one of these sub‑layer elements is allowed to be actual pixels, then it is clear that the whole notion of special vector/text layer can disappear:
Layer abuse has to stop. Developers should never force users to use another layer. Only users decide how many layers they want to use, purely as their own personal way to organise their work.
1) Adobe felt they had a cash cow with photoshop, and felt no reason to innovate while they were deeply entrenched. User expectations were matched to the (limitations on) possibilities as marketing by Adobe.Funny as each version of PS I've ever used has been much better than previous versions and I've used it since PS 3.0
After reading all the threads dealing with the Creative Cloud, and Adobe's clarifications about it, my belief was that if you subscribed to the cloud and then left it at some point, you would have to go back to your last "perpetually licensed" version, in my case, Photoshop CS6, and would lose all of the CC features.
... we both heard the Adobe guy say that if you subscribe to the cloud, say for a year or more, if you then stop subscribing, we would be able to have the then-current version of Photoshop on our computer and to use it as long as we would want to. In addition, it would retain all of the new features up until that point, and what we would lose would only be future upgrades.
What Walter was told has nothing to do with what you bring up, Andrew. Either it is a course change, or a confused sales agent that he spoke with.I was only commenting on the poster who wrote: my belief was that if you subscribed to the cloud and then left it at some point, you would have to go back to your last "perpetually licensed" version, in my case, Photoshop CS6, and would lose all of the CC features.
would lose all of the CC features.
The sales pitch that was presented to Walter was much more satisfying to hang your hat on, though. It would mean that you could continue to use the new features in the future, not just avoid loosing previous work. It would also mean that they have decided to avoid the buyout approach that you were proposing, making it a much, much better deal.Yeah. Sorry I was not more clear. Another try: When I stop the subscription, the version of Photoshop present at that time would remain on my hard drive for me to use "in perpetuity," and would allow me to access all of the features that Adobe had added during the time I did subscribe. I was not talking about my image files, but the Photoshop program itself.
Yeah. Sorry I was not more clear. Another try: When I stop the subscription, the version of Photoshop present at that time would remain on my hard drive for me to use "in perpetuity," and would allow me to access all of the features that Adobe had added during the time I did subscribe. I was not talking about my image files, but the Photoshop program itself.
It still sounds too good to be true...
No, the version on your hard drive, the version you paid a subscription towards doesn't work once you stop paying. Just like when you stop paying for HBO, it stops. You can go back to the perceptually licensed version you own (CS6 would be a good one) and edit the files you created in CC if done correctly but without access to the newer features.
That's what I had understood. I think I should "chat" with the Adobe website and inform them that somebody is giving out incorrect information.Sounds like their sales people will stoop to lying to get you to sign up for the cloud... :o They don't seem to care if their credibility goes down the drain with this CC plan......and with most artists I know it can't get much lower.
That's what I had understood. I think I should "chat" with the Adobe website and inform them that somebody is giving out incorrect information.
I would be very interested to hear what they had to say Walter ???
Dave
Now I've seen nodal workflows like this many years back in video applications and thought them interesting, but they always struck me as something that would confuse the heck out of many people.
Not to mention the ridiculous amount of real estate they take up.