Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Ranger Rick on May 08, 2013, 12:05:17 pm
-
In Michael's post about Creative Cloud in What's New, there is reference to "...somewhat misunderstood".
If miscommunication is part of the problem, I'd argue not the public's fault (those who misunderstand), but rather "poorly communicated". A few misunderstanders,perhaps. Thousands, I beg your pardon.
-
Both, but even when you take the time to understand it, it's still a bad move from the perspective of photographers (and thus, in the long term, for Adobe).
-
There may be bits and pieces that are misunderstood, but there's one important thing that is very clearly understood: for most photographers it is a hefty price increase. After the initial investment, Photoshop was $11.11/mo. if you bought *every* update ($200/18 mos.) or $5.55/mo. if you skipped a version and bought every other update. Now Adobe wants $19.99/mo., every month, for the rest of your working life. For many photographers this nearly doubles, or more than triples, the long term cost. Adobe makes great products, but such a hefty price increase will inevitably lead more customers to alternative software.
It's no wonder people are saying the "CC" in Adobe CC stands for "Cash Cow". :)
-
In Michael's post about Creative Cloud in What's New, there is reference to "...somewhat misunderstood".
If miscommunication is part of the problem, I'd argue not the public's fault (those who misunderstand), but rather "poorly communicated". A few misunderstanders,perhaps. Thousands, I beg your pardon.
When only few understand the communication, and the vast majority "misunderstand" it, it is wise to shoot the messenger!
-
I suspect most of us do understand.
We just don't understand the way Adobe want us to understand...
-
We may not understand the value but very clearly understand the downsides of Abode's global decision.
Most comments are not about CC, they are about the fact that CC is the only option left.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I understand that I am so disaffected with Adobe that I no longer care what they do. I will use my CS 6 till PhotoLine or another alternative is necessary and then ditch Adobe completely. They have told me my little business is insignificant to them. With Iridient Developer for raw conversion, the time-buffering of my CS6, and the inrush of alternative software that will fill the void left by Adobe's Cloud-forcing idiocy, they are rapidly becoming irrelevant to me and my business. I'm actually beginning to feel pretty good about this; I, like many others, had become too dependent on every burp & gurgle of this bloated behemoth. I like that there is about to be a lot more competition and choice. The Genie is out of the bottle and Adobe, the fools, let him out.
-
I believe the majority of users do understand, at least by this point, and are still upset. But I'm sure the corporation will clear it up for us and help us understand.
-
I like that there is about to be a lot more competition and choice. The Genie is out of the bottle and Adobe, the fools, let him out.
Indeed, this really is a wake up call. I was about to budget the upgrade to CS7, although I cannot really say I am using most of the elements of the package enough to really justify the upgrade price.
Now that they have the facto End of Lifed Photoshop (and CS as a whole), it is starting to look like Adobe has just helped me save nearly half the cost of a Zeiss 55mm f1.4. ;D
The only people I truly feel sorry for are the engineers at Abode who are really interested in helping photographers achieve their art. They have lost over the course of a few hours a huge amount of passion and kinship to their software that had taken years to build thanks to their talent.
I expect many of those engineers to seriously consider whether they are still interested in staying onboard a corporation that is OK to kill so lightly that kind of invaluable - if intangible - knowledge resulting from the usage of Photoshop.
Call it mindshare, call it community, whatever it is, it has gone down the drain.
This kind of events are pretty rare in history. We have many cases of platforms (H/W or S/W) that had started to lose it disappearing and leaving fans stranded behind. But those were typically far right in their obsolescence curve. PS was still much closer to the top of the curve.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The only people I truly feel sorry for are the engineers at Abode who are really interested in helping photographers achieve their art. They have lost over the course of a few hours a huge amount of passion and kinship to their software that had taken years to build thanks to their talent.
I expect many of those engineers to seriously consider whether they are still interested in staying onboard a corporation that is OK to kill so lightly that kind of invaluable - if intangible - knowledge resulting from the usage of Photoshop.
Well said. I'm reminded of the Disney-trained Imagineers who are designing the brilliant new theme park attractions for Disney's competition (Universal and others) that are slowly but steadily closing the gap with Disney's increasingly pricey, but decreasingly innovative, theme parks. Creatives who for the last decade have been leaving Disney's increasingly marketing-driven, beancounter-burdened, creatively straightjacketed workspace for other companies, several of which were founded by more senior Imagineers who left before them for the same reasons.
As a creative culture Adobe has shot itself in the foot. What remains to be seen is how slowly or quickly comes the draining of the esprit d'entreprise that is -- rather, was -- its lifeblood, where and under what name(s) its creative forces will regather, and what new products they will generate.
-
I have CS6 and LR4 and will likely get LR5. But I have now downloaded the Gimp and its manual to start getting ready for the transition. Much to my surprise, at first glance it looks much more appealing and powerful than I had ever expected.
Maybe the interface doesn't look as sophisticated as does that of CS6, but it has layers, lots of filters, and a huge array of tools, as well as a set of easy-to-follow tutorials.
And the "subscription" price is right (free)!
I plan to make copies of the converted basic tiffs of a couple of my more complicated images and see if I can come close to duplicating them in Gimp.
There's no way I can afford Adobe's subscription prices.
-
I plan to make copies of the converted basic tiffs of a couple of my more complicated images and see if I can come close to duplicating them in Gimp.
You can't because Gimp doesn't have adjustment layers, and of the programs I have seen that do, none has "clipping" adjustment layers.
If you guys will pitch in a couple $1,000,000.00 I'll be glad to lead the team that will develop Image Editor Supreme!. The exclamation mark is part of the name.
-
I have CS6 and LR4 and will likely get LR5. But I have now downloaded the Gimp and its manual to start getting ready for the transition. Much to my surprise, at first glance it looks much more appealing and powerful than I had ever expected.
Maybe the interface doesn't look as sophisticated as does that of CS6, but it has layers, lots of filters, and a huge array of tools, as well as a set of easy-to-follow tutorials.
And the "subscription" price is right (free)!
I plan to make copies of the converted basic tiffs of a couple of my more complicated images and see if I can come close to duplicating them in Gimp.
There's no way I can afford Adobe's subscription prices.
why 'd you use gimp if you have PS CS6 ? I mean gimp has long way to match PS CS6 ... so you can postpone your gimp-pain.
-
You can't because Gimp doesn't have adjustment layers, and of the programs I have seen that do, none has "clipping" adjustment layers.
If you guys will pitch in a couple $1,000,000.00 I'll be glad to lead the team that will develop Image Editor Supreme!. The exclamation mark is part of the name.
Just launch a Kickstater project!
On the lack of AL, that is a bit annoying, but I have come to realize that I end up applying 2 or 3 at most on most of my images.
There is an easy workaround which consists in simply storing history as duplicated layers. The bottom one is the original file, the one just above would be the global curved applied, the one above would have local edits...
It is not as quick as AL when you need to change your mind, but it should work fairly well in many cases.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You can't because Gimp doesn't have adjustment layers, and of the programs I have seen that do, none has "clipping" adjustment layers.
If I am not mistaken photoline ( http://www.pl32.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3434 ) has what you are talking about... and it is cheap and no clouds, creative or otherwise... try it, buy it, say goodbye to Adobe
-
^ Photoline looks pretty nice and may be the best option right now. But it interprets layered PS files a little differently than PS, and I believe it does not have a clipping option to restrict adjustment layers to a single layer below it. So psd imports require a certain amount of work to even things out. Not sure about smart filters and groups and such, I don't much use that stuff. Unfortunately the version I tried chokes on large PS files.
-
and I believe it does not have a clipping option to restrict adjustment layers to a single layer below it... Not sure about smart filters and groups and such, I don't much use that stuff.
it has layers groups... as for restriction - may be this topic helps : http://www.pl32.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3054
-
If miscommunication is part of the problem, I'd argue not the public's fault (those who misunderstand), but rather "poorly communicated". A few misunderstanders,perhaps. Thousands, I beg your pardon.
Exactly what statements from Adobe have you read or watched? I watched the keynote announcement at Adobe MAX, have you? I watched the Tom Hogarty session on Scott's Grid, have you? I've read Winston's answers on PDReview, have you? I've read the web statement Adobe posted, have you?
Or, are you getting your information second hand from various media outlets? You realize the media is like a shark when there's blood in the water, right? Their job is to "inform" but they generally do more inciting than informing.
Yes, this is a hot button topic with a lot of hysterics involved...but the amount of misinformation out there is staggering. Yes, when asked, many/most users hate the changes and are not shy about telling people/media about their opinions.
Normally I tend to shy away from talking about politics (it's a no win debate) but let me draw an analogy from politics regarding this situation...politics these days is no longer collegial, it's confrontational. Between 24hr news channels, talk radio, the left and right bloggers and the pressure on politicians to adhere to the party lines, nothing, it seems can get done in Washington. Reasonable people can't seem to have reasonable debate about the important topics of the day.
The line is drawn and anybody not on your side of the line is an evil villain (and it doesn't matter what side of the line you are on, you are just on the wrong side of the line).
The other thread "Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?board=5.0)" is a prime example...anybody who dares to take Adobe's side is evil incarnate...and the anti-CC crowd keeps egging each other on until they are frothing at the mouth and any reasonable discourse is impossible.
Adobe was prepared for this onslaught...I had a 2.5 hrs call with Winston and outlined all the issues that the photographic industry would push back on. I warned them that photographers really don't understand copyright law, don't understand license agreements , don't really want any change...even if the change may end up being good.
Adobe is painfully aware that what they are doing is/will be unpopular for a segment of the industry. For pros, it ain't no big thing, just a different way of looking at things and accounting for the cost of doing business. Yes, they aren't "happy" with having what amounts to a price increase, but it won't drive them away from Adobe because, well for pro applications in digital imaging, graphic arts, design, web and video, Adobe is the 800lbs gorilla. In a production environment, you use pro tools to get the job done. Will CC offer some additional functionality that enhances team collaboration and production? Well, yeah...Adobe demoed a lot of that at Adobe MAX. Pretty cool stuff. Remote employment is a reality these days with projects being worked on on a global basis. Having a project plugged in on a cloud environment designed for professionals is pretty compelling....
And if any of you fail to remember, Adobe is a company that excels at one thing, designing professional applications for use by professionals. That's what they are good at, really good at (and about all they are good at). Look at the markets Adobe "owns": graphic design with Illustrator and InDesign, digital imaging and graphic arts and prepress with Photoshop, web design with Dreamweaver. The one market Adobe doesn't own outright is digital video because Apple's Final Cut Pro has a large segment of the market. Adobe knows pros ad what they need/want and a long track record of delivering.
So, Adobe's decision to go to a subscription model for their pro apps was designed and intended for their pro markets which makes up the vast majority of Adobe's customers-and it ain't just corporations and governments (although that is a core market) it's all the small design and production studios out there doing this stuff professionally–and there are a lot of small houses out there!
Photographers might not like it, but photographers make up a very small % of the overall user base for all the pro apps with the exception of Lightroom that, as far as I know, is used almost only by photographers. And Lightroom is the only Adobe pro app that hasn't gone CC (even though it's part of the CC eccosphere as well as still a perpetual license. (wait, did I just give you all a clue?)
Has Adobe done a poor job of messaging their CC initiative? To the pro markets, not really...the pros are starting to get it...a monthly nut and they get all the apps they need and free new upgrades with new features as long as they stay subscribed...yes, there's an effective price increase–which is a pittance to the total cost of operating. Now it's up to Adobe to come through on the promise of more frequent upgrades with new features which is one of the main motivations to going all subscription.
Has Adobe done a poor job of messaging their CC initiative to non-pros? Well, yeah...Adobe really doesn't know how to deal with non-pro customers. Adobe doesn't do very well with non-pro applications, they've never been very successful selling consumer products. They don't understand the non-pro market because, well to Adobe, it's a small minority of the potential user base. Do they ignore the non-pro markets on purpose? Nope...but they are just not really good ant communicating to the non-pro markets because, well they don't have a lot of expertise and experience because, well Adobe is a company that makes pro-level apps.
Did Adobe do the CC initiative purely to piss people off? Nope...they new people were gonna be pissed. They were warned by many (myself included). They knew they would be castigated by the press and the vocal non-pro market. They did it anyway because they (Adobe) honestly believes tat this is the best way of addressing their core market, professional now and in the future. I tend to agree with the decision–even if that is across party lines and I'm attacked from the "other side". Ya know what? I don't care...I say what I think and don't care what people think of me. I really, really don't. I call it as I see it and perfectly happy to live with the consequences...It would be a lot easier to just toe the party line and join with the "Adobe Haters Club". Since I've got good inside info and I know where the bodies are buried, I could do Adobe a lot of damage. But I don't because, well I've got a lot of friends who work with Adobe and I know Adobe really and truly tries to do what they think the right thing is to do. But heh, nobody is right all the time. Maybe Adobe has screwed the pooch big time...time will tell.
What they did was actually very brave...it took a lot of guts for Adobe to do what they believed was the right thing to do for Adobe and the pro marketplace. I respect them for being able to do the hard thing, draw a line in the sand and say, this is what we believe and we are gonna do what we believe regardless of how loud the opponents become.
I get that non-pros don't like the CC decision...I also get that the pros are on the fence with an attitude, prove to us that the CC will be useful and important and helps use get the job done and make more money–remember pro users are in the same boat as Adobe, it's a business and the bottom line is, well the bottom line. Pros don't work in design out of the goodness in their hearts, they do what they do to make a living–same as Adobe. That's the capitalist way.
If you are not a pro, not a capitalist in your use of Adobe software, well, let me just point something out that may not (will not) make you happy, Adobe doesn't make Photoshop for you...the fact that so many non-pros have bought Photoshop is not really Adobe's fault. It's not like they've ever really tried to go after the non-pro market. All of Adobe's marketing and advertising is directed towards the pros...because that's the market Adobe knows.
So, if you are a non-pro and are unhappy with Adobe's decision, vote with your wallets...look for an alternative...the upside of this situation is that small, innovative companies might look at the non-pro photo market and see opportunity. We might see new and interesting if not compelling new products in the marketplace. Personally, I think this is a pretty cool opportunity and may be exactly what the industry (if not Adobe) needs. Competition breads excellence...Adobe has given the small developer an opportunity to compete in a market that here to fore was totally owned by Adobe–which kept out a lot of potential players...it a bizarre and perverse manner perhaps, Adobe may have just done the non-pro photo industry a huge favor by relinquishing what to Adobe is a small segment of their markets, but for a small developer could be a huge boon.
The thing I would caution people about is make your judgements based on reality and facts, not the bullshyte that has been thrown out there by a bunch of people with anonymous screen names on the internet...
-
If you are not a pro, not a capitalist in your use of Adobe software, well, let me just point something out that may not (will not) make you happy, Adobe doesn't make Photoshop for you...the fact that so many non-pros have bought Photoshop is not really Adobe's fault. It's not like they've ever really tried to go after the non-pro market. All of Adobe's marketing and advertising is directed towards the pros...because that's the market Adobe knows.
what you are going to eat when LR will go subscription only... or LR is also for pros only ::) ?
-
the anti-CC crowd
Schewe, do not cheat... it is not "anti-CC", it is "anti-CC only"... add this small word and half of your long diatribe is useless... and what is left from it is simple - Adobe just wants to make more money by going "subscription only" for legit users, that's it... and we understand that... as for pirates they will continue to pirate CC as they do with M$ products now... because CC is not really a cloud based application, it sits on your computer - it just rings back, so they will make it ring back to their servers... only legit users will end up paying more.
-
Schewe, do not cheat... it is not "anti-CC", it is "anti-CC only"... add this small word and half of your long diatribe is useless... and what is left from it is simple - Adobe just wants to make more money by going "subscription only" for legit users, that's it... and we understand that... as for pirates they will continue to pirate CC as they do with M$ products now... because CC is not really a cloud based application, it sits on your computer - it just rings back, so they will make it ring back to their servers... only legit users will end up paying more.
Sorry, no, you don't understand...the technical issues relating to dual-coding both perpetual and subscription licenses was proven to be difficult to impossible when the 13.1 and 13.0.4 was released...there was an all-hands-on-deck reaction to fix major and substantial issues with two separate code branches and updating them at the same time–read what Winston was quoted as saying. Adobe made a call, drop the perpetual licensing, go all in on subscription only because in a pro production environment there is no room for error...you wake up one day, log into your computer and suddenly, you are locked out (that's what happened when that update occurred). For pros, that can't be allowed to happen!
Maybe you weren't impacted...maybe you didn't know what transpired, I know what happened and I know what the result was, kill the perpetual and go subscription only. Is this an indictment against Adobe's ability to keep two code branches working? Yep...it is/was...the result was a decision to drop perpetual licenses.
And whether or not you accept and believe that the main reason for the killing of perpetual was really based on technical issues and not simply corporate greed, I don't give a flying–you know that, right?
You like to sound like you know what you are talking about. A lot of times you do, sometimes you don't...this is one of those times.
-
Sorry, no, you don't understand...the technical issues relating to dual-coding both perpetual and subscription licenses was proven to be difficult to impossible when the 13.1 and 13.0.4 was released...there was an all-hands-on-deck reaction to fix major and substantial issues with two separate code branches and updating them at the same time–read what Winston was quoted as saying. Adobe made a call, drop the perpetual licensing, go all in on subscription only because in a pro production environment there is no room for error...you wake up one day, log into your computer and suddenly, you are locked out (that's what happened when that update occurred). For pros, that can't be allowed to happen!
so somehow it was easy to code for LR to keep both options (subscription and perpetual) and difficult for CS ::) ... that just speaks about the state of software engineering in that particular aspect... probably people working on licensing for CS have to learn something from people working on licensing for LR... instead of feeding BS about technical issues.
as for "locked out" - if I have a perpetual license why shall I be locked out at all ? there is no calling Adobe servers once I activated and if that happens that again just speaks about very poor coding by those Adobe developers in charge of licensing.
-
And whether or not you accept and believe that the main reason for the killing of perpetual was really based on technical issues
because somehow it is not an issue for LR, is it ?
-
So, my money will be in "poorly communicated" option, and before someone crucifies me, let me explain...
I has never been a user of Adobe Creative Cloud or Creative Suite nor Photoshop. Adobe Lightroom suffices my need, after all, I'm just an amateur photographer. The first news I have to this change was while reading latests posts in LuLa using my phone. Of course, I ended up in that very long and famous thread about this issue. After that I went to read press releases, news on different blogs etc... basically Adobe is changing their license model from pay per license to pay per use, ok... I thought that if they start doing that for Lightroom maybe I need to take out my calculator while looking at the price of other alternatives like Capture One. But I saw no mentions of Lightroom anywhere, for their release of the Beta 5 I understood that next version will be perpetual license model etc...
Well, I thought that until I started to read the interviews of Adobe representatives trying to clarify things. Some of them started talking about two clear versions of Lightroom, one Lightroom standalone and Lightroom CC, some of them mentioning extra features only available for CC version. First reaction was, I don't like that, I don't like to have the feeling of getting just the "limited" edition, few seconds after that I started to think that probably it will mean only syncing with the Cloud (I just use Lightroom in my main computer... no gain here), and then, maybe it will need the CC for that iOS app that is being show around, no big loss in my mind for me.
Looks like I was not the only one thinking the same way, after all we have the thread http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78130.0 , where Eric Chan points to the Lightroom Journal blog to clarify things and I was thinking, how the hell Adobe allows two different messages get out? One message were the VP is saying there is going to be two versions, second message were the official Adobe blog is saying that it is going to be just one version...
-
so somehow it was easy to code for LR to keep both options (subscription and perpetual) and difficult for CS ::)
The coding for LR5 is perpetual license only...it also happens to also be available for the CC-have you actually got any Adobe subscription products? Have you ever registered a subscription product? Do you actually know what you are talking about are are you just trying to spread FUD? (and if trying to spread FUD, you ain't doing a very good job-in this debate, you are way, way down the "useful" rank–what you are spouting is bullshyte).
-
"...
Sorry, no, you don't understand...the technical issues relating to dual-coding both perpetual and subscription licenses was proven to be difficult to impossible when the 13.1 and 13.0.4 was released
..."
This is exactly when Adobe started to let their perpetual users down. Why was there ever the need for two separate codebases? This is THEIR homemade problem. No one asked for this.
As owner of several suites I paid a massive amount of money in advance and for this I expect regular updates and good service. It took Adobe "support" 2 weeks to accept the licensing issue as a problem, I had several service calls withdrawn while the Adobe support forum was filling up with requests. Not acceptable.
Why should users that paid in advance NOT getting the new features, but people that rent do? It should be exactly vice versa.
Sorry, but all your argueing is nothing but hot air.
Just to make one thing sure: I will never rent any Adobe product. The only thing I can't replace just now is Photoshop, so I'll stick to CS6 for as long as possible. Everything else has to go. Smoke is significantly more expensive but you know what? I get service and upgrades!!
-
as for "locked out" - if I have a perpetual license why shall I be locked out at all ? there is no calling Adobe servers once I activated and if that happens that again just speaks about very poor coding by those Adobe developers in charge of licensing.
Talking about LR? LR isn't an activation required product...(care to wonder why?)
-
Why should users that paid in advance NOT getting the new features, but people that rent do? It should be exactly vice versa.
Sorry, but all your argueing is nothing but hot air.
Well, again, you don't get it...the deal with subscription vs perpetual license was, you are entitled to get new features as upgrades with subscriptions, with perpetual licenses you were entitled to bug and maintenance updates, but no new features. You get the difference? Subscription has been more expensive (and still is) than perpetual...now with CC, you have a choice, buy CS6 (likely the last version offered as a perpetual) or buy subscription and part of the price/cost entitles you to new features...do you understand the differences now?
-
The coding for LR5 is perpetual license only...it also happens to also be available for the CC-have you actually got any Adobe subscription products? Have you ever registered a subscription product? Do you actually know what you are talking about are are you just trying to spread FUD? (and if trying to spread FUD, you ain't doing a very good job-in this debate, you are way, way down the "useful" rank–what you are spouting is bullshyte).
fortunately I do not use any subscription products, neither I am using LR...
I am only reading this = http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html
from that text I understand the following
1) if I get a subscription to CC w/ a certain plan then I will get LR = "Lightroom 5 will be delivered to Creative Cloud members at no extra charge when it’s available"
2) if I will start LR after such a purchase then subscription verification code will work (I did not buy any perpetual license, did I ?)
3) I can buy a perpetual license for LR only
4) I will start LR after such a purchase then perpetual license verification code will work
5) somehow both sets of code are working w/o any issues
so ?
-
Talking about LR? LR isn't an activation required product...(care to wonder why?)
I do not own LR, sorry
-
so ?
So, for LR, Adobe is willing to offer both a perpetual license and a subscription license...(for LR users, this is a good thing). For PS, IL, ID, PR, DW, AA, They (Adobe) is not willing to do a perpetual license anymore. What part of that is hard for you to understand? Look at all the apps in the full CC and you might have a clue why both a perpetual and subscription license it vastly more difficult.
Go back and read what I wrote before...Adobe develops pro apps. For the vast majority of Adobe's customers (who are pros) CC isn't a big deal (other than not liking a price increase)...for non-pros, Adobe understands that sadly, their decision won't be popular...for photographers (pros and non-pros), LR is being offered in both licensing models. Are you saying this is a bad thing?
Sorry, I'm done with this shit...I got stuff to do...videos to shoot with Mike and a book to finish, I'll not be bothering to answer you any further. So, Vladimirovich, buzz off...I'm done with ya.
-
Sorry, I'm done with this shit...I got stuff to do...videos to shoot with Mike and a book to finish, I'll not be bothering to answer you any further. So, Vladimirovich, buzz off...I'm done with ya.
While I do recognize the frustration of "talking to a wall", this is not the way to vent that frustration, no matter how clever or important you are.
May I suggest:
"I have made my position in this discussion clear, and I do not wish to contribute any more".
-h
-
The coding for LR5 is perpetual license only...it also happens to also be available for the CC
Why couldn't they do this for Photoshop?
-
No amount of pro-Adobe spin can obfuscate the common sense of this comment from a reader on the diglloyd blog (http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130506_1-Adobe-clouds-the-sun.html):
Samuel O writes:
It seems to me that a significant problem with their new business model is the long-term impact it will have on their creativity and innovation.
Currently, with a new version coming out every eighteen to twenty-four months, Adobe knows they will have to have significant improvements to entice their customer base to upgrade.
Without this incentive, I fear their products will suffer as management will make the easy decision to increase profits by cutting development budgets and not by investing in product enhancements. This is a sad decision for a once proud, and innovative, company.
MPG: It is a fair statement. Renters know that landlords don’t really want to fix up old appliances until they become totally unusable.
-
I think the whole "Creative Cloud" thing was probably designed to cause confusion.
As many others have pointed out, the Creative Suite applications are not becoming cloud-based. They'll still run on your PC, exactly as before. Even the end of boxed versions isn't a major change, since you've long been able to download the software from Adobe's web site. That's what I've done for years, as the download option is slightly cheaper in Australia.
The real change is that you will now be renting the software instead of owning it. For reasons that have been amply discussed, this is a terrible deal for most users.
Adobe have simply added a few Internet-related features to their software, and included 20GB of online storage in the rental deal, to try to create the impression that the "Creative Cloud" is something new. It's a crude diversionary tactic, and it doesn't seem to be working very well.
-
Jeff,
I honestly don't understand how a writer and educator who sells to many enthusiast amateur photographers can be so vocally denouncing his own audience to defend a corporate decision of a company he doesn't work for.
If Adobe's decision is so smart for their core business, why hasn't the stock price shot up?
Have you read the reactions of the many pros on these forums?
Why can't Adobe adopt the App Store model, which caters to many of its stated concerns?
Why can't Adobe add the functions of PS that photographers use to LR and continue to offer that as a perpetual package, while leaving the rest for the illustrators?
You basically agree with Adobe that we are not its customer base and never were (you really believe that, considering their past marketing?), feel you've done your job by warning them of our anger (and telling them we don't understand it anyway) and in that short time span, you have alienated your own audience.
I don't think that video you guys are shooting now is going to sell as well as the previous ones.
But I do appreciate your honesty.
-
Jeff, I agree with most of what you say but will take issue with one aspect of it.
The price increase isn't necessarily "a pittance" to many small shops. A lot of small shops operate on razor-thin margins. This could be for a variety of reasons. It may be because they want to price a little leaner than their competition. It may be because their geographical or client demo or both can't withstand higher pricing. It may be because they had to cut pricing after the meltdown of late 2008 and since the economy hasn't exactly ramped up with any pace haven't been able to bring pricing back to where it was. Whatever the reason, for those customers, an increase such as this could have a significant impact. Any price increase could.
-
Exactly what statements from Adobe have you read or watched? I watched the keynote announcement at Adobe MAX, have you? I watched the Tom Hogarty session on Scott's Grid, have you? I've read Winston's answers on PDReview, have you? I've read the web statement Adobe posted, have you?
Or, are you getting your information second hand from various media outlets? You realize the media is like a shark when there's blood in the water, right? Their job is to "inform" but they generally do more inciting than informing...
etc., etc, ad nauseum
What a voluminous amount of bullshyte (your term) to say that Adobe no longer cares about the millions of photographers that filled their coffers for so many years...and were the basis of their early success.
Vladimirovich said it so well
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...
Adobe does not care a lick about the fears of photographers not being able to access their work-in-progress files....if anything happens to access to Photoshop in the future...and as we know, THINGS happen....Kodak as an example.
I have no idea where you stand as you defend Adobe's decision, but you clearly state you do not care of the opinions of others, so I really do not understand why you purport to enter into a "dialog", when it is quite one sided.
-
Sorry, I'm done with this shit...I got stuff to do...videos to shoot with Mike and a book to finish, I'll not be bothering to answer you any further. So, Vladimirovich, buzz off...I'm done with ya.
I will let others make their own decision....but I am done with ya BUD. I found your stuff interesting but am not filling your coffers any more....nor recommending them to others. (I know you don't care...neither do I care what you think)
-
No misunderstanding on my part, Adobe wants to rip off it's customers as much as it can. I am sure if they go ahead with the Cloud they will manage to do that. I don't see them as having that many customers left to do it to.
Filming a new Lightroom tutorial are you Michael?, I hope there is a section about how to transfer all the hours of work a DAM application needs into something that is not likely to disappear in the future in a "Cloud" of smoke.
Would you trust your library to the whims of Adobe?
When the stand alone updates dry up? You move to Cloud, a bad couple of business months, clients cheques bounce, your subscription bounces, suddenly you no longer own all those hours you put in.
Bigger companies than Adobe made mistakes and vanished from memory.
No massive misunderstanding on the part of Adobe customers, gross miss calculation of understanding on Adobe's part.
-
What a voluminous amount of bullshyte (your term) to say that Adobe no longer cares about the millions of photographers that filled their coffers for so many years...and were the basis of their early success.
Despite its name, Photoshop did not start as an application for photographers. It was a POS for photographers until, about PS7. Photoshop began life as a press/prepress application. That's where its early success came. That still, as far as I know, is where the bulk of its customer base is.
-
So, for LR, Adobe is willing to offer both a perpetual license and a subscription license...(for LR users, this is a good thing). For PS, IL, ID, PR, DW, AA, They (Adobe) is not willing to do a perpetual license anymore. What part of that is hard for you to understand? Look at all the apps in the full CC and you might have a clue why both a perpetual and subscription license it vastly more difficult.
Go back and read what I wrote before...Adobe develops pro apps. For the vast majority of Adobe's customers (who are pros) CC isn't a big deal (other than not liking a price increase)...for non-pros, Adobe understands that sadly, their decision won't be popular...for photographers (pros and non-pros), LR is being offered in both licensing models. Are you saying this is a bad thing?
Sorry, I'm done with this shit...I got stuff to do...videos to shoot with Mike and a book to finish, I'll not be bothering to answer you any further. So, Vladimirovich, buzz off...I'm done with ya.
This shit it most defiantly is.
Who exactly are you going to sell this video too? A long line of pro's that are happy to swim in the Cloud you think wanting a video on LR. A product from a company most users no longer trust.
I don't give a shit Adobe had problems updating their platforms, no one but Adobe caused that problem.
-
So, for LR, Adobe is willing to offer both a perpetual license and a subscription license...(for LR users, this is a good thing). For PS, IL, ID, PR, DW, AA, They (Adobe) is not willing to do a perpetual license anymore. What part of that is hard for you to understand?
the question was about your ridiculous statement that it is too hard to have a licensing verification code designed to support both perpetual license and CC subscription, so please do not switch the from that thing...
Look at all the apps in the full CC and you might have a clue why both a perpetual and subscription license it vastly more difficult.
I looked how LR will work and what you are saying about difficulties is total BS.
Go back and read what I wrote before...Adobe develops pro apps. For the vast majority of Adobe's customers (who are pros) CC isn't a big deal (other than not liking a price increase)...for non-pros, Adobe understands that sadly, their decision won't be popular...for photographers (pros and non-pros), LR is being offered in both licensing models. Are you saying this is a bad thing?
I am saying that subscription only model for CC is a bad thing for some legit users and that the only purpose of this is for Adobe to make more money (yes, they are for profit company) and it is quite obvious that if Adobe gets more money then somebody gets less money... and as you acknowledged that LR has no issues with code for both ways then developers who according to you were having problems to implement that in other products shall learn a thing or two from their LR colleagues...
-
Despite its name, Photoshop did not start as an application for photographers. It was a POS for photographers until, about PS7. Photoshop began life as a press/prepress application. That's where its early success came. That still, as far as I know, is where the bulk of its customer base is.
Thanks, Bob...you are absolutely correct.
Adobe has been promoting PS to photogs for so many years, I forgot.....let's see PS7 to PS13...say average 1.5+ years....10 years..??? Now we don't matter any more.
Again, it is less the monthly cost, while that is important. It is the potential loss of access to work product at any time....whether you wish to pay the subscription or not....Adobe shuts down the servers....nothing works....nd their license agreement gives them the legal right to do that.
-
Anyone think students want a monthly sub going out?
Students most likely start on pirate copies, it sucks them into the family. Later if they need those programs for work they buy them. No revenue lost to Adobe whatsoever, probably the opposite.
Maybe if Adobe stopped their products from stripping out all the metadata photographers add to the image, I could be more sympathetic to their plight.
-
the question was about your ridiculous statement that it is too hard to have a licensing verification code designed to support both perpetual license and CC subscription, so please do not switch the from that thing...
I looked how LR will work and what you are saying about difficulties is total BS.
I am saying that subscription only model for CC is a bad thing for some legit users and that the only purpose of this is for Adobe to make more money (yes, they are for profit company) and it is quite obvious that if Adobe gets more money then somebody gets less money... and as you acknowledged that LR has no issues with code for both ways then developers who according to you were having problems to implement that in other products shall learn a thing or two from their LR colleagues...
Vladimirovich, it is not the code. It is an accounting problem. I am not versed enough in the problem, but it has to do, I believe, with how expenses are charged against revenue streams....therefore quarterly results.
Maybe someone could step in and explain, obviously Jeff has not been able to. But it really does not matter. Obviously Adobe does not feel the need to solve it internally.
I believe that Lightroom is a temporary situation. They have the same problem with it. Though not clearly stated, I expect that the CC version will get continual updates, that will not show up in the "perpetual" version until a later release....eventually, when Adobe has sufficient market share, they will cut the perpetual licensing....just like the other products.
-
Jeff repeated Hendrickson's statement that it was the code. He also said that the accounting issue prevented Adobe from releasing features between major releases, which is incorrect (I'll save you an explanation of GAAP etc).
-
So, for LR, Adobe is willing to offer both a perpetual license and a subscription license...(for LR users, this is a good thing). For PS, IL, ID, PR, DW, AA, They (Adobe) is not willing to do a perpetual license anymore. What part of that is hard for you to understand? Look at all the apps in the full CC and you might have a clue why both a perpetual and subscription license it vastly more difficult.
Go back and read what I wrote before...Adobe develops pro apps. For the vast majority of Adobe's customers (who are pros) CC isn't a big deal (other than not liking a price increase)...for non-pros, Adobe understands that sadly, their decision won't be popular...for photographers (pros and non-pros), LR is being offered in both licensing models. Are you saying this is a bad thing?
Sorry, I'm done with this shit...I got stuff to do...videos to shoot with Mike and a book to finish, I'll not be bothering to answer you any further. So, Vladimirovich, buzz off...I'm done with ya.
So overnight non-pros don't matter any more in the scheme of things for Adobe. Where would the photo industry be without them ? Where would this forum be without them ? Indeed where would you be without them Jeff ? How many non-pros purchase your books and LuLa videos ?
In the photography industry non-pros matter as much as pros, and software and hardware companies ignore and shit on them at their peril. And I say this as a pro for getting on thirty years.
Pete
-
To: johnbeardy
A clip from Schewe post, #253 of the 'Adobe Diverging..." thread...
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.
Are you saying I should not believe this?
-
To: johnbeardy
A clip from Schewe post, #253 of the 'Adobe Diverging..." thread...
Are you saying I should not believe this?
Correct, you should not believe this.
-
As I said, in another thread on this, I'm not interested in arguments or sophistry, and will not go into detail why much of what Jeff has said just simply isn't true for many of us, pros & amateurs alike. One thing he said is spot on, it's like arguing politics, & he's on his own hysterical side of the fence. But one huge part of his, and Adobe's arrogance and inaccuracy on this whole matter is summed up in his statement,"For pros, it ain't no big thing…" This is simply factually not true. It is a big thing. For me and many other pros. Adobe and their koolAid drinking boosters don't get to decide what is, or is not, a big thing to us.
Adobe and its fanboy(s) have this arrogant attitude that anybody for which this is a big thing just doesn't understand, or isn't sufficiently professional, and will be just fine with LR if they are photographers anyway. Wrong on every arrogant point. I am a Pro,my income comes from photography and has for several decades. I was a pro before Photoshop, and I will be in the post-photoshop era.I have prevailed legally in several copyright infringement actions against those taking liberties with my work & am copyright knowledgeable.I own LR and don't care for it. Have already switched to a different converter/browser, and am getting up to speed on PS alternatives.
There are many, pro & amateur alike, that do understand and don't agree and are not going to simply give up, bend over and present there wallets.
I understand Adobe and Mr. Dismissive need to believe there own "bullshyte" (I would prefer forgone conclusions, but I'll go with Jeff's preferred dismissive arrogant term) but that doesn't make them accurate, or us unprofessional, or ignorant.
Oh, my name is John Mahan and I approved these factual statements.
-
From the Adobe blog:
John says:
Got a question, Jeffrey, even though you have ignored me so far: on the Luminous Landscape forums, Jeff Schewe, a consultant to Adobe, says that Adobe was well aware of our coming anger, but that obviously Adobe doesnt care, because Photoshop isn’t now and never was aimed at us amateurs.
Now, I don’t know why you still have a job, seeing that you’re trying to placate an audience your company apparently couldn’t care less about, but since you are still here, is Jeff speaking the truth and nothing but the truth?
May 09, 2013 7:47 AM
Jeffrey Tranberry says:
Jeff Schewe’s views are his own. Photoshop’s strength is that is used by a wide variety of users – and I for one appreciate them all – and I know my teammates on the Photoshop and Lightroom development teams do as well. Most everyone on the development team are also users/avid photographers who use the products they create. They put a lot of love and hard work into the products they develop.
- Jeff
-
The last 48 hours of posts on the Adobe blog is the proverbial handwriting on Adobe's wall.
One post in particular that cuts to the core of it:
Dave Kendall says:
Adobe, just remember we’re creative for a reason. Think of us as your average feline. Not many of us like being forced into boxes. It’s the reason we chose these careers. Even the comfiest box can get boring for us. This box you’ve cobbled together seems expensive and far from roomy, or comfortable. Like cats we have the mindset to escape to the wider spaces.
Adobe! If you don’t listen to your customer base it seems my copy of CS6 will outlast your company.
-
the problem with CC is:
If I make a photoshop document from my raw image with photoshop CC-
I will not be able to open it without having a CC license...
So i will be hooked on Adobe forever or cannot open my own photographs anymore...
The same problem with all the other CC programs- so there will always be a valid reason for paying the monthly fee...
-
Some years ago I moved from PSP to PS and the transition at the time was not easy, PS is much less intuitive, customisable or user friendly. PSP had all the important features I needed at the time except for 16 bit editing but that difference no longer applies.
Many of the "must have" features that have appeared on PS such as Auto Save and the file browser that became Bridge and eventually Lightroom were features that were present on PSP years before. It's true that since being bought by Corel, development has slowed slightly but I suspect that Corel has just been given a huge incentive to pick the ball up and run with it.
There are one or two PS tools that I will miss but not enough to allow myself to be blackmailed for. I expect that the remaining differences between PSP and PS Cs6 will decrease fairly fast in the remaining lifetime of that program too.
I regularly lecture on digital post production to rising amateur photographers in the UK and from this day forward my lectures will be based around PSP with side notes for those who wish to bend over and use PS. I'll also outline my reasons for thinking that no truely creative individual should shackle themselves to such ransomware.
What the Adobe fanboys seem to forget when talking about what a good deal CC is for professional photographers with regular incomes is that some of todays amateurs will be tomorrow's professionals and the habits and practices developed in early days are not lightly given up.
-
Yup. They will have lost the student market. Why would a school teach software that their students will and cannot buy? There will be a huge shift over the next 5 years and adobe and their arrogant educators (they aren't selling to the big houses or the top pro's are they?) will get the worst of it. Most of all what they have lost is trust. From next semester I am no longer going to be recommending LR, writing on the wall with LR and as a professional I would be horrified to have my library at the beck and call of Adobe's whims, EULA's and server outages. I'll be teaching another software, probably C1. As soon as there is an alternative to PS you bet that is what photography students will be using and being taught. After all, Adobe has said they don't give a f*** and only wants the high end design houses after all. The only reason said houses will be submitting to this blackmail despite how horrifying the concept is to anyone who needs control over their software when deadlines and clients are crucial is the lack of any alternative. That's going to change but the world will not forget the attitudes of the Adobe educator bully boys who shat with unbelievable arrogance on the people who had been supporting them.
-
Yup. They will have lost the student market. Why would a school teach software that their students will and cannot buy?
Actually, you can't know that yet because Adobe hasn't yet announced what their student/teacher educational programs will be like.
-
Jeff,
I honestly don't understand how a writer and educator who sells to many enthusiast amateur photographers can be so vocally denouncing his own audience to defend a corporate decision of a company he doesn't work for.
If Adobe's decision is so smart for their core business, why hasn't the stock price shot up?
Have you read the reactions of the many pros on these forums?
Why can't Adobe adopt the App Store model, which caters to many of its stated concerns?
Why can't Adobe add the functions of PS that photographers use to LR and continue to offer that as a perpetual package, while leaving the rest for the illustrators?
You basically agree with Adobe that we are not its customer base and never were (you really believe that, considering their past marketing?), feel you've done your job by warning them of our anger (and telling them we don't understand it anyway) and in that short time span, you have alienated your own audience.
I don't think that video you guys are shooting now is going to sell as well as the previous ones.
But I do appreciate your honesty.
Well said!
-
To: johnbeardy
A clip from Schewe post, #253 of the 'Adobe Diverging..." thread...
Are you saying I should not believe this?
Correct, you should not believe this.
Thanks, Alan. It's totally understandable that Jeff should have written it as he did, but he's never claimed to be an accountant, and I try to keep my past very well-hidden.
-
Thanks, Alan. It's totally understandable that Jeff should have written it as he did, but he's never claimed to be an accountant, and I try to keep my past very well-hidden.
John,
So, maybe you could explain it to me (as you did in your IM) so people understand I'm not totally wrong...just sorta wrong but that the issue is real.
-
OK, painful as it is to out myself....
Jeff, you may be aware that I am (was) an accountant, the UK equivalent of a CPA, but probably not that I had period doing a lot of S/O (Sarbanes Oxley) compliance work with US-listed corporates like Heidelberg, Cytyc/Hologic, Verizon. The scars run deep.
I'm sure Adobe's revenue recognition policy is as you describe and for the reasons you give. You'll have heard it from many switched-on guys there. It's a good clear line in the sand.
"Can't" is a bit too strong though, "constrained" or "really really constrained" would be where I'd be more comfortable. If Adobe wanted to start releasing features within a perpetual licensing cycle, changing their well-established revenue recognition policies would not be at all trivial and you'd need to convince auditors, tax guys, the markets etc that you're not the next Enron. Can be done though, if you really want it that much, but really tough.
It's more likely you could release new features if the revenue/costs didn't "materially" distort the financial reports. That's harder with few products, but more practical if you are updating lots of products throughout the year. The bumps even out or are immaterial in the context of your other revenue streams. Materiality is a judgement call and there are all sorts of other cost / mgt / risk reasons why you'd probably hold the line, but I think this is closer to where Adobe now are. So I don't buy the idea that the good old policy is behind this week's move.
Anyone still awake?
-
OK, painful as it is to out myself....
Anyone still awake?
Thanks, that gave me a chuckle...
:~)
So I wasn't completely wrong, just kinda wrong but you agree that Adobe would have some major work to do to change the revenue recognition accounting policies to allow incremental feature additions during the life of a specific product versions, times as many products that needed to change. And, that with the subscription model the all new accounting procedures are now set in place to allow incremental feature additions...and that trying to have two different revenue recognition accounting policies would be, uh, difficult?
And hey, I still like you in-spite of the fact you were an accountant! In fact, maybe more because you are a reformed or retired accountant :~)
-
Reformed, Jeff, but still looking over my shoulder for them to come and lock me up again!
At the risk of inflicting more pain (it seemed acceptable in the privacy of an IM!), "difficult" wouldn't be wrong. The accounting should reflect whatever's going on in the real business above ground, but not shape it. though you'd expect it to constrain the mindset because the best way to ensure S/O compliance is to make it part of the culture. You'd have a number of policies for different income streams (I think Adobe already have plenty of non-CS subscription revenue) and in this case you'd be apportioning the CS cost between whatever methods they use for monthly subscription and the perpetual spikes. Perfectly doable - if Adobe had really wanted to go with interim releases in perpetual and subscription. If not, aren't accounting policies an easy way to explain something you don't want to do? Blame the beancounters - I do every day....
John
-
Blame the beancounters - I do every day....
Beancounters=Suits (kinda American-meaning if you wear a suit then you don't actually make anything). And yes, many/most problems are caused by them...
-
OK, painful as it is to out myself....
Anyone still awake?
I think one of the problems in the "bean-counter" arguments is more along the lines of "lack of vision".
Because there is a lack of vision regarding the direction of development of Adobe's products and services (which have matured and are verging on bloatware), the bean-counters will automatically exert more control over what that direction will be. You will then automatically see more corporate centric decisions that lack connection to market and market developments.
e.g. marketing is results-driven, and comes up with aggregation of services to generate more revenue, where as the market is actually demanding break-down of services. etc…
Problem of course is that the more visible decisions in the last couple of years have seemed very corporate centric which result in a decreasing trust from customers. So if you now introduce a model that requires even more trust from the customer, and the model has all the signs of revenue induction written all over it, you have more than a slight problem.
-
I don't think any of that applies to Adobe, but it's a reasonable-enough prejudice.
-
Adobe was prepared for this onslaught...I had a 2.5 hrs call with Winston and outlined all the issues that the photographic industry would push back on. I warned them that photographers really don't understand copyright law, don't understand license agreements , don't really want any change...even if the change may end up being good.
…
The thing I would caution people about is make your judgements based on reality and facts, not the bullshyte that has been thrown out there by a bunch of people with anonymous screen names on the internet...
Jeff. I'm a photographer and I understand copyright law, license agreements, and want change. I know many photographers in the UK who are the same. Take a look at the British Journal of Photography if you don't believe me. I do not believe that a majority of photographers are as you represent them.
I am really concerned, that if what you say quoted above is accurate, that you are misguidedly misrepresenting photographers to Adobe – although I am sure you did not do this intentionally.
Perhaps you would be good enough to correct this "misunderstanding" with Adobe, please.
-
....
Has Adobe done a poor job of messaging their CC initiative? To the pro markets, not really...the pros are starting to get it...a monthly nut and they get all the apps they need and free new upgrades with new features as long as they stay subscribed...yes, there's an effective price increase–which is a pittance to the total cost of operating. Now it's up to Adobe to come through on the promise of more frequent upgrades with new features which is one of the main motivations to going all subscription.
....
And if any of you fail to remember, Adobe is a company that excels at one thing, designing professional applications for use by professionals. That's what they are good at, really good at (and about all they are good at). Look at the markets Adobe "owns": graphic design with Illustrator and InDesign, digital imaging and graphic arts and prepress with Photoshop, web design with Dreamweaver. The one market Adobe doesn't own outright is digital video because Apple's Final Cut Pro has a large segment of the market. Adobe knows pros ad what they need/want and a long track record of delivering.
.....
They did it anyway because they (Adobe) honestly believes tat this is the best way of addressing their core market, professional now and in the future.
...
it took a lot of guts for Adobe to do what they believed was the right thing to do for Adobe and the pro marketplace.
...
All of Adobe's marketing and advertising is directed towards the pros...because that's the market Adobe knows.
Schewe and others,
Thanks for your info, it's genuinely helpful.
the thing is, we are one of those small production houses.. we have about 20 design standard licenses, 3 production premium licences, maybe 15 acrobat pro and a few individual PS, and AI and maybe 10 or 15 PSe licences. (we have no master suite)
we're currently using CS5. we wanted to move to 6, but we were kinds srewed by the 5.5 bull saying we were 2 releases behind.. but we can get over that..
as a company, we've been using some of the adobe suite since release 2.5
in general, we've upgraded every 2 releases. we certainly see the advantage of upgrades, but we have to balance costs.
so.. the last time we upgraded from CS 3 to CS5, I think it cost us about €15k (it may have been €18k I can't remember) -so annualized, it's maybe 5-6k.. a very manageable amount of money.
the thing is, almost none of us use just 1 program, a lot of us use PS, AI and ID on a daily basis. design standard was the ideal package for the majority of us, and we expanded where needed.
I certainly understand the benefit of the full master suite - I'd love to have it.. but.. not everyone in our team need it.. you can buy the individual licences but, it's not really viable to do it for 3 individual licenses per user.
quickly doing the math - even just for 25 CC licences (which isn't enough for us) - €61 per user per month, that's 61*12*25 - that comes to €18k per year!
now to make things worse, instead of getting a discount for buying 25 licenses, they introduce "teams"... so instead of paying €61 per month, it's €86!!! so that's 86*12*25 - that's almost €26,000 per year!!!
I like centrally managed licenses, I don't need 100gb of online storage.
so that goes from an annualized cost of €6k per year to €26k per year..
I know they have an introductory offer - I don't care about that.. that's only 1 year in what I hope is a long company future.
and we're growing.. increasing our number of users.. but at this price... well.. we will be looking long and hard at alternatives..
so I'd argue, Adobe hasn't got the first clue about the SME Pro market..
genuinely, I'm not sure what to do.. I called adobe sales and spoke to them at length, and while the lady I spoke to was very able to answer my questions, I got no real advice.
thanks for listening and I look forward to seeing how this pans out.. and I'll continue to read this post, watch eps of the Grid, read the adobe blogs and press releases.
James
-
At the risk of inflicting more pain (it seemed acceptable in the privacy of an IM!), "difficult" wouldn't be wrong. The accounting should reflect whatever's going on in the real business above ground, but not shape it. though you'd expect it to constrain the mindset because the best way to ensure S/O compliance is to make it part of the culture. You'd have a number of policies for different income streams (I think Adobe already have plenty of non-CS subscription revenue) and in this case you'd be apportioning the CS cost between whatever methods they use for monthly subscription and the perpetual spikes. Perfectly doable - if Adobe had really wanted to go with interim releases in perpetual and subscription. If not, aren't accounting policies an easy way to explain something you don't want to do? Blame the beancounters - I do every day....
John
I'm not an accountant but a somewhat astute investor. Personally Adobe is now going to have to be far more accountable on a quarterly basis with investors as the concern shifts from sales to subscriptions. It's not unlike the cell phone industry where the focus is on increased subscriptions (ATT got hammered a couple of years ago when they reported flat subscriptions). With 18-24 month product cycles for 'owned' software it's a different ballgame. I think this is why you are seeing Adobe aggressively coming out with subscription numbers right now. It's going to be interesting to see how the new CC is taken up by the user community. One further note on large enterprise users - they might actually need fewer licences than with traditional packaged software because of the ease in transferring user priviledges. I don't know if this will play out in actuality but it could be reflected in subscription numbers.
-
I think that's very likely, Alan. Something people may not have noticed in the Adobe Max brouhaha is the financial analyst briefing slides (http://www.adobe.com/investor-relations.html) which puts the 500k voluntary subscribers to CC in context of there 8.5 million CS installations, half on CS6, and 4.5 point releases (single app?). Maybe it was already a well-known figure, but it was new to me. They are also showing quite a long haul with reduced sales until 2015 when they forecast 4 million subscribers (they don't distinguish between voluntary and involuntary ones). I can't decide whether this week is a sign of their confidence or not.
-
As a customer of several of Jeff Schewe's excellent books purchased through Amazon, this is my one and only post on this forum to state - whether you care or not, Mr. Schewe - that while I may consider paying for Adobe's Creative Cloud, I shall never again buy one of your books or videos. There may be some past agitation between you and the guy with the Russian-sounding name, but I'm appalled by the supercilious tone of your reply. It's not the "Jeff Schewe" in the videos I've seen, either.
I'm not a "pro" so I evidently fall outside of your purview, but whether you like it or not, your customers (like Adobe's) are watching. I'll leave it here, because I, too, have other things to do.
-
so that goes from an annualized cost of €6k per year to €26k per year..
I know they have an introductory offer - I don't care about that.. that's only 1 year in what I hope is a long company future.
and we're growing.. increasing our number of users.. but at this price... well.. we will be looking long and hard at alternatives..
so I'd argue, Adobe hasn't got the first clue about the SME Pro market..
genuinely, I'm not sure what to do.. I called adobe sales and spoke to them at length, and while the lady I spoke to was very able to answer my questions, I got no real advice.
thanks for listening and I look forward to seeing how this pans out.. and I'll continue to read this post, watch eps of the Grid, read the adobe blogs and press releases.
Hi James,
I just wanted to express my admiration for your considered tone of voice, while facing a major blow to your commercial viability. I'm not sure it will impress Adobe as much though. They seem to have other things in mind than acting as a partner.
Cheers, and I hope things get better but I'm not holding my breath,
Bart
-
so that goes from an annualized cost of €6k per year to €26k per year..
I know they have an introductory offer - I don't care about that.. that's only 1 year in what I hope is a long company future.
and we're growing.. increasing our number of users.. but at this price... well.. we will be looking long and hard at alternatives..
I feel for you and designpartners, James. It's really hard to keep in mind all the various customer base scenarios this CC impacts. Single users have nothing to complain about in comparison.
In Jame's situation it's not the same type of subscription model as say my cable TV setup. If TWC goes up on the price for basic expanded, I just call them up and tell them I'm going to At&t or satellite service upon which I'm transferred to the "Retention" department where I get to "negotiate" with another sales rep which brings the subscription price to a reasonable level. Same things happens in reverse with my At&t phone/internet bill where I get to say I'm switching to TWC.
With James' situation there really isn't a similar "retention" way out with regard to multi-app packaged licenses choice with all the Adobe apps his small firm uses. When Adobe gives lower priced introductory 1 year offer, all that synched, linked and custom sets/preferences generated content created within that year will be made unusable if they don't agree to the higher subscription price.
What other sets of apps are their other than Adobe for James company to turn to?
Maybe Adobe's bean counters need to work in a design studio in a deadline situation to see just how complicated it can get managing that level of integration of that many apps with that much content. They seem to not have a clue.
-
thanks for your comments Bart and tlooknbill.
as for my tone... well there's not much point in blowing up over it. Adobe have the option to change or increase how they bill and we have the option not to buy it.. being based in Europe, we're pretty used to being taken advantage of by the software companies ($ to € parity for example).
We're also used to paying software maintenance, which I feel is a MUCH more fair business model. You buy the software at full price, and pay in the region of 15-30% of the cost per year as maintenance. it's a known cost, you get support, you get updates and if you choose not to pay in future, you keep what you have. and if you chose to go back on maintenance, well.. unfortunately there is a penalty, you back pay a portion of all of it.. but critically, you are not held hostage, you can always open your old files, you can continue to run your business.
we're also lucky that we've a pretty strong leadership within the company, it's been run well through the last few tough years and we are in a strong position. as I said it's the long game. we're not guaranteed to always be this fortunate.
as for alternatives, well... we can stick with CS5, we can upgrade to CS 6, we can move PS to PSP, AI to Coral Draw, ID to Quarke, premier to final cut, AE to Apple motion, Fusoin or Blender, Acrobat to any of the freeware PDF converters.
the funny thing is that about half of our designers used Coral Draw instead of AI for a long time and when we moved to CS5 we standardized on AI..
we'll bide our time.. read all the info and make a considered decision on the future, and that could be moving to CC.. or it could be something else.
James
-
I'm not an accountant but a somewhat astute investor. Personally Adobe is now going to have to be far more accountable on a quarterly basis with investors as the concern shifts from sales to subscriptions. It's not unlike the cell phone industry where the focus is on increased subscriptions (ATT got hammered a couple of years ago when they reported flat subscriptions). With 18-24 month product cycles for 'owned' software it's a different ballgame. I think this is why you are seeing Adobe aggressively coming out with subscription numbers right now. It's going to be interesting to see how the new CC is taken up by the user community. One further note on large enterprise users - they might actually need fewer licences than with traditional packaged software because of the ease in transferring user priviledges. I don't know if this will play out in actuality but it could be reflected in subscription numbers.
I am an engineer, not an investor. It always amaze me when investors/"the market" seemingly hold indirect indicators more dearly than direct indicators.
"The bottom line" seems to be what (should) matter? If I am (consistently) able to sell my products/services at a sufficiently high price to cover my costs and reward my investors with a nice return on their investment, why should the number of employees, the number of licenses, etc matter?
I am aware of companies where executive bonuses are paid based on how many employees are cut (independently of the bottom line), how much maintenance cost is cut (no matter what future costs will be), and I have a hard time understanding why the investors would accept (or promote) such a system. Given perfect data on how the business is being operated (something that is, of course, impossible), should not only actions that affect long-term profitability and risk, be in the interest of (even) shorter-term investors? Any actions that are based on (prospective) investors imperfect knowledge of how the business is run seems counter-productive and something that should be regulated?
-h
-
Mr Schewe
I have bought your first book and pre-ordered your second book. I have purchased a video you completed with Michael. Your rudeness will make me consider very hard whether to continue with my pre-order as well as future products you may make with partners. I would suggest it also reflects unfavourably on the businesses you are identified with, including a more corporate Lula. This move by Adobe, and its associated distancing from photographers as you have suggested and apparently defend, appears prima facea as bullying as your comments.
Am I done with ya ( and the corporate ruthlessness you apparently defend) ? I shall think long and hard before I make a final decision.
Is this a watershed moment generally within the digital photographic industry? Seems somehow a relevant question :-)
-
Am I done with ya ( and the corporate ruthlessness you apparently defend) ? I shall think long and hard before I make a final decision.
Ok...see ya...
Is this a watershed moment generally within the digital photographic industry? Seems somehow a relevant question :-)
A watershed moment? I don't know. I think we'll only know in hindsight. It may offer an opening for some bright young minds to do some interesting and cool new products–I hope so. But I think it'll be a blip in the road.
Edited to fix the bad quotes I did :~(
-
If Adobe's decision is so smart for their core business, why hasn't the stock price shot up?
Just a quick comment on this -- I've seen several similar comments here and elsewhere.
Eh, Adobe's price *did* shoot up. Just not when us amateurs were buying it. If you were a serious professional investor, you bought it last autumn, or even a year ago. In the past year, it has sold as low as ~$28 a share. It's now $44, just a little bit off its record high. How did it get to its record high? Because a lot of people knew that a subscription model was coming, and that would be good for Adobe's bottom line. Then why has the stock dropped since the announcement? Well, it's only dropped a very small amount, well within random variation...this off a record high. And this conforms well with the old Wall Street adage, "Buy on the rumor, sell on the news." The smart money got in last year, when rumors of the new model began to leak.
Bottom line: the Adobe execs with stock options just made a bundle.
-
And this conforms well with the old Wall Street adage, "Buy on the rumor, sell on the news." The smart money got in last year, when rumors of the new model began to leak.
Bottom line: the Adobe execs with stock options just made a bundle.
John...yep, you got that right...by the time something "happens" it's already too late. The reason that Adobe's price/share has dropped was because of profit taking after the recent highs...
The "news" of the subscription model will take several quarters or till next year for the market to digest the results of the recent "news"...
-
Adobe does not seem to understand that some of us have SLOW connections. Also, that some of us do not have our work computers online - ever.
No chance of a faster connection in the rural area we live in. More people live in a decent sized city Apartment building than our entire county. The phone company won't upgrade for the 4 farmhouses on our 12 mile stretch of road at the end of the line.
Satellite is even slower - we tried it and quit. Really lousy when you can't get a connection because it is cloudy, raining or snowing.
As for the work computer never going online - that won't change.
Adobe does not care and we know it. Their 'tech help' is worthless and only gets more so with each new iteration of their programs.