Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Pogo33 on January 09, 2014, 08:18:36 pm
-
FYI, here is the quick summary for Adobe's Negative Guidance for the 1st Qtr 2014 and FY 2014:
Adobe Systems, Inc. (ADBE) said it expects first quarter non-GAAP earnings of $0.22 to $0.28 per share on revenue of $950.0 million to $1.0 billion and expects fiscal 2014 non-GAAP earnings of approximately $1.10 per share on revenue of approximately $4.06 billion. The current consensus earnings estimate is $0.33 per share on revenue of $1.01 billion for the quarter ending February 28, 2014 and earnings of $1.60 per share on revenue of $4.36 billion for the year ending November 30, 2014.
So Adobe is going to miss 1st qtr earnings per share by about 25% (33% to 15%) and FY 2014 EPS by about 30%. It is worth commenting that Adobe had already lowered their 2014 Fiscal Year (FY) estimates as a result of the transition to a subscription formula and had anticipated that they would be back on track in FY 2015. However, with this guidance, I think it will be hard to make 2015 estimates. I would not want to own Adobe stock right now.
-
Well, a year ago on the NASDAQ ADBE was trading just under 40 and now it's just under 60. If you go back 5 years it was trading at about 23. It's never been valued more highly than it is currently.
2002 - 2003 were tough for their share price and, of course, 2009 with the GFC but since mid 2012 things have been moving up and 2013 has been quite good.
Making estimates (or not) is not a good basis for making an investment decision.
-
Making estimates (or not) is not a good basis for making an investment decision.
Nor is it a useful guide when deciding what software to buy...I pick software based on the application not on stock price nor quarterly/annual earnings.
-
Whatever the economics, I like the subscription service much more than the disc upgrades of the past.
Sure, the people that previously stole the soft wear will whinge, but who cars what they think ? ::)
Time will tell on the fairness of the price, but I would bet Adobe got the message before the sale price what people are willing to pay.
-
Nor is it a useful guide when deciding what software to buy...I pick software based on the application not on stock price nor quarterly/annual earnings.
Bang on. It seems there are people with such a hate on for Adobe that it is starting to affect their photography. If CC is not for you, get something else and close the Adobe door...but continuously watching Adobe with such hate is not healthy. Go shoot some photos instead.
-
Totall agreement with Farmer, Schewe,David and Chez. Don't read into the figures anything that solely tires to tie into the subscription model because the story is much larger and more complext than that.
-
Interesting how many think what adobe is doing is bad, yet it’s going on all over the place and no one seems to notice.
Given a choice of $9.95 of month to use LR and PS CC, or $25 a month to be a part of KelbyOne (which seems well done and has some great content), adobe is giving the stuff away. There are all types of cloud service solutions popping up (my absolute favorite so far is Neat Connect (http://www.neat.com), amazing time saver and organizing tool), and considering what you get seems Adobe is a fantastic value.
-
Given a choice of $9.95 of month to use LR and PS CC, or $25 a month to be a part of KelbyOne (which seems well done and has some great content), adobe is giving the stuff away.
And color management in Photoshop works, some of the color management advise I've seen on Kelby is at best questionable. ;D
-
I have no idea how it's working for Adobe, Incorporated but for me it's working out great. I'm happier paying my lease for the software I use (Lightroom and PsCC) at $9.99 per month vs. coming up with a single large payment every couple of years.
-
Bang on. It seems there are people with such a hate on for Adobe that it is starting to affect their photography. If CC is not for you, get something else and close the Adobe door...but continuously watching Adobe with such hate is not healthy. Go shoot some photos instead.
Where does this perception of hate come from for you?
Where is it written that when someone isn't a fan of a business model, that opinion arbitrarily equates hate?
I don't now, nor have I ever hated anyone associated with Adobe, Inc. In fact, I have no emotional attachment to any software I use or the developers that offer those solutions. I do have serious concerns and doubts about how the CC licensing model could negatively impact users over the long haul. How you can so easily assume that view is based upon hate and is rather perplexing.
On the matter of stock evaluations, I'm definitely no expert. Though, in this era, stock prices and speculation on future earnings is an extremely daunting task when considering how fickle the market is as a whole. Share prices can change in a heartbeat. Often with no direct result of an individual corporations actions. Ask Apple ... they report record sales drastically surpassing their own estimates ... their stock dropped significantly because they didn't quite meet the speculator's expectations. It would seem to me that we are going to have to analyze much more than a few months of progress with CC to have a true and clear picture of where this is all trending.
-
Where does this perception of hate come from for you?
Hum...I guess you haven't been paying much attention here on LuLa (and other places). The OP obviously has a degree of glee over what is assumed to be problems in Adobe land...
I won't bother to point you to the various threads here on LuLa where pure hatred has been obvious and prevalent...you can look that up for yourself.
I can tell you from personal experience, NOT adhering to an anti-Adobe stance will get you a lot of grief.
-
I have no idea how it's working for Adobe, Incorporated but for me it's working out great. I'm happier paying my lease for the software I use (Lightroom and PsCC) at $9.99 per month vs. coming up with a single large payment every couple of years.
Hi Ellis,
A small point (but not unimportant as the controversy shows), it is not a lease in the common (financial or operational) sense. There is no option to purchase the product (as it then is), at the end of the agreed terms, neither at salvage value, nor at a symbolic price.
You are paying a subscription fee, which means that the use of the product stops after the last payment you (can) make, with a penalty for early termination of the payments. Any access due to dependency on proprietary layer functionality in works-in-progress files will be lost. For some that is a big problem, which spawned the term ransom-ware (pay indefinitely or lose access to your IP assets).
That lack of an end-of-contract option, to having a working solution after the termination of the contract, is one aspect of the negative perception, but the whole situation was initially aggravated by effectively a huge price increase, which was perceived as greed. Also the significant price discrimination between regions for identical downloadable software motivated by tax benefits for Adobe, and an apparent disrespect for a loyal customer group, in particular photographers with a Photoshop centric workflow, didn't help. Don't forget that you now can have a better price, which is due to those who expressed their discontent, not due to the Adobe apologists.
Anyway, I do not think this thread was intended to discuss whether users like or dislike the situation or are happy with the current functionality, some do and some don't like it and some are happy and others are not, but it's rather about how the subscription plan is working out for Adobe, as the title says.
I think it is a bit early to draw any conclusions about that (especially looking at it from outside the company), there is not even one full year that has gone by since the perpetual licensing option was dropped. People were still waiting for the announced Photoshop CS7 then, after being 'urged' to upgrade to CS6 to be even eligible for an upgrade to their perpetual license.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Where does this perception of hate come from for you?
On some topics feelings run high, and colourful or emotional language is used.
Look at the many, many threads on the Nikon Df on dpreview.com for one example. (For those living in a cave, the Df is a new retro-style full-frame camera.). People tend to strongly like or strongly dislike the Df, and anyone voicing a counter opinion is immediately villified, with escalating language.
We get the same thing about Adobe. Adobe are perfectly entitled to move to a rental-only model, and people are perfectly entitled not to like it. And some people really dislike it a lot, and say so strongly. As is their right.
Personally I don't like it much, but I've subscribed. I used to upgrade Photoshop every 2 or 3 upgrades (when you could do this) and upgrade Lightroom every time. The new $9.99 subscription works out about the same (in the UK) compared to upgrading Photoshop ever 2 upgrades (and Lightroom every time). But I'm not very happy, as Adobe systems are pretty bad. It took me 5 hours or more of phone calls and chat sessions to sort out my Adobe account before it worked, and judging by http://forums.adobe.com/community/creative_cloud?view=discussions (http://forums.adobe.com/community/creative_cloud?view=discussions) I'm very far from alone in this. People get charged twice, or not at all and have their use of Photoshop suspended. People change their credit cards (after Adobe kindly gave all our details to hackers) but then the system wouldn't allow them to change their cards. Some cards mysteriously get rejected. Downloading CC apps is a precarious and unreliable process. An update of Photoshop failed for me recently, and I had to uninstall and reinstall it. That's another 4 hours of my life I won't see again.
This is no exageration. Many people have no problems I'm sure, but quite a few do. Adobe have a lot of work to do improving their customer systems.
Then there is the rather changeable customer policy. First you could upgrade the last 3 versions of CS apps. Then only the last. Then CC rental only. Then the $9.99 package for existing customers. Then it was exteneded. Then it was extended again. Then for a while it was available to new customers. Oh, and Lightroom was outside CC. Then in. Then, eventually, a rather equivocal promise it will stay available outside CC.
People don't like uncertainty, and Adobe have been giving this in bucket-loads.
So with all this, it's really not surprising that Adobe should have attracted a degree of hate over the last year or so. They've got a bit of work to do to re-establish a stable, long-term environment for customers. And greatly improve their on-line systems.
-
Hum...I guess you haven't been paying much attention here on LuLa (and other places). The OP obviously has a degree of glee over what is assumed to be problems in Adobe land...
I won't bother to point you to the various threads here on LuLa where pure hatred has been obvious and prevalent...you can look that up for yourself.
I can tell you from personal experience, NOT adhering to an anti-Adobe stance will get you a lot of grief.
I guess there is a difference between you and I as far as the perception of emotion on the internet. Or lack thereof.
-
A small point (but not unimportant as the controversy shows), it is not a lease in the common (financial or operational) sense. There is no option to purchase the product (as it then is), at the end of the agreed terms, neither at salvage value, nor at a symbolic price.
Bart,
There's nothing about the word "lease" which implies any right or obligation to obtain permanent possession of the leased item at the end of the term. There are hybrid lease-purchase agreements, but that's another matter.
Jeremy
-
There's nothing about the word "lease" which implies any right or obligation to obtain permanent possession of the leased item at the end of the term. There are hybrid lease-purchase agreements, but that's another matter.
Hi Jeremy,
I was not giving a definition (because there are various forms of lease possible, indeed), but pointing out that there is a difference between paying for access to a (usually tangible) property, and a subscription (a type of contract) for a license to use.
Lease (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/lease)
Subscription (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/subscription)
Cheers,
Bart
-
It's far more like a lease than a subscription. A subscription generally (and in reference to the link you provided, Bart) provides some permanent benefit such as a copy of a magazine on a periodical basis.
A lease, on the other hand, provides access to something for a period of time in return for consideration (payment) but ownership is not passed on.
-
It's far more like a lease than a subscription. A subscription generally (and in reference to the link you provided, Bart) provides some permanent benefit such as a copy of a magazine on a periodical basis.
A lease, on the other hand, provides access to something for a period of time in return for consideration (payment) but ownership is not passed on.
Hi Phil,
The distinction revolves around property or a contract. Two different things.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The distinction revolves around property or a contract. Two different things.
Bart, quit while you are ahead...renting or leasing has nothing to do with "property" per se...and in terms of contracts, they can apply to either tangible or intellectual property. It all boils down to what property rights are being offered/transferred. Leasing doesn't automatically include an option to buy the leased item at the end of the lease...many do but many do not.
-
1) Owning a stock in a company is optional - I think.
2) Stocks rise and fall - the usefulness of a software doesn't seem to move in a parallel direction.
3) I'm not presently using the subscription service, but from what I read (on half a dozen forums), it's working quite well.
All of which makes me wonder what the point in the OP was?
Glenn
-
Since providing this FY14 guidance on 12/12/13 Adobe stock is up 10.3%.
Since announcing the subscription model for Photoshop 5/6/13 the stock is up 28%.
Since announcing Creative Cloud 4/23/12 the stock is up 82%.
Estimates of 2014 earnings are -16%. Estimates of 2015 earnings are +79%.
edit: chart courtesy of Worden Brothers, Inc.
-
1) Owning a stock in a company is optional - I think.
2) Stocks rise and fall - the usefulness of a software doesn't seem to move in a parallel direction.
3) I'm not presently using the subscription service, but from what I read (on half a dozen forums), it's working quite well.
All of which makes me wonder what the point in the OP was?
Glenn
Any system can work well ... the truest definition of success is how much money is in the bank at the end of the day. I think the OP was questioning if the CC model was generating the expected revenue.
-
Any system can work well ... the truest definition of success is how much money is in the bank at the end of the day. I think the OP was questioning if the CC model was generating the expected revenue.
I looked at the performance curve - if I'd invested in Adobe five years ago I'd be happier than I am now with the ones I have.
Maybe somebody is hoping it will tumble out of the sky because they are still annoyed by the subscription service, but sour grapes won't make that happen. As I noted, I'm not using the service so I don't have any emotional investment in this issue.
-
I think the OP was questioning if the CC model was generating the expected revenue.
I think the OP (who hasn't been back since posting) was trying to imply that Adobe screwed the pooch with the CC subscription with the hope that people would line up and piss&moan™ about big, bad Adobe...
Course, that's just my observation...maybe the OP was a concerned Adobe stock holder concerned about his/her investment.
Full disclosure: Not only do I own Adobe stock, but I also subscribe to the full Creative Cloud. And I'm pretty satisfied by both (owning Adobe stock and using CC).
-
I think the OP (who hasn't been back since posting) was trying to imply that Adobe screwed the pooch with the CC subscription with the hope that people would line up and piss&moan™ about big, bad Adobe...
I'd perhaps have phrased it differently, Jeff, but I've not the slightest doubt that you're right. I suspect an element of schadenfreude at what he perceived to be a mistake on Adobe's part, too.
Jeremy
-
I think the OP (who hasn't been back since posting) was trying to imply that Adobe screwed the pooch with the CC subscription with the hope that people would line up and piss&moan™ about big, bad Adobe...
Course, that's just my observation...maybe the OP was a concerned Adobe stock holder concerned about his/her investment.
Full disclosure: Not only do I own Adobe stock, but I also subscribe to the full Creative Cloud. And I'm pretty satisfied by both (owning Adobe stock and using CC).
Jeff, your earlier comments about the OP not coming back to this discussion led me to looking his Lu-La information up. Reading his posts in other threads provides a pretty sharp picture of his views on the CC model.
-
Jeff, your earlier comments about the OP not coming back to this discussion led me to looking his Lu-La information up. Reading his posts in other threads provides a pretty sharp picture of his views on the CC model.
Maybe he is a short seller who has gotten burned quite dearly!
-
Reading his posts in other threads provides a pretty sharp picture of his views on the CC model.
Yep, I did the same thing...I was actually understating the OP's position. He/she/it is obviously anti-Adobe :~)
-
Go for the argument, not the man. It looks to me like you guys are looking for reasons that you can discount his views.
I don't regard my self as anti-Adobe, and I haven't got burned short-selling Adobe stock. And I've subscribed to CC. But I don't like the rental model.
Though I've found Adobe staff to be unfailingly courteous and helpful, I've found Adobe systems (the online systems supporting CC billing and program download) to be poor. These systems are much more important for software rental, as failures can lead to paid-for software not working. I would like to think that Adobe know that, and are doing something about it.
-
Go for the argument, not the man. It looks to me like you guys are looking for reasons that you can discount his views.
I don't regard my self as anti-Adobe, and I haven't got burned short-selling Adobe stock. And I've subscribed to CC. But I don't like the rental model.
Though I've found Adobe staff to be unfailingly courteous and helpful, I've found Adobe systems (the online systems supporting CC billing and program download) to be poor. These systems are much more important for software rental, as failures can lead to paid-for software not working. I would like to think that Adobe know that, and are doing something about it.
Simon,
I agree with all of your points, especially the first one. However unlike him you are actually using CC rather than making up your mind without the facts, then selectively choosing "facts" that fit your already determined conclusion, and labeling it a failure.
That approach is a standard F.U.D. (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) tactic.
-
The opening line, "So how is that Subscription Service working out for Adobe?" is one of the classic openings line of the critic.
It screamed sarcasm - so I didn't find it hard to guess what was coming next.
-
Though I've found Adobe staff to be unfailingly courteous and helpful, I've found Adobe systems (the online systems supporting CC billing and program download) to be poor. These systems are much more important for software rental, as failures can lead to paid-for software not working. I would like to think that Adobe know that, and are doing something about it.
I recently subscribed in Australia to Photoshop CC for the bargain price of $9.99 per month for a year's contract. I'd heard there was an improvement in Smart Sharpen. It now has a noise-reduction slider.
However, I'm very puzzled that every time I open the program, I get a screen asking if I want to continue using the trial or 'License this Software'. Naturally, I click on 'License This Software' and am taken to a screen where I sign in with my Adobe ID, and I'm then asked to enter the license number.
Unfortunately, the number I was given over the phone when I bought the subscription does not appear to be a license number. It does not have the right number of digits. So I am stuck using a trial which now expires in 11 days.
Furthermore, the available RAM (under Edit/preferences/performance) is described as 3255 MB, despite my having 32 gigabyte of memory installed on my computer. 3.2 GB is very limiting nowadays.
Now this should be an easy problem to fix by contacting Adobe Customer Service. So I ring the same number I rang to purchase my subscription to PS CC in mid December, and I get a long spiel about Adobe having recently been under attack from hackers to get members' personal details, followed by details of the internet address to go to if this relates to my query, followed by lots of other options, press 1 for this, 2 for that, and so on, and so on, till finally I get to the option for technical support regarding Photoshop Creative Cloud. Phew!
Having pressed the right button, the phone switches to background music and I wait for some real person to answer my call. The music continues without interruption. There is no automated message along the lines, "Sorry! No-one is currently available to take your call. Please ring back later." So I wait, and I wait, then after half an hour, end the call, thinking this is a very unprofessional customer service.
I tried ringing the same number again, yesterday. This time I waited one hour and a half before ending the call. Again, no automated message apologizing that the staff were busy or unavailable. What the heck is going on?
This is the worst customer service I've ever encountered.
-
I recently subscribed in Australia to Photoshop CC for the bargain price of $9.99 per month for a year's contract. I'd heard there was an improvement in Smart Sharpen. It now has a noise-reduction slider.
However, I'm very puzzled that every time I open the program, I get a screen asking if I want to continue using the trial or 'License this Software'. Naturally, I click on 'License This Software' and am taken to a screen where I sign in with my Adobe ID, and I'm then asked to enter the license number.
Uh...when you subscribe to Photoshop CC, you don't get a serial number...assuming you've downloaded Photoshop CC from within the Creative Cloud application manager, all you need to do is enter your user ID for CC. I suspect you've downloaded the trial? Then tried to apply your CC license? Sorry, that won't work. You should prolly un-install Photoshop CC, go to the CC app manager and download and install Photoshop CC. It then should not ask for anything other than your CC user ID. Once logged in, it should hold and not ask for a serial nor drop into a trial.
-
You may also have installed a 32bit version, hence the lack of available RAM showing. You need a 64bit version.
-
Are you seriously stating that Ray is capable of being less than "perfect"? ;) ;D
-
Uh...when you subscribe to Photoshop CC, you don't get a serial number...assuming you've downloaded Photoshop CC from within the Creative Cloud application manager, all you need to do is enter your user ID for CC. I suspect you've downloaded the trial? Then tried to apply your CC license? Sorry, that won't work. You should prolly un-install Photoshop CC, go to the CC app manager and download and install Photoshop CC. It then should not ask for anything other than your CC user ID. Once logged in, it should hold and not ask for a serial nor drop into a trial.
Thanks for responding, Jeff. It might logically appear that I've inadvertently downloaded the trial, and also in 32 bit. However, I never got a choice between a trial and the licensed version. I've attached an image of the Creative Cloud applications window, from which I downloaded both Photoshop and Lightroom 5.3, which were part of the package I bought for $9.99 per month.
You can see that each application has either 'try' or 'install' next to it. I'm quite certain that Photoshop, Bridge and Lightroom had 'install' next to the names, and that's definitely what I clicked on. There was no option between 'try' and 'install' for those programs.
I've downloaded both Lightroom and Photoshop twice, for two computers. I no longer have an option to install Photoshop or Lightroom again because one is allowed to use the programs on only 2 computers. But I do have the option to install other applications which I didn't know were included, but which I'm not particularly interested in at this stage.
When I open Lightroom, I get a window showing me the license number and an option to register the software, so there's no problem there.
-
I think you should see the installed apps (Photoshop, Bridge, LR5) at the top of the list succeeded by 'Up to Date'. If they are still listed lower down as Install or Try then try installing them again.
-
I think you should see the installed apps (Photoshop, Bridge, LR5) at the top of the list succeeded by 'Up to Date'. If they are still listed lower down as Install or Try then try installing them again.
I do see them at the top of the list with a green tick next to 'Up to date', yet both copies that I've installed on the two computers appear to be trials that are soon to expire. They are not listed lower down as Install or Try, so I cannot install them again.
-
Ray, it might be a better idea to start your own thread - this is supposed to be about Adobe's stock price and what it says about their switch to subscription-limited software.
-
Ray, it might be a better idea to start your own thread - this is supposed to be about Adobe's stock price and what it says about their switch to subscription-limited software.
Indeed it is, and my comment was merely to give the background to the miserably and mind-bogglingly poor customer service in Australia that Adobe appears to be offering.
If their stock price is high, it is perhaps partly due to their cutting costs to the extent that they are hardly offering any direct customer support where one can speak to someone or converse online.
Of course, I've tried searching Adobe forums for clarification, but confusion seems to reign so frequently. I'd rather speak to someone direct.
-
Ray - looks like you're doing everything right. If you haven't already, try uninstalling and reinstalling.
Also, regarding contacting them, try Googling Paul Burnett or Michael Stoddart for email or Twitter details - both Adobe Australia - or call the corporate office and ask to speak to one of them and see if they can help with regard to why you can't get any customer support.
-
This is the worst customer service I've ever encountered.
Ray, if the subscription model becomes the norm, everyone at Adobe Australia will have no purpose and have to find jobs in the mines.
They're probably a little cranky... :D
(FWIW, I have found them quite helpful in the past.)
-
If telephone service isn't working in Oz, try Chat, if that works there.
Also try asking for help on http://forums.adobe.com/community/creative_cloud?view=discussions (http://forums.adobe.com/community/creative_cloud?view=discussions). Plenty of Adobe staffers lurk there, and I've seen a number of occasions when Adobe staffers have taken away, and apparently resolved, problems faced by users.
-
Since this is a thread on Adobe stock value and company profitability, I agree with Ray that the company is indeed doing everything possible to cut their costs.
In the last six months, I have also experienced very poor response with Adobe Support which makes me reluctant to switch to the subscription plan and become dependent on their support.
-
Just for the record, I think it's fair to inform you all that I did eventually, today, manage to get in contact with an Adobe chat service.
Instead of pressing the right buttons for the various options when on the phone, I decided to try 'sales' in the hope that the sales person would transfer me to the technical section. The sales person did try to connect me to 'technical help', but failed (probably because there was no-one in attendance).
So he gave me a web address in the form of what appeared to be coded letters and numbers, where I could get help through a chat service.
It was a rather long and complicated procedure involving my searching for a 'hosts' file in an 'etc' folder under Windows\System32\drivers, and then copying the contents of the hosts file to Notepad, editing it, and saving.
Everything is now working, thanks no doubt to the cheap labour of the Indians employed by Adobe. (That's Indians from India, not America :) ).
-
Can anyone supply a phone number for Adobe customer service (France) which makes it possible to reliably contact them. Before taking the route of the "special" upgrade subscription bundle (Photoshop CC & Lightroom CC), I want to be sure of having a means of contacting them. I have so far attempted to do so countless times, all unsuccessful. While I already use Lightroom 5 & PS CS6, it would make it simpler and easier for me to have a version of Camera Raw that has the full functional capabilities of Lightroom 5. I do find the automatic subscription renewal, as well as the rental model for PS, heavy-handed and regrettable, and would wish for a possibility of having the choice of a "perpetual" license for the latter, but I guess that a longtime user's and loyal customer's opinion matters very little.
-
Can anyone supply a phone number for Adobe customer service (France) which makes it possible to reliably contact them.
http://www.adobe.com/fr/company/contact.html (http://www.adobe.com/fr/company/contact.html)
-
http://www.adobe.com/fr/company/contact.html (http://www.adobe.com/fr/company/contact.html)
Thank you. As a previous poster had done, I also tried to reach Adobe customer service through their sales department. And the numbers you were kind enough to provide were for their sales dept. Unfortunately, they were unable to put me through to customer service. Curiously, there is little difficult reaching sales, and one would assume that the same would apply to customer service.
-
Thank you. As a previous poster had done, I also tried to reach Adobe customer service through their sales department. And the numbers you were kind enough to provide were for their sales dept. Unfortunately, they were unable to put me through to customer service. Curiously, there is little difficult reaching sales, and one would assume that the same would apply to customer service.
"Customer service" can mean any aspect including sales, and as you were talking about purchasing I thought that's what you meant. I don't think there is telephone support for use of Photoshop, except for premium support options. But there is chat support for installation, update, membership and billing. I've certainly used that. And I've used the phone number (in UK) for support over billing and related matters.
-
Thanks. I haven't been able to get chat support. What I wish to be sure about is a sure means of being able to get out, if I go into the subscription.
-
The following website address was given to me by the Adobe sales person. It's a chat service. I didn't have to wait too long before someone came online, and my problem was eventually resolved.
www.tinyurl.com/ldqna5z
-
The following website address was given to me by the Adobe sales person. It's a chat service. I didn't have to wait too long before someone came online, and my problem was eventually resolved.
www.tinyurl.com/ldqna5z
Yes, I've used the equivalent link in the UK (though I think everyone gets through to the same people in India). Not perfect, and sometimes takes a while to sort out problems, but in my experience they got there in the end.
Ralph, I understand what you mean by an exit strategy. Here's mine. Before joining the CC subscription, I already had a perpetual-licence version of Photoshop CS5, and Lightroom 5. If I decide the CC subscription isn't worth it, or they put up the subscription a lot, or whatever, then I go back to my perpetual-licence Lightroom (updating to whatever is the latest version), and stick to Photoshop CS5, which is probably OK for what I need. For me, the subscription price is about what I've paid in the past on updates. I used to update LR every time, and Photoshop every two or three versions (when you could do that). I don't like software rental, but it's OK.
What I don't like: Adobe's systems are pretty poor. Their customer management and billing systems are unreliable and inconsistent, and can easily get confused, leaving the customer to chase Adobe to put things right (billing doesn't happen, so you lose use of the software, or you get billed twice, or can't change a credit card...). In my case, at one stage my account information appeared to be different and inconsistent on different Adobe systems, screwing up my account. Downloading and installing CC applications is a frustrating and sometimes unreliable process. A recent update failed, and I had to remove Photoshop and install it again from scratch. At my broadband speed, that's another 3 or 4 hours of my life I won't see again.
When you click links on Adobe CC sites (or in the Adobe CC application), sometimes you continually get "We're sorry. Something seems to be wrong on our end. Please try again later. If this continues to fail, please contact Customer Support."
Just see the howls of rage from frustrated users at http://forums.adobe.com/community/creative_cloud?view=discussions (http://forums.adobe.com/community/creative_cloud?view=discussions). Perhaps some of them are user errors. But if lots of users are making the same mistakes over and over again, doesn't that tell you something about your systems?
Frankly, the systems delivering CC apps and billing for them are barely fit for purpose, and need some major work. When Adobe fix these systems it will make a big difference.
-
Ray and Simon,
Thanks very much for your helpful replies. Simon's description of Adobe systems is assuredly dissuasive, to say the least!
-
Ray and Simon,
Thanks very much for your helpful replies. Simon's description of Adobe systems is assuredly dissuasive, to say the least!
They do work, but at present they seem to involve the user in more work, re-tries and trouble-shooting than is reasonable.
I'm sure Adobe knows that (unless they are really out to lunch), and I'd like to think they're doing something about it.
-
I completely agree about the people do not like uncertainty. Once I had a supplier I was considering using - a significantly large one - and I quickly learned his prices varied greatly for a thing depending on something invisible to me. And no posted prices. Inconsistency can be a real turn off and create distrust, and rightfully so.
jmht (just my humble thoughts)
(oops this was response to a post back on page 1)
-
Too bad they cannot go to a one-year annual billing and not keep hitting the card month-to-month. I've had four credit cards issued since last August probably due to their security screw up. Make it some $100 year annual fee and stop recording everyone's credit cards that might get changed monthly due to all this ID theft. Getting a new credit cards - or multiple cards - every two months is a major PITA for any monthly payment option, not to mention some will turn you in for bad credit for being late even if it isn't your screw up and then that fight ensues.
Meanwhile, I wait for my postman to bring me yet another new credit card.
SG
-
Too bad they cannot go to a one-year annual billing and not keep hitting the card month-to-month. I've had four credit cards issued since last August probably due to their security screw up. Make it some $100 year annual fee and stop recording everyone's credit cards that might get changed monthly due to all this ID theft. Getting a new credit cards - or multiple cards - every two months is a major PITA for any monthly payment option, not to mention some will turn you in for bad credit for being late even if it isn't your screw up and then that fight ensues.
Meanwhile, I wait for my postman to bring me yet another new credit card.
SG
I believe 1x payment is available -
this from B&H
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/971561-REG/adobe_61101750_creative_cloud_1_year_membership.html
certainly what it appears to be
cheers...
-
I believe 1x payment is available -
this from B&H
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/971561-REG/adobe_61101750_creative_cloud_1_year_membership.html
certainly what it appears to be
cheers...
Interesting. Didn't know they sold CC at B&H.
I did find the Photoshop CC only 1 year for $229.95 there: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/971616-REG/adobe_61101760_photoshop_cs6_1_year_creative.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/971616-REG/adobe_61101760_photoshop_cs6_1_year_creative.html)
Much more than the $10/mo. intro plan, or the older $180 every 18 month perpetual upgrades, but probably where they are heading after the first year too with the intro.
Better deal is the student/teacher full version at $199/yr. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/971564-REG/adobe_61101764_creative_cloud_membership_1_y_stu_teac.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/971564-REG/adobe_61101764_creative_cloud_membership_1_y_stu_teac.html) That beats most of the intro offers by a lot. Time to enroll in some cheap community college class I guess.
SG
-
Interesting. Didn't know they sold CC at B&H.
I did find the Photoshop CC only 1 year for $229.95 there: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/971616-REG/adobe_61101760_photoshop_cs6_1_year_creative.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/971616-REG/adobe_61101760_photoshop_cs6_1_year_creative.html)
Much more than the $10/mo. intro plan, or the older $180 every 18 month perpetual upgrades, but probably where they are heading after the first year too with the intro.
Better deal is the student/teacher full version at $199/yr. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/971564-REG/adobe_61101764_creative_cloud_membership_1_y_stu_teac.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/971564-REG/adobe_61101764_creative_cloud_membership_1_y_stu_teac.html) That beats most of the intro offers by a lot. Time to enroll in some cheap community college class I guess.
SG
Be sure to read the latest on the student teacher - I believe there might be a quarterly verification process, meaning 1 class per year won't cut it anymore....
-
Adobe Lightroom for iPad Likely Coming Soon With Cloud Syncing and $99 Subscription Fee. What's with this?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1697447
-
What I don't like: Adobe's systems are pretty poor. Their customer management and billing systems are unreliable and inconsistent, and can easily get confused, leaving the customer to chase Adobe to put things right (billing doesn't happen, so you lose use of the software, or you get billed twice, or can't change a credit card...).
I just wanted to leave a quick note, and acknowledge the issues you point out. You are 100% right. Elevating customer experience to be a top priority is something we have focused on for this year. And yes, you could argue it should always be THE top priority (and I agree), but in the past we have often made trade offs between customer experience and things like time to market, promotions, the business, etc...
Anyways, I just wanted to leave a comment and let you know that we understand the experience isn't always the best (on the site, and in the apps, promotions, etc...), and we are working to create a culture that ensures that customer experience is THE primary thing we are focusing on internally. This is one of THE top priorities for the Creative Cloud team.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
-
Mike...
Good to hear our concerns regarding customer support are being heard and addressed. Personally, I would already have acquired LR5 CC,... but haven,t yet ,.. not necessarily because of the monthly costs being too high for me, nor that my LR5 software isn't performing to my satisfaction, but simply because I don't particularly look forward to dealing with issues regarding my Adobe account (security/protection) nor from issues regarding online software downloads and updates, etc.. Case in point, I need to uninstall and reinstall PS CS6 for all PS CS6 updates and have needed to cancel my credit card. If I may so humbly suggest that Adobe should have gotten the customer user experienced "perfected" before and not after launching CC subscription. I guess I still have until end of February to acquire LR/PS cc, providing Adobe can improve their user experience by then.
-
Mike...
If I may so humbly suggest that Adobe should have gotten the customer user experienced "perfected" before and not after launching CC subscription.
Indeed.
-
If I may so humbly suggest that Adobe should have gotten the customer user experienced "perfected" before
I thought it was pretty clear from my post that I agree with you:
> And yes, you could argue it should always be THE top priority (and I agree)
Ill try and be clearer next time I share some info on the forum. Sorry for any confusion.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
-
This was always abut money as someone who supported Adobe for 17 years under the previous model, I refuse to ever get this new model. Quite frankly this is just about greed and not rewarding there customer base. Anyone working for Adobe and did not come with in an inch of loosing there jobs protesting this move I think is a crummy human being. I am working pro times are tough and this is totally about greed.
-
This was always abut money as someone who supported Adobe for 17 years under the previous model, I refuse to ever get this new model. Quite frankly this is just about greed and not rewarding there customer base. Anyone working for Adobe and did not come with in an inch of loosing there jobs protesting this move I think is a crummy human being. I am working pro times are tough and this is totally about greed.
In simple terms, "greed" is the basis of the capitalist system so why would one company's greed be a surprise to you? I prefer to call it "maximizing profit" however.
-
This was always abut money as someone who supported Adobe for 17 years under the previous model, I refuse to ever get this new model. Quite frankly this is just about greed and not rewarding there customer base. Anyone working for Adobe and did not come with in an inch of loosing there jobs protesting this move I think is a crummy human being. I am working pro times are tough and this is totally about greed.
How do you make your conclusion that this is all about greed? They are just trying to achieve a constant revenue stream and to not tie new releases of their many different apps together. The fact that I am paying less today for PS and Lightroom than I did a year ago sure goes against the greed theme.
-
I am not paying less as someone who bought every other upgrade this is an increase for me. Look at what they are doing with the iPad version 99 year for lightroom are you kidding me. Face it this is about greed and a slap in the face to all of us who have sported them for years.
-
Supported them? You are a working Pro, right? You bought a tool from which YOU MAKE MONEY. You didn't donate anything, you paid / invested so you could make a return. If you no longer like that tool, you don't have to keep paying. You got what you paid for previously - I don't understand where this sense of entitlement comes from?
-
Supported them? You are a working Pro, right? You bought a tool from which YOU MAKE MONEY. You didn't donate anything, you paid / invested so you could make a return. If you no longer like that tool, you don't have to keep paying. You got what you paid for previously - I don't understand where this sense of entitlement comes from?
The whole entitlement comes from the ME generation. It's all about ME...me...me.
-
I am not paying less as someone who bought every other upgrade this is an increase for me. Look at what they are doing with the iPad version 99 year for lightroom are you kidding me. Face it this is about greed and a slap in the face to all of us who have sported them for years.
Who is holding that gun to your head forcing you to purchase the iPad...which by the way there is nothing firm out of Adobe, for $99/ year. If you don't see value in it...by all means don't purchase it. I don't see value in a $6,000 camera...so I don't purchase them...but I sure don't go out and cry about how Canon or Nikon are just pure greed charging for their gear.
-
Not entitled they had established a way of doing things and after they made a monopoly they changed . There use to be laws about that sort of thing see Teddy Roosevelt the trust buster. My living is small try being a pro in this day and age.
-
Anyone working for Adobe and did not come with in an inch of loosing there jobs protesting this move I think is a crummy human being. I am working pro times are tough and this is totally about greed.
Aside from the fact you come across as a petulant brat, I might suggest looking at yourself in the mirror and asking if you are really proud of this post? I have a lot of close friends that work at Adobe and I can tell you they are a long way away from being "crummy human beings"...fact is, Thomas Knoll and the other Adobe people invented this friggin' industry and they are hard working, dedicated and very talented people and as far from being crummy human beings as you can consider...
You say you are a pro? Nothing about your posts give any sort of clue about that...I don't know you from Adam but as far as I can see, you are using an anonymous screen name with no links to any professional work or web site. As far as I can tell, you have zero credentials in the industry please correct me if I'm wrong and point to a website of your work).
If you don't understand the capitalist marketplace, I suggest you go back to school and learn some basic business economics...Adobe is a publicly held corporation that is directly responsible to their shareholders. Corporate greed doesn't enter into the equation...corporations are duty-bound to make money for their shareholders. If you wanna pick a fight, pick a fight with the many shareholders that own Adobe stock (and yes, I own a few shares).
If this is any indication of the method and approach you take in your professional career, it doesn't surprise me a bit that you have such a narrow and ignorant point of view.
-
Mike -
Any progress addressing the SSD <120Gb C drive issue - as in if it is intended to be the OS only, then ACC installing on it with no option to divert to alternate drive - big problem. I see lots of people posting about this elsewhere /adobe forums. I am being forced to spend a weekend mirroring my C drive to a bigger drive as my SSD 120Gb has almost no empty space left thanks to ACC.
Sorry I know this is not strictly how is this working for Adobe - more like how is this working for me.
I just wanted to leave a quick note, and acknowledge the issues you point out. You are 100% right. Elevating customer experience to be a top priority is something we have focused on for this year. And yes, you could argue it should always be THE top priority (and I agree), but in the past we have often made trade offs between customer experience and things like time to market, promotions, the business, etc...
Anyways, I just wanted to leave a comment and let you know that we understand the experience isn't always the best (on the site, and in the apps, promotions, etc...), and we are working to create a culture that ensures that customer experience is THE primary thing we are focusing on internally. This is one of THE top priorities for the Creative Cloud team.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
-
Net income went from
832,775 (2012) to 289,985 (2013)
And also the income was more based on selling CS than CC
(numbers available at http://www.adobe.com/investor-relations.html)
-
Aside from the fact you come across as a petulant brat, I might suggest looking at yourself in the mirror and asking if you are really proud of this post? I have a lot of close friends that work at Adobe and I can tell you they are a long way away from being "crummy human beings"...fact is, Thomas Knoll and the other Adobe people invented this friggin' industry and they are hard working, dedicated and very talented people and as far from being crummy human beings as you can consider...
You say you are a pro? Nothing about your posts give any sort of clue about that...I don't know you from Adam but as far as I can see, you are using an anonymous screen name with no links to any professional work or web site. As far as I can tell, you have zero credentials in the industry please correct me if I'm wrong and point to a website of your work).
If you don't understand the capitalist marketplace, I suggest you go back to school and learn some basic business economics...Adobe is a publicly held corporation that is directly responsible to their shareholders. Corporate greed doesn't enter into the equation...corporations are duty-bound to make money for their shareholders. If you wanna pick a fight, pick a fight with the many shareholders that own Adobe stock (and yes, I own a few shares).
If this is any indication of the method and approach you take in your professional career, it doesn't surprise me a bit that you have such a narrow and ignorant point of view.
As a shareholder I would be concerned about net income per share.
See page 4. http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/pdfs/201312/Q413Earnings.pdf
-
1. Adobe have always said that income would be sacrificed while they drive customers over to the subscription model
2. Their share price is at an all time high - though we don't know what it would have been if they had continued as before
-
Mike -
Any progress addressing the SSD <120Gb C drive issue - as in if it is intended to be the OS only, then ACC installing on it with no option to divert to alternate drive - big problem. I see lots of people posting about this elsewhere /adobe forums. I am being forced to spend a weekend mirroring my C drive to a bigger drive as my SSD 120Gb has almost no empty space left thanks to ACC.
Sorry I know this is not strictly how is this working for Adobe - more like how is this working for me.
Can you send me an email at mesh@adobe.com, describing what the issue is? and Ill see if I can find some info.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
-
1. Adobe have always said that income would be sacrificed while they drive customers over to the subscription model
2. Their share price is at an all time high - though we don't know what it would have been if they had continued as before
3. Adobe invested twice as much in Sales & Marketing as they did in R&D. (According to the linked Q413 Earnings pdf)
-
So you have friends and they are getting rich congrats www.davidseelig.com
-
The divide in this country between rich and poor grows every day and it is in the long term going to destroy us all. Adobe has become part of that divide.
-
3. Adobe invested twice as much in Sales & Marketing as they did in R&D. (According to the linked Q413 Earnings pdf)
Its amazing what selectively picking numbers can do. What you forgot to mention is Adobe increased the R&D budget by 11.3% in 2013 while increasing their marketing budget by only 6.8%...almost twice as much. An increase of over 10% in R&D over 1 year is substantial.
-
The divide in this country between rich and poor grows every day and it is in the long term going to destroy us all. Adobe has become part of that divide.
Get serious will you. You just using a modern DSLR along with a computer to access this board already puts you onto one side of this divide.
-
I have never made 50 k in a year in my life Actually only cracked 40 once. Never had kids was a stepfather for a time. I have sacrificed everything for my life in photography. I have been lucky in cheap places to live. I was orphaned at 16 and been on my own since. At 17 while having my own apt and getting social security I could not get a job and had to steal to eat for a year of my life. Do not begin to tell me where I am in life. No one here has a clue. I have been published in Time Life Sports Illustrated Rolling Stone Stern and on just about every continent on the planet. But my publishings have been stock not assignments fees which in journalism pays a little better. If you want to know me look at my personal work on my website. I do not take every post to advertise myself. But again www.davidseelig.com
www.davidseelig.net
-
So stop using Adobe products.
-
Its amazing what selectively picking numbers can do. What you forgot to mention is Adobe increased the R&D budget by 11.3% in 2013 while increasing their marketing budget by only 6.8%...almost twice as much. An increase of over 10% in R&D over 1 year is substantial.
What you fail to see ... is most of the Sales and Marketing investment for 2013 went for naught (considering the drop in revenues earned) ... perhaps if there were a more balanced budgetary allotment for R&D, much less effort would need to be expended to meet goals. Comparing year to year really doesn't help ... when considering there was such a disparity between the two line items in both years.
I, for one, would be more interested in seeing more software engineers employed at Adobe, rather than more sales staff or more advertising purchases.
A superior product usually sells itself and does not require such intensive marketing campaigns to convince customers it is in their best interest to purchase the product.
What you also need to consider is the fact, by these examples, Adobe places much more importance on Sales and Marketing than they do on R&D ... so when it comes time to make budgetary cuts due to low revenues ... which area will suffer more?
-
Sorry, but that's bordering on absurd. You don't know what's required for R&D of these products so making a statement that they're not spending enough is silly. It's not an arbitary thing that they must spend X on Sales and Marketing and 2X on R&D (for example).
-
What you fail to see ... is most of the Sales and Marketing investment for 2013 went for naught (considering the drop in revenues earned) ... perhaps if there were a more balanced budgetary allotment for R&D, much less effort would need to be expended to meet goals. Comparing year to year really doesn't help ... when considering there was such a disparity between the two line items in both years.
I, for one, would be more interested in seeing more software engineers employed at Adobe, rather than more sales staff or more advertising purchases.
A superior product usually sells itself and does not require such intensive marketing campaigns to convince customers it is in their best interest to purchase the product.
What you also need to consider is the fact, by these examples, Adobe places much more importance on Sales and Marketing than they do on R&D ... so when it comes time to make budgetary cuts due to low revenues ... which area will suffer more?
Did a quick bit of looking to see what other hitech companies spend on R&D as a % of revenue. Here they are:
Adobe - 16.9%
Apple - 3%
Microsoft - 13%
Google - 13.5%
Toyota - 4.2%
Pfizer - 13.5%
Samsung - 6%
Intel - 15.5%
Panasonic - 6.6%
IBM - 5.9%
Cisco - 13.5%
From what I see, I think Adobe is very much invested in R&D to keep their products moving forward.
-
To everyone to me it is the responsibility if you feel a wrong in this world to try and change peoples mind's about it. Yes I knew there were friends of Adobe people here. For those that tried to tell me who i am money wise or am I some kind of pro photographer I am a waiting an apology
-
If you want to know me look at my personal work on my website. I do not take every post to advertise myself. But again www.davidseelig.com
Nice work...you seem to have had a tough life...my sympathies. However, it appears to me you've become pretty bitter. If all you can see regarding Adobe is corporate greed, you are ill-informed. Adobe could have behaved like Microsoft over the years and made very aggressive moves to kill off competition by leveraging their leading position in so many areas of digital imaging and have never really done so. In fact, they go out of their way to play nice with others and try very hard to advance the industry by working on a long list of not-for-profit efforts and standards (which apparently you are unaware of).
Adobe has become a monopoly not because of their actions but because of the quality of their software. Photoshop is so successful in-spite of everything Adobe has done, not because of anything Adobe has done. Thomas Knoll and all of the Photoshop engineers over the years have been driven to do the "right thing" and Thomas, after all these years is still doing the right thing (now mostly on Camera Raw).
Adobe found themselves in a situation where they had to make a tough choice and change their fundamental method of doing business. If you think the decision was easy, and based on greed, you are just plain wrong. Adobe full well knows they will be making less money for their shareholders for several years while the subscription model takes hold. But they also viewed the perpetual license model as a dying model for both technical and financial reasons.
You don't have to like it, but you do have to deal with it. If you choose to refuse to subscribe, that's your way of dealing with it which leaves you with very few and generally less adequate solutions...
But if you truly think this is all about greed, then you are wrong and I think you need to evaluate your perception of this industry change. Doing what you do without Photoshop won't be easy...are you sure you want to cut your nose off just to spite your face?
-
For those that tried to tell me who i am money wise or am I some kind of pro photographer I am a waiting an apology
Hum, if directed at me, I wouldn't hold your breath bud...(seriously, the phrase "cold day in hell" comes to mind).
-
Sorry, no apology. What you wrote, questioning the moral character of individual employees that are not personally known to you, forever struck you off the list of professionals in my mind.
-
Reading about the experiences of some CC users about being dependent on monthly payments, installation problems, inability to contact Adobe support, and program bugs is very scary. Personally, I had a bad experience when I ordered online from Adobe the LR 5 upgrade. Filled out a lengthy form, supplied my CC info (only to be recorded for benefit of some hackers), and next day received email from Adobe that they were not able to process my order without explaining what was the problem. I was not unable to contact Adobe and resolve the problem with the order.
Finally, I purchased the upgrade on a disk from a local camera store, and was able to install on my computer. No problems since.
Similar to my last order of perpetual PS.
I got it on a disk, installed it without any problems, and never had to contact Adobe again. I liked it that way.
-
Didn't expect a thing LOL but you guys were so wrong about who I am it is not even funny. I doubt when Knoll wrote the first photoshop he had anything but good motives now Adobe is all about money and it makes me sad.
-
I doubt when Knoll wrote the first photoshop he had anything but good motives now Adobe is all about money and it makes me sad.
Knoll still works at Adobe and he still has good motives...as do the other engineers working on Photoshop, Lightroom and Camera Raw. And I seriously doubt I could ever change your jaded point of view, but Adobe is not all about money...yes, they are a publicly owned corporation so they have to be concerned about shareholder returns–it's their job and responsibility. Perhaps you just hate all corporations? If so, it must make your life miserable having to deal with huh?
-
Didn't expect a thing LOL but you guys were so wrong about who I am it is not even funny. I doubt when Knoll wrote the first photoshop he had anything but good motives now Adobe is all about money and it makes me sad.
I'm having a lot of difficulty working out where your complaint lies. The last version of PS which I bought was CS5. It cost about £800. I'm now paying around 1% of that amount per month (and if I'd not bought a perpetual licence for LR5 before all this blew up, I'd be getting that thrown in); it will be nearly 8 years - 8 years! - before I've paid as much as that single copy of PS cost, excluding the use I can get out of the cash which I've not paid to Adobe as a lump sum.
Frankly, I'm wondering why they're being so generous.
Jeremy
-
Did a quick bit of looking to see what other hitech companies spend on R&D as a % of revenue. Here they are:
For comparision:
"Perfume and cosmetics companies spend an average of 19.2% of their net sales on advertising. By comparison, the ad/sales ratios for pharmaceutical companies and wire-less communications providers are 4.2% and 3.1%, respectively2)."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45737734/A-Closer-Look-at-the-Cosmetics-Industry-and-the-Role-of-Marketing-Translation
-
I think this account from the desktop publishing world is well-written: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/01/quarkxpress-the-demise-of-a-design-desk-darling/
I think it's relevant to us photographers because as others have argued previously in these forums, Lightroom has genuine competitors. It's also still available on a perpetual license for those who want it. Photoshop doesn't have any real competition and therefore Adobe effectively has a monopoly. Is it just a coincidence that Photoshop is now subscription only from here on in?
Reasoned speculation aside, the psychology of this shift is fascinating to me. At $10 a month for LR+PS with a promise that it won't go up in a years time, it feels much less objectionable. I'm now a subscriber. It doesn't feel like I'm getting blatantly screwed. Whereas before the $10 a month plan -- for my personal use case as a graduate student (prices for students increased dramatically!) -- the subscription shift was clearly very bad financially. But more than this it was an acute feeling of having lost control about when I wanted to spend my money. I felt like I was be taken advantage of by Adobe. Now the the price is $120 a year, and with a sense that I can take the risk to trust their claim the price will not go up, that feeling of a loss of control has dramatically subsided. So much so that it personally surprises me. (Then again, I also have the security of a perpetual PS CS6 license and perpetual Lightroom 5 license too, should that sense of risk and fairness change).
-
I'm having a lot of difficulty working out where your complaint lies. The last version of PS which I bought was CS5. It cost about £800. I'm now paying around 1% of that amount per month (and if I'd not bought a perpetual licence for LR5 before all this blew up, I'd be getting that thrown in); it will be nearly 8 years - 8 years! - before I've paid as much as that single copy of PS cost, excluding the use I can get out of the cash which I've not paid to Adobe as a lump sum.
Frankly, I'm wondering why they're being so generous.
Jeremy
Paying a montly, low sum for a montly delivery of food can be a good deal.
Paying a montly, low sum for a picture that you intend to hang on your wall for the rest of your life may or may not be a good deal.
With your CS5 you pretty much know what you paid for. With the running service, you don't know what Adobe will deliver for your money, and you don't know how much money they will demand from you in the future to continue subscribing.
I think it is a fair assumption that they are being so "generous" because they see that they are unable to tempt users with updated products, rather they want to have a fixed (smooth) income for as long as Photoshop stays relevant.
-h
-
I'm having a lot of difficulty working out where your complaint lies. The last version of PS which I bought was CS5. It cost about £800. I'm now paying around 1% of that amount per month (and if I'd not bought a perpetual licence for LR5 before all this blew up, I'd be getting that thrown in); it will be nearly 8 years - 8 years! - before I've paid as much as that single copy of PS cost, excluding the use I can get out of the cash which I've not paid to Adobe as a lump sum.
Frankly, I'm wondering why they're being so generous.
Jeremy
1%/8yrs applies to new PS customers, Jeremy, so it really doesn't apply to you. Still, Adobe is asking you for roughly the same as if you had upgraded each time - which may not as rosy as your 1% but doesn't seem skewed in their favour. But if I switched to CC from the CS6 suite, over 6 years I'd be paying double what I would have paid by upgrading every time. Frankly, I'm wondering why.
John
-
I'm having a lot of difficulty working out where your complaint lies. The last version of PS which I bought was CS5. It cost about £800.
Hi Jeremy,
And upgrades cost only a fraction of that (I remember US$ 269, or was it US$ 169?), and were skipped a version by many, cutting the upgrade cost to 1/3rd of that fraction per annum. You also were granted access to your earlier works-in-progress without limitation.
I'm now paying around 1% of that amount per month (and if I'd not bought a perpetual licence for LR5 before all this blew up, I'd be getting that thrown in); it will be nearly 8 years - 8 years! - before I've paid as much as that single copy of PS cost, excluding the use I can get out of the cash which I've not paid to Adobe as a lump sum.
Given the above, you may now understand that the logic is flawed. Besides, the introductory price will not stay the same, and you'll have to keep paying for access to the software and the proprietary parts of your work. Depending on one's method of work, unrestricted access to one's IP is very important.
Frankly, I'm wondering why they're being so generous.
Because, if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. They have not converted to philanthropy, instead they think they can make more money. Somebody will have to pony-up that money. You, me?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Notwithstanding all the yelling and screaming I did when the subscription policy was started I finally subscribed to the Photoshop CC and Lightroom package for previous Photoshop license owners. I am very happy with it.
-
to me when you create software for art it is a sacred trust one. Photoshop is a monopoly and adobe is taking advantage of that. You establish how it is to be paid for and then one day you change and you wonder why people are upset. For a hobbyist not a big deal you guys can make a lot of money in the world for me being a photographer in this day and age is very hard. Photography for me had been a religion. A way of life. through my work I have taken kids to rehab have seen people change there life to be healthy lost close friends to addictions. Adobe has decided to squeeze as much as they can out of us. I do not know one working photographer who has not felt anger for this shift. With the subscription model for the tablet on light room coming you see where they are going. I had bought cs 5 waiting for 7 when the news broke. I got light room 5 for free yes legal I was always proud i never had an illegal copy of photoshop which I have owned since 1995. Sorry Adobe I guess you will not have my nickels to play with. I just hope Aperture keeps going.
-
How do they have a monopoly? In what way are they preventing others from entering the market?
This "sacred trust" thing is just rubbish. It's a business transaction and no one has stopped you from using the products that you already have bought and paid for and at no time did they ever guarantee to make future versions. How did your skipping a version come into the supposed covenant? The reality is you only want it your way with no concern for their requirements - that's not a deal, certainly not a sacred one. And, again, how dare you target Adobe staff and suggest they are to blame if they didn't argue against the model, and suggest they are somehow bad people.
What is the actual financial cost to you? Have you even calculated it? What is that as a percentage of all your other annualised costs and annualised revenue?
-
Lightroom I have gotten free from my leica actually do not like it use Aperture. Photoshop until 6 came out got every version then seeing diminishing returns did not get 6. I call them like I see them when this was announced I wrote everyone I could and did what I could. Still not stopping. Call it rubbish but those are my feelings calling out people for non action is my choice and I would do it again. I come form people that look out for the world . for me as I said photography is a religion and you can disparage it is that any different from what you are accusing me of.
-
I'm not disparaging photography or your passion for it - I'm saying you're way out of line to attack people you don't even know for not standing up for your particular pet peeve/passion/call it what you will.
Put it this way - why are you right and they wrong? Who made you a moral arbiter? If they're acting legally, they will succeed or fail as the market (those who would be customers) sees fit.
Photoshop is a luxury item and suggesting that it's not "looking out" for the world in relation to any aspect of it is ridiculous.
-
$120 per year seems like a very attractive price. The question is how long the price will stay at that level. If next year the subscription price goes to $240/year, in 3 years it would cost you almost $600. Which by itself is still tolerable.
The bad thing compared to traditional software purchase, is that once you stop paying after forking out all that money, you have nothing.
-
$120 per year seems like a very attractive price. The question is how long the price will stay at that level. If next year the subscription price goes to $240/year, in 3 years it would cost you almost $600. Which by itself is still tolerable.
The bad thing compared to traditional software purchase, is that once you stop paying after forking out all that money, you have nothing.
Adobe have said that the price won't change "substantially". I read something that said it might change with inflation, or a general Adobe price rise, but it won't change out of proportion to other CC prices. Make of that what you will.
-
This "sacred trust" thing is just rubbish. It's a business transaction
Your perspective is not uncommon. But there are others too, which are as powerful, where doing good work is never just solely financial returns. Work should be meaningful and part of that means being part of a broader community than your company. The subject matter of this excellent investigative article is relevant (not directly so of course): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/22/amazon_open_source_investigation/
-
Adobe have said that the price won't change "substantially". I read something that said it might change with inflation, or a general Adobe price rise, but it won't change out of proportion to other CC prices. Make of that what you will.
Unfortunately, Adobe does not have exactly a stellar record when it comes to trust. Not with your personal information, nor with their guarantees. Just in the last six months, they flip-flopped several times on the subscription price and the sign-up deadline at the introductory price.
-
Adobe will attempt to raise their CC pricing to a point where they will maximize their profits with the number of subscribers they keep and balance against the profits they will lose if subscribers go to their competitors. Time will tell where that sweet spot will be.
They could also miscalculate by raising prices too fast and lose too many subscribers before they realize the subscription prices are too high. Because once lost, they won't get subscribers back. It's a big balancing act on their part. I'm sure they're spending a lot of sleepless nights trying to figure out where the sweet spots for monthly fees are. But promises to hold the pricing is just that - promises. A decision to change the business model has been made. They're operating in a different world.
-
I'm not disparaging photography or your passion for it - I'm saying you're way out of line to attack people you don't even know for not standing up for your particular pet peeve/passion/call it what you will.
Put it this way - why are you right and they wrong? Who made you a moral arbiter? If they're acting legally, they will succeed or fail as the market (those who would be customers) sees fit.
Photoshop is a luxury item and suggesting that it's not "looking out" for the world in relation to any aspect of it is ridiculous.
Brilliant, sums up my feelings and I suspect other's to a tee. The attack (and it was) on every and all Adobe employee is cause to ignore that poster further, despite his passion. It's pure rubbish.
-
Adobe will attempt to raise their CC pricing to a point where they will maximize their profits with the number of subscribers they keep and balance against the profits they will lose if subscribers go to their competitors. Time will tell where that sweet spot will be.
And one could substitute many, many companies names instead of Adobe's. For me personally, Verizion, CrashPlan, Comcast, Sirius xm etc.
-
You're right from the standpoint of the company. However, from the standpoint of the consumer, the difference with Verizon and those others is that you don't have a major investment in time and product as in Adobe where you have to make a major purchase and learn a whole new product and convert your entire past product - all the work on your photos. With Verison, you just make the switch and save money.
Of course the high cost of the conversion is what makes Adobe's business plan more effeective than those others. It's why they'll be able to charge more ant not lose consumers. Many are really locked in to Adobe. That's the anguish with so many users. They feel locked in with no place to go and feel they're being taken advantage of. It's like being on a drug that's been saving your life for ten years and now they're raising prices arbitrarily and you have no where to go.
-
You're right from the standpoint of the company. However, from the standpoint of the consumer, the difference with Verizon and those others is that you don't have a major investment in time and product as in Adobe where you have to make a major purchase and learn a whole new product and convert your entire past product - all the work on your photos. With Verison, you just make the switch and save money.
Of course the high cost of the conversion is what makes Adobe's business plan more effeective than those others. It's why they'll be able to charge more ant not lose consumers. Many are really locked in to Adobe. That's the anguish with so many users. They feel locked in with no place to go and feel they're being taken advantage of. It's like being on a drug that's been saving your life for ten years and now they're raising prices arbitrarily and you have no where to go.
Each and every one of us who has been using Adobe fully realized we are using a proprietary format so we have no one to blame other than ourselves if we choose to move away from Adobe for whatever reasons. I new long ago I was hooked into Adobe big time and would need to do a bunch of work ( and lose some of the flexibility ) if I ever decided to move away from Adobe. Blaming Adobe for "hooking yourself on a drug" is just looking for excuses.
-
I'm not blaming Adobe. If I was advising them, I'd recommend the CC approach. I used monthly charges in my own business on proprietary systems and kept most customers for twenty years. The trick was to never make the cost of replacement including downstream service charges lower than the short term cost to replace my services.
Having said that, many of my customers, and they were all in business and understood these things, were pissed about the deal. No one wants to feel they have limited options or none at all. But, I still took them to lunch and they were happy about that. Many of Adobe customers are not so business oriented if at all. So they feel more "used". It's something that Adobe has to consider in their business plan, that's all. Of course they can't buy their customers lunch. However, if they were smart, and they are, they should throw in a few more benefits that the CC users aren't expecting. That would ease the bad feelings a lot. And they can send me a check for the advice.
-
I think that the comparison with a life-saving drug is quite appropriate. Therefore, I suggest that Adobe be nationalized and Photoshop included in the Obamacare.
-
...difference with Verizon and those others is that you don't have a major investment in time and product as in Adobe where you have to make a major purchase and learn a whole new product and convert your entire past product - all the work on your photos.
All the pictures I worked on are worked on, so the product provided what I asked of it. The investment and work paid off. Future work on the same image? That's a different story and the price of jumping ship of which I feel is foolish. But I could. The proposition is such I'd be silly to do so. The same is true of nearly every software product I own too. Jumping ship from Intuit (Quicken) to iBank took time, money, some work on my part and missing functionality. No one made me do so. In that example, I'd do it again. But I understand what the cost is moving from a solution I'd been using since about 1989 to 2011 (when I made that switch).
-
I think that the comparison with a life-saving drug is quite appropriate. Therefore, I suggest that Adobe be nationalized and Photoshop included in the Obamacare.
That made my day. I'll be smiling for hours now.
-
I think that the comparison with a life-saving drug is quite appropriate. Therefore, I suggest that Adobe be nationalized and Photoshop included in the Obamacare.
I think considering the price you already get Obamacare... In the EU the price point is 12,29€ vs 10$ in the US - ; so 16$ vs 10 $
-
Having said that, many of my customers, and they were all in business and understood these things, were pissed about the deal. No one wants to feel they have limited options or none at all. But, I still took them to lunch and they were happy about that. Many of Adobe customers are not so business oriented if at all. So they feel more "used". It's something that Adobe has to consider in their business plan, that's all. Of course they can't buy their customers lunch. However, if they were smart, and they are, they should throw in a few more benefits that the CC users aren't expecting. That would ease the bad feelings a lot. And they can send me a check for the advice.
Hmm. Jeff Schewe made some cryptic comments regarding the news from a few days ago that Adobe is preparing some sort of iPad app that integrates with Lightroom. Essentially indicating that those of us without direct knowledge don't actually know what it will do or cost, and that our speculations were way off the mark. Perhaps those who subscribed might be getting a few morsels of free lunch in the coming days...??
-
I have always believe if you say nothing, nothing will happen. Every revolution starts with one voice. If I reach one person who makes a difference that is all I can ask for. Rubbish well I do not think so. Taht is all the is important to me. Lightroom for ipads is supposed to be $99 a year no other app for the ipad comes near that much. keep feeding greed and it will consume you. David
-
I have always believe if you say nothing, nothing will happen. Every revolution starts with one voice.
No one is suggesting you say nothing, it's what and how you say something that's important! Implying, no stating that anyone working for Adobe and did not come with in an inch of loosing there jobs protesting this move I think is a crummy human being is utterly silly and should be dismissed. It's akin to racism, same idiotic mindset. As such, the statement you made has turned off a large audience that you might have communicated with had you done a better job of stating your objections and not making it so personal.
-
It's a little too much to bring racism into this, don't you think?
-
It's a little too much to bring racism into this, don't you think?
I see NO difference saying that ALL Adobe employees are crummy human beings from being anything but racism. The 'race' in this context isn't the color of skin or bkgnd, but where they work. The mindset is the same.
-
Racism is being prejudicial of someone due to the color of their skin. I'm sorry you can equate that to having strong feelings against people you feel charged you too much. I think you're the one who's gone overboard in your accusations, not the person you've accused.
-
It's a little too much to bring racism into this, don't you think?
It seems these days that nothing is "too little" not to bring the racism into. It is a new bullying word.
P.S. This is not meant as a criticism of what Andrew wrote in particular... just as a general remark about the overuse of it.
-
Racism is being prejudicial of someone due to the color of their skin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism:
Racism is generally defined as actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that are based in views that see the human species to be divided into races with shared traits, abilities, or qualities, such as personality, intellect, morality, or other cultural behavioral characteristics, and especially the belief that races can be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to others, or that members of different races should be treated differently.[1][2]
-
... Lightroom for ipads is supposed to be $99 a year no other app for the ipad comes near that much...
Do not buy it, as simple as that. When someone owns an iPad, he can hardly complain of not being able making ends meet. Besides, which other app has the complexity of the Lightroom. As we all know, the most successful app for iPad is a farting machine. And you are right, it is cheaper.
-
Can someone please quickly bring Hitler of Nazism into the debate? Looks like we need a new major digression in this thread.
-
I'm sorry you can equate that to having strong feelings against people you feel charged you too much.
Charged too much? WTF are you talking about? Read what I wrote completely. I'm referring to a statement that "anyone working for Adobe and did not come with in an inch of loosing there jobs protesting this move I think is a crummy human being"
Got zero to do with any kind of charging.
-
I'm out of this debate. It went where I'm not interested.
-
I'm out of this debate. It went where I'm not interested.
Progress...
-
Andrew I don't understand what you're trying to achieve this last couple of days. You feel strongly about it. We all get it. David feels strongly about things too. We all understand that as well. Let's focus on what we have in common such as a love for photography, all the while mindful of our differences, including those in communication style and backgrounds. Let us be at peace with each other.
-
Can someone please quickly bring Hitler of Nazism into the debate? Looks like we need a new major digression in this thread.
Given that Hitler had a skin pigment disorder, I guess that his moustache must have been photoshopped.
Will that do?
;)
-
When the cloud was announced I wrote Michael a letter asking him if he would speak to Adobe people about the pricing. I did not expect any word back from him as he has this site to run and what he tell adobe I could see him not wanting to announce to the world. Andrew on the other hand makes part of a living teaching Adobe. So my words stung. And others attacked me oh well nothing hurt. I grew up, when I had a father, was a union organizer. I believe in voicing my opinion. Hope we all make great photos. But Adobe I hope they get real competition because they have lost me and many others.
David
-
I love the new Adobe subscription model. Far better than having to shell out some serious cash every couple years to upgrade the software for my entire staff. Thank you Adobe!
-
I love the new Adobe subscription model. Far better than having to shell out some serious cash every couple years to upgrade the software for my entire staff. Thank you Adobe!
Son, that's fightin' talk round these parts!
I can live with it, but I'd prefer one-off payments every now and then - and the knowledge that my software won't disappear in a puff of smoke if I stop paying.
-
I love the new Adobe subscription model. Far better than having to shell out some serious cash every couple years to upgrade the software for my entire staff. Thank you Adobe!
You couldn't make monthly contributions to a Photoshop savings account before, and draw interest on it while waiting on the next new version of Photoshop?
-
I can live with it, but I'd prefer one-off payments every now and then - and the knowledge that my software won't disappear in a puff of smoke if I stop paying.
Bingo. What's wrong with offering different payment options? Subscription for those who prefer that. And full purchase for folks who don't like the idea of being left with nothing if they fall on hard times and can't pay for a few months. As someone who encountered a major health expense last year, I know all to well that can happen.
-
Some people buy their vehicles, some lease them. The best option depends on the circumstances not dogma.
-
Some people buy their vehicles, some lease them. The best option depends on the circumstances not dogma.
Adobe doesn't offer any options. Rental or nothing. And nothing if you fall on hard times and can't pay the rent.
-
Clarifying my position - I use Lightroom - which can be purchased or leased.
Further to to the analogy, Ford isn't the only option and neither is Adobe.
What I'm noticing on forums (five or six I regularly check in on) is that more and more photographers are not complaining as much about the "big change" from Adobe, and quite a few are completely sold on it (subscription model).
C'est la guerre.
-
Clarifying my position - I use Lightroom - which can be purchased or leased.
Further to to the analogy, Ford isn't the only option and neither is Adobe.
What I'm noticing on forums (five or six I regularly check in on) is that more and more photographers are not complaining as much about the "big change" from Adobe, and quite a few are completely sold on it (subscription model).
C'est la guerre.
I'm seeing the same. Why continually argue the same points. Either jump in and subscribe, use what you currently use or look for something else. Really quite simple.
-
What I'm noticing on forums (five or six I regularly check in on) is that more and more photographers are not complaining as much about the "big change" from Adobe, and quite a few are completely sold on it (subscription model).
C'est la guerre.
While people may be tired of complaining and "arguing the same points", it doesn't mean they're sold on the subscription model. I would certainly choose a perpetual upgrade over a subscription -- every time.
-
If I was happy with the subscription model, I certainly wouldn't be wasting my time online defending it. Unless Adobe was paying me to do so.
If I got what I wanted, I would be happily be going on with my life. You can't expect change if you don't speak up. If I was happy with something, I would save my breath for things I was unhappy with.
I'm getting along just fine with LR and CS6 for now. They do everything I need, and then some... But I fully plan to have to move on when I get my next new camera, and have no ACR support for it unless I start paying monthly extortion for more than I need, to get what I need. I would pay for ACR updates, but I positively will not pay $10 per month just to get raw support for a new camera.
I personally believe that Adobe has realized that they cannot come up with enough compelling new features (other than bells and whistles) to add to future versions of Photoshop, to justify people paying big bucks for those future upgrades. They've hit the end of the gravy train, and they needed a scheme to provide a revenue stream in the future. They can't maintain the revenue they're used to just by selling ACR updates.
I have some great cameras that are serving me well. But when the next version of one of them becomes available, it's goodbye Adobe, because I won't have ACR for that camera. So I'm carefully researching my options, so I will be ready when that time comes.
I'll bet Adobe is counting on the subscription holdouts knuckling under when they get new cameras and need raw support. They can count me out.
-
...But I fully plan to have to move on when I get my next new camera, and have no ACR support for it unless I start paying monthly extortion for more than I need, to get what I need. I would pay for ACR updates, but I positively will not pay $10 per month just to get raw support for a new camera.
I guess you haven't heard about the free DNG Converter that provides backwards compatibility with new cameras and older software? Did I mention Adobe offers this for free?
-
I guess you haven't heard about the free DNG Converter that provides backwards compatibility with new cameras and older software? Did I mention Adobe offers this for free?
Yes, I know about it. Don't have time for that clumsy work around.
Give customers purchasing options, or lose them.
-
Yes, I know about it. Don't have time for that clumsy work around.
Uh huh...so, because you don't have time for a "clumsy work around" Adobe should be all aquiver at the prospect that you'll leave Adobe for some other solution? Really? Are you in the habit of cutting your nose off to spite your face? Go ahead and look for an un-clumsy workaround that doesn't include ACR/LR...try Capture One or one of the many 3d party raw processors. Heck, try the software that comes with your new, as yet unreleased camera. Heck, everybody knows the camera makers make the best raw processing software :~)
-
Currently, my best images do indeed come from the manufacturer's converter (Sigma Photo Pro 3.5) saving as a 16-bit ProPhot TIFF passed on to RawTherapee 4.0.11. FastStone viewer works well for snapshots. A simple life for one who does not print or post epic images in competitions ;)
cheers,
-
If I was happy with the subscription model, I certainly wouldn't be wasting my time online defending it. Unless Adobe was paying me to do so.
If I got what I wanted, I would be happily be going on with my life. You can't expect change if you don't speak up. If I was happy with something, I would save my breath for things I was unhappy with.
Everyone has a right to be happy or not with whatever situation they encounter in life (being philosophical here).
I might suggest though that fighting the current situation (subscription model) seems to be pretty much a waste of time and effort. Maybe that's why I see fewer complaints and more compliance?
I'm not suggesting that you don't have a right to fight it, I'm suggesting that you will get nowhere.
-
Yes, I know about it. Don't have time for that clumsy work around.
Give customers purchasing options, or lose them.
As you use LR, you can carry on buying upgrades for updated raw support. Who really needs ACR?
John
-
I guess you haven't heard about the free DNG Converter that provides backwards compatibility with new cameras and older software? Did I mention Adobe offers this for free?
They offer it for free, now.
Will it still be free in five years time or just part of the CC package ? Who knows ? I doubt Adobe even do. It's probably such an insignificant little utility it's not on their radar at the moment. If they find out it's being used to avoid buying subscriptions it will probably stop being free.
-
They offer it for free, now.
So, you doubt Thomas Knoll? (the person responsible for creating DNG Converter).
Really? You wanna go down that road?
Ya might wanna pick a different victim since Thomas tends to do the "right thing" for users.
Just sayin' this ain't a hill you wanna die on.
Thomas is pretty much above reproach. (unless you have some news I ain't aware of–do you?)
Otherwise, shut the fu@#k up bud.
(seriously, unless you have certain knowledge, shut the fu@#k up).
-
So, you doubt Thomas Knoll? (the person responsible for creating DNG Converter).
Really? You wanna go down that road?
Ya might wanna pick a different victim since Thomas tends to do the "right thing" for users.
Just sayin' this ain't a hill you wanna die on.
Thomas is pretty much above reproach. (unless you have some news I ain't aware of–do you?)
Otherwise, shut the fu@#k up bud.
(seriously, unless you have certain knowledge, shut the fu@#k up).
YAWN.
This isn't about any individual. Thomas doesn't set the pricing, it's about the Adobe corporation. They've swapped and changed policies on a regular basis over the last few years to suit their commercial needs. Suggesting that any particular utility will remain free is just simply speculation.
-
They offer it for free, now.
Will it still be free in five years time or just part of the CC package ? Who knows ? I doubt Adobe even do. It's probably such an insignificant little utility it's not on their radar at the moment. If they find out it's being used to avoid buying subscriptions it will probably stop being free.
Yep, and the sky is falling...run for the hills. Pessimistic view I might add. Show me a single software product that guarantees anything 5 years from now. Heck 90% of these products won't even be around 5 years from now. Which one are you going to hitch your horse to?
-
YAWN.
This isn't about any individual. Thomas doesn't set the pricing, it's about the Adobe corporation. They've swapped and changed policies on a regular basis over the last few years to suit their commercial needs. Suggesting that any particular utility will remain free is just simply speculation.
More so speculation that this free utility won't be free in the years to come.
-
More so speculation that this free utility won't be free in the years to come.
I'm not suggesting that at all. Just pointing out that whilst it might be free now, that may not be the case in future.
-
Once again, I don't understand why the folks who are happy with the subscription model would care what those who don't like it think. I might suggest though that fighting with the people who don't like the subscription model seems to be pretty much a waste of time and effort.
Move on and enjoy getting what you wanted, and let the folks who didn't get what they want voice their opinions.
-
Uh huh...so, because you don't have time for a "clumsy work around" Adobe should be all aquiver at the prospect that you'll leave Adobe for some other solution? Really? Are you in the habit of cutting your nose off to spite your face? Go ahead and look for an un-clumsy workaround that doesn't include ACR/LR...try Capture One or one of the many 3d party raw processors. Heck, try the software that comes with your new, as yet unreleased camera. Heck, everybody knows the camera makers make the best raw processing software :~)
Why the sarcasm and personal attacks. What did I do to offend you personally?
-
As you use LR, you can carry on buying upgrades for updated raw support. Who really needs ACR?
John
ACR is used when sending raw files from LR to PS. If you don't have the latest version of ACR for PS, LR tells you that you need a newer version of ACR, and without it you have to "Render with Lightroom".
And sometimes I bypass LR and pull raw files straight into PS. Can't do that without ACR.
If Adobe can make a free DNG converter available, why can't they sell ACR updates for a small fee? So that people who think the current version of PS will last them for many many years, if not the rest of their life, can maintain raw capability with new cameras? I think the answer to that is that Adobe needs a "hook" to keep people purchasing future versions of PS that they don't want or need (via the subscription model)...
-
Once again, I don't understand why the folks who are happy with the subscription model would care what those who don't like it think. I might suggest though that fighting with the people who don't like the subscription model seems to be pretty much a waste of time and effort.
Move on and enjoy getting what you wanted, and let the folks who didn't get what they want voice their opinions.
Like an discussion...there are multiple opinions and to make a good discussion, we should here out all opinions...not just the ones that agree with one another. Wouldn't that make a discussion rather boring if all we would do is slap each other on the back like good old boys.
I happen to have a counter opinion than yours and I think it is very healthy to post both sides of the equation. Why are you scared to discuss both side?
-
Then render with the up to date version of LR if you don't want to subscribe.
Bypassing LR is only your current practice, and you can easily be more disciplined and gain the benefit of the new derivatives automatically being in LR.
I'm no fan of Adobe's move, but upgrading LR for its updated raw file support is a perfectly practical alternative to subscribing.
John
-
Like an discussion...there are multiple opinions and to make a good discussion, we should here out all opinions...not just the ones that agree with one another. Wouldn't that make a discussion rather boring if all we would do is slap each other on the back like good old boys.
I happen to have a counter opinion than yours and I think it is very healthy to post both sides of the equation. Why are you scared to discuss both side?
Scared? C'mon. Really? Why do you care? You got what you want. Why do you find it necessary to defend Adobe's current model?
I personally don't have the time for thousands of post about something I don't care about. If I was happy with the subscription model, I damn sure wouldn't be wasting my time defending it.
-
Then render with the up to date version of LR if you don't want to subscribe.
Bypassing LR is only your current practice, and you can easily be more disciplined and gain the benefit of the new derivatives automatically being in LR.
I'm no fan of Adobe's move, but upgrading LR for its updated raw file support is a perfectly practical alternative to subscribing.
John
Why does LR say that when you haven't updated ACR for Photoshop? Are we losing anything in the process by doing that? And I seem to remember a intermediate file being created in the process, but I'm not sure about that.
And it doesn't solve the problem for pulling raw straight into PS.
PS does everything I want or need, and then some. I don't need or want upgrades to it. I would pay a small fee for ACR upgrades for PS, but I will not get on the monthly payment train.
LR and PS work for me, but that doesn't mean they are the ONLY apps that will work for me. I'm familiar with using them and would prefer to stay with them, but I will switch rather than get on the monthly payment train.
I shudder to think about other software companies adopting the monthly payment train. Monthly rent for CS, and your OS, and Office software... Where does it end? Oh wait - the software doesn't support local file storage anymore, so you also have to pay for cloud storage.
-
Why does LR say that when you haven't updated ACR for Photoshop? Are we losing anything in the process by doing that?
As I understand it you only loose the ability to work with the RAW files as smart objects.
-
Why does LR say that when you haven't updated ACR for Photoshop? Are we losing anything in the process by doing that? And I seem to remember a intermediate file being created in the process, but I'm not sure about that.
Yes, it exports a TIF/PSD file. LR renders it, as the dialog says, so you are losing nothing.
And it doesn't solve the problem for pulling raw straight into PS.
As I said, you can change. If opening from LR costs you time, it's balanced by the rendered file being automatically recorded in LR.
PS does everything I want or need, and then some. I don't need or want upgrades to it. I would pay a small fee for ACR upgrades for PS, but I will not get on the monthly payment train.
That's not going to happen.
LR and PS work for me, but that doesn't mean they are the ONLY apps that will work for me. I'm familiar with using them and would prefer to stay with them, but I will switch rather than get on the monthly payment train.
I shudder to think about other software companies adopting the monthly payment train. Monthly rent for CS, and your OS, and Office software... Where does it end? Oh wait - the software doesn't support local file storage anymore, so you also have to pay for cloud storage.
What, you want to be in control of your own wallet? They're not your photos anyway, are they? ;)
-
Scared? C'mon. Really? Why do you care? You got what you want. Why do you find it necessary to defend Adobe's current model?
I personally don't have the time for thousands of post about something I don't care about. If I was happy with the subscription model, I damn sure wouldn't be wasting my time defending it.
Instead, you are wasting your time whining about it. Personally, if I was in your shoes, I would be out there looking for alternatives. If the subscription model is not right for you, then you need to look elsewhere. Thinking somehow you can convince Adobe to change their new model by voicing, ( if you want to call it that ) your dislikes in a thread on some forum...I think you are wasting your time. But that is your time to waste...just like my time to waste.
-
That's not going to happen.
What, you want to be in control of your own wallet? They're not your photos anyway, are they? ;)
It won't happen if people don't speak up and cast their vote. And also vote with their wallet.
And speaking of wallets, I haven't been married for many many years, so I am in control of my wallet ;D
-
Instead, you are wasting your time whining about it. Personally, if I was in your shoes, I would be out there looking for alternatives. If the subscription model is not right for you, then you need to look elsewhere. Thinking somehow you can convince Adobe to change their new model by voicing, ( if you want to call it that ) your dislikes in a thread on some forum...I think you are wasting your time. But that is your time to waste...just like my time to waste.
I'm not the one with THOUSANDS of post, complaining about something I LIKE.
-
Yes, it exports a TIF/PSD file. LR renders it, as the dialog says, so you are losing nothing.
As I said, you can change. If opening from LR costs you time, it's balanced by the rendered file being automatically recorded in LR.
Thanks for the constructive feedback.
Canon's DPP sends files to PS without creating a intermediate file in my storage that I don't want or need. I wish LR worked that way. I sometimes process hundreds of images from events. I don't like the idea of unnecessary duplicates of all of them cluttering up my storage.
-
Canon's DPP sends files to PS without creating a intermediate file in my storage that I don't want or need. I wish LR worked that way. I sometimes process hundreds of images from events. I don't like the idea of unnecessary duplicates of all of them cluttering up my storage.
Surely you're not passing hundreds of files out of LR to PS at an event ? If so why ?
-
I sometimes process hundreds of images from events. I don't like the idea of unnecessary duplicates of all of them cluttering up my storage.
If you have to process hundreds of files through Photoshop, are you sure you are doing as much as you can in Lightroom? Typically such volumes require only a few to be processed in Photoshop and the bulk are processed entirely through Lightroom.
-
Point being that Canon's DPP sends files to PS without creating a intermediate file in my storage that I don't want or need. I wish LR worked that way....
-
Once again, I don't understand why the folks who are happy with the subscription model would care what those who don't like it think. I might suggest though that fighting with the people who don't like the subscription model seems to be pretty much a waste of time and effort.
Move on and enjoy getting what you wanted, and let the folks who didn't get what they want voice their opinions.
Isn't it a two way street?
-
Isn't it a two way street?
Nope. It's a one way street for me. Because I've said my piece and cast one vote here, and now I'm outa here. My final vote will be in the form of green backs, but it won't be a monthly contribution.
Unsubscribing (from this thread) now. Thanks for listening.
-
Point being that Canon's DPP sends files to PS without creating a intermediate file in my storage that I don't want or need. I wish LR worked that way....
It's unclear what you're asking for here.
LR (and DPP) sends a rendered file to PS, but you then work on that file and save it. There's no stored intermediate file between LR and PS on either LR or DPP.
-
Why does LR say that when you haven't updated ACR for Photoshop? Are we losing anything in the process by doing that? And I seem to remember a intermediate file being created in the process, but I'm not sure about that.
No and no (as other's have tried to explain). You lose nothing, you actually gain the new features in LR that an older version of ACR may not have due to you not wanting to pay for using it by subscription. Your call. And no, there's no increase in intermediate files. LR (or ACR) has to render the data. It would be rather foolish to do this then not save that rendered data. If you have LR do it via ACR (the two are in version parity because you paid to use ACR/Photoshop), the image appears inside of Photoshop but it's not saved, it doesn't exist expect in memory. Again, why render, view, presumably edit and not save that? The same happens if you Export using LR and bypass the ACR rendering engine you didn't pay for. The exported image is saved to disk, you open it and presumably do something with it (or why Export)? So you lose nothing in either scenario unless you wish to waste your time rendering then not saving the data from the raw processor. DPP act's the same way as does every other raw converter.
-
For those that say wasting my time voicing displeasure, wasn't the original price 20 a month. Hmm we are a country that says we can protest my time to waste my choice so maybe a thank you to those that protest and have saved you guys money is in order not as important as those who protest war and low salaries but important never the less.
-
For those that say wasting my time voicing displeasure, wasn't the original price 20 a month. Hmm we are a country that says we can protest my time to waste my choice so maybe a thank you to those that protest and have saved you guys money is in order not as important as those who protest war and low salaries but important never the less.
You really think your protests lowered the price? You don't think Adobe had a plan all along? Do you really think a billion dollar company just stumbles into being that successful.
I manage products for a living. Price manipulation is one of the most often used strategies in marketing the product. Come out with a high price ( $20/month )...let the customer think for a while...and then lower it to hook them in. Works all the time.
I think Adobe was counting on $10/month from day one...they just played the game like so many companies do.
-
There was big up cry about the 20 bucks so yes I do think so. No one lowers the price unless they feel they have to and they keep extending the 10 dollar deal what does that tell you. Of coarse if protest never worked. Woman what not vote Black people would still be slaves, There would be no minimum wage. Of coarse we always have to fight through sheep. David
-
There was big up cry about the 20 bucks so yes I do think so. No one lowers the price unless they feel they have to and they keep extending the 10 dollar deal what does that tell you. Of coarse if protest never worked. Woman what not vote Black people would still be slaves, There would be no minimum wage. Of coarse we always have to fight through sheep. David
Well, I can tell you know very little about product management and marketing. That's OK...you see Adobe's magic is working on you. You think you had the power to make Adobe lower their price. Makes you feel like you are getting a better deal. That was their strategy all along and it seems to be working. As far as sheep goes...looks like Adobe has got you right where they want you. ???
-
... As far as sheep goes...looks like Adobe has got you right where they want you. ???
Really? Don't they want him to subscribe?
-
Really? Don't they want him to subscribe?
Yep, come out with a high price...lower it to make the customer feel like they are getting a deal...hook, line and sinker. Sort of like those 50% off sale signs you see in all the windows. People just want to feel like they are getting a deal. What better way to make you feel like that than by coming out expensive and then dropping the cost. All along Adobe had the $10/month figure in their plans...don't think a few people on some photo forums caused them to lower the price.
-
Yep, come out with a high price...lower it to make the customer feel like they are getting a deal...hook, line and sinker. Sort of like those 50% off sale signs you see in all the windows. People just want to feel like they are getting a deal. What better way to make you feel like that than by coming out expensive and then dropping the cost. All along Adobe had the $10/month figure in their plans...don't think a few people on some photo forums caused them to lower the price.
And yet, strangely, in spite of this masterful strategy, dseelig has not subscribed. They have him where they want him?
-
Well, they don't have him and they don't have many others like him. Actually, this could be a big market segment.
If Adobe wanted a piece of that market, at the end of each year they could repurpose the previous version of PS CC and offer it at clearance price to the budget-minded non-subscribers. Same as the bruised fruit and past the best-before-date clearance shelf in my little supermarket. Bingo! A new profit center with very little cost and instant multi-million revenue stream.
-
Well, they don't have him and they don't have many others like him. Actually, this could be a big market segment.
If Adobe wanted a piece of that market, at the end of each year they could repurpose the previous version of PS CC and offer it at clearance price to the budget-minded non-subscribers. Same as the bruised fruit and past the best-before-date clearance shelf in my little supermarket. Bingo! A new profit center with very little cost and instant multi-million revenue stream.
Yep, Sears does that with their tools, has them on 50% off a few times a year. Guess what, no one pays full price for the tools anymore...everyone waits for the sale. If Adobe gave away their current version at the end of the year, how many subscribers do you think they would have?
-
Maybe we have enough tools already.
Sears distributes real iron and they incur real costs. But apparently, it seems to work for them.
For Adobe, there would be (almost) no extra cost involved and they could essentially create two classes of customers:
1. Preferred - for the status conscious, flush-with-cash subscribers
2. Common - for the commoners and pensioners
-
You really think your protests lowered the price? You don't think Adobe had a plan all along? Do you really think a billion dollar company just stumbles into being that successful.
I manage products for a living. Price manipulation is one of the most often used strategies in marketing the product. Come out with a high price ( $20/month )...let the customer think for a while...and then lower it to hook them in. Works all the time.
I think Adobe was counting on $10/month from day one...they just played the game like so many companies do.
No, I don't think they had that planned all along.
I you actually think they did ... I have a bridge that spans the East River for sale at a very reasonable price ... you could make a killing with your business acumen .... :D
-
No, I don't think they had that planned all along.
I you actually think they did ... I have a bridge that spans the East River for sale at a very reasonable price ... you could make a killing with your business acumen .... :D
Butch, the thing you seem to not understand is the huge potential of customers thst would never pay $700 upfront for CS6... that is why we see so much piracy. But this same huge potential base will pay a low monthly fee to get into the action.
It's exactly the phenomena that occurs with credit cards...you'd never fork out $5,000 for that nice new bedroom suite, but put it onto your credit card and pay $150/month and all of a sudden it's a great deal.
I take it you know very little about sales and marketing...judging by your stupid comments. That's ok...but if I were you, I would just keep your wisdom to yourself. :D
-
Butch, the thing you seem to not understand is the huge potential of customers thst would never pay $700 upfront for CS6... that is why we see so much piracy. But this same huge potential base will pay a low monthly fee to get into the action.
It's exactly the phenomena that occurs with credit cards...you'd never fork out $5,000 for that nice new bedroom suite, but put it onto your credit card and pay $150/month and all of a sudden it's a great deal.
I take it you know very little about sales and marketing...judging by your stupid comments. That's ok...but if I were you, I would just keep your wisdom to yourself. :D
I'll defer to your self-proclaimed prowess in the business world ... I always defer to those who claim expert status.
Though ... when I purchase furniture ... I always negotiate a cash price, seeking out any financing options I may require privately, thus saving a bundle in the purchase price and/or interest payments ... I don't fall for gimmicks or get suckered into buying something I really don't need.
As for those folks who would never pay $700 ... If they didn't have the desire, means or self control to save up for a perpetual license ... chances are they won't support a long term involvement via subscription either ... many of that throng are only in it for the short term and will develop other interests as time goes on.
-
It's exactly the phenomena that occurs with credit cards..
Don't ever mention credit cards and Adobe in the same post.
These guys can't even safeguard their customer credit card records, what makes you think their marketing department can execute any better?
-
customers thst would never pay $700 upfront for CS6... that is why we see so much piracy. But this same huge potential base will pay a low monthly fee to get into the action.
Except that those who used pirated software will probably continue to use pirated versions of CC.
http://gizmodo.com/adobes-creative-cloud-has-already-been-pirated-514563307
-
Except that those who used pirated software will probably continue to use pirated versions of CC.
And, now those that want a perpetual license and were/are willing to pay for it have no other choice.
-
And, now those that want a perpetual license and were/are willing to pay for it have no other choice.
I'm not going to start pirating software just because Adobe have changed their sales model.
-
Adobe magic working on me not I have not subscribed and will not. I do not know if you are an expert or not, but I know this still a bad deal. You know never used pirated adobe software still will not.
-
Adobe magic working on me not I have not subscribed and will not. I do not know if you are an expert or not, but I know this still a bad deal.
Have you ever come across the expression "cutting off your nose to spite your face"?
Jeremy
-
cutting off my nose? How am I doing that? I can convert in aperture or even LR 5 I got from my Leica M. But actually hate LR always have preferred aperture . Just feels clunky to me. I have legal ps 5
-
Fact: John Nack leaving Adobe to Google... Any speculation on the motives?
-
Fact: John Nack leaving Adobe to Google... Any speculation on the motives?
Funny how those hiding behind anonymity are so brave. Rather than insinuating, why don't you just give us a good laugh and say what you think?
Fact: people change jobs, others take their place. Hold the front page?
-
Fact: John Nack leaving Adobe to Google... Any speculation on the motives?
He probably has a really interesting project to work on. I hope he keeps blogging someplace other than Facebook or Twitter. He always has something interesting to post, and I admired how he ran his Adobe blog -- I really don't know how he could stand it sometimes.
-
Maybe Nack saw how google was with NIK they got Nik and lowered the price. LOL I do not have a clue Probably did get a project he wanted to work on.
-
Fact: John Nack leaving Adobe to Google... Any speculation on the motives?
He got head hunted...happens all the time in Silicon Valley. Not sure how you could possibly see some sort of ulterior motive to somebody who gets a better job? John's a friend (known him since he started at Adobe), married with two kids and just like anybody, looked to advance his career. A former Photoshop engineering manager and a former Camera Raw engineer already work at Google and Apple has head hunted several former Photoshop & Lightroom engineers. So what? On average, people change jobs about 11 times in their lives... (http://jobsearch.about.com/od/employmentinformation/f/change-jobs.htm)
Note, if you want to try to read tea leaves, it helps if know a little something about tea.
-
He got head hunted..
ok, any speculation as to why he was head hunted then ?
-
ok, any speculation as to why he was head hunted then ?
Because Google is very, very aggressive? Do you live in SV? Do you have a really good resume? If you did, you would be head hunted...head hunters get a bounty for big scores.
-
Fact: people change jobs
when some people change jobs it might point out to something interesting... Anders Hejlsberg left Borland for M$ in 1996 and we got C#... just an example
-
Because Google is very, very aggressive? Do you live in SV? Do you have a really good resume? If you did, you would be head hunted...head hunters get a bounty for big scores.
so you allege that google has no real reason where to use him and just stockpiling people with good resumes 8)
-
when some people change jobs it might point out to something interesting...
And MSFT head hunted Adobe's Mark Hamburg (who started Lightroom and was the #2 engineer hired to work on Photoshop)...it lasted a couple of years and now Mark is back at Adobe (working on Adobe Revel).
So?
-
so you allege that google has no real reason where to use him and just stockpiling people with good resumes 8)
Stockpiling people with good resumes that have product management or engineering experience on major digital imaging apps, sure...I know what John is gonna do but it's not my place to divulge that.
-
And MSFT head hunted Adobe's Mark Hamburg (who started Lightroom and was the #2 engineer hired to work on Photoshop)...it lasted a couple of years and now Mark is back at Adobe (working on Adobe Revel).
So?
so I am curious what M$ was up to and what failed ?
-
I know what John is gonna do but it's not my place to divulge that.
if you really know then it is not interesting... really interesting things are not so easily known... not to people in Hawaian shirts :P !!!
-
working on Adobe Revel
what is it ? if I have to google that then it is a failure...
-
so I am curious what M$ was up to and what failed ?
Not at liberty to say...(actually, it was loosely described as "User Experience Improvement" since Mark was such a Mac-Head).
-
if you really know then it is not interesting... really interesting things are not so easily known... not to people in Hawaian shirts :P !!!
Whatever...(and yes I know and won't say–I know a lot about stuff I won't talk about).
-
Not at liberty to say...(actually, it was loosely described as "User Experience Improvement" since Mark was such a Mac-Head).
Only Microsoft could hire someone like Mark Hamburg to improve user experience and end up with something like Windows 8. That must have been an "interesting" experience for him.
-
Only Microsoft could hire someone like Mark Hamburg to improve user experience and end up with something like Windows 8. That must have been an "interesting" experience for him.
Well, I didn't say Mark had any fun...(it wan't any fun).
-
Only Microsoft could hire someone like Mark Hamburg to improve user experience and end up with something like Windows 8. That must have been an "interesting" experience for him.
Best quote of the day.
-
Only Microsoft could hire someone like Mark Hamburg to improve user experience and end up with something like Windows 8. That must have been an "interesting" experience for him.
I didn't say that Mark made a "mark" at MSFT....only what his reason for going...and the timing for OS 8.x doesn't line up...this was a bit of time ago...(can't really be more specific).
And...that's about as much as I'll say about that!
OK?
-
I didn't say that Mark made a "mark" at MSFT....only what his reason for going...and the timing for OS 8.x doesn't line up...this was a bit of time ago...(can't really be more specific).
And...that's about as much as I'll say about that!
OK?
Sure, Jeff. Now that I think about it, it was quite a while back. But I can't help but think that Microsoft missed an opportunity there.
-
While people may be tired of complaining and "arguing the same points", it doesn't mean they're sold on the subscription model. I would certainly choose a perpetual upgrade over a subscription -- every time.
I think the whole point is that it doesn't matter any longer what anyone thinks - it's a matter of "fait accompli". There is no longer a choice.
I'm not suggesting that I'm in favour of the subscription model, I'm suggesting that the milk is spilled . . . . . .
-
I think the whole point is that it doesn't matter any longer what anyone thinks - it's a matter of "fait accompli". There is no longer a choice.
I'm not suggesting that I'm in favour of the subscription model, I'm suggesting that the milk is spilled . . . . . .
So... Adobe has customers who are subscribers, but are unhappy with the model (or not "in favour" of it). I see this a lot, and in fact I am now in this situation. It doesn't matter what we think? Adobe doesn't care? Why do I keep getting surveys from Adobe ASKING me what I think?
-
So... Adobe has customers who are subscribers, but are unhappy with the model (or not "in favour" of it). I see this a lot, and in fact I am now in this situation. It doesn't matter what we think? Adobe doesn't care? Why do I keep getting surveys from Adobe ASKING me what I think?
I'm not happy with my phone subscription. I'm not happy with my Internet subscription. I'm not happy with my TV subscription. I chose them diligently, I use them...and I move on. I don't endlessly complain about them. I do raise my head from time to time to see what competition there is...but then duck down and proceed with life.
Constantly complaining about something you don't like does no good for you or others. If you don't like something so much that you need to constantly complain, I suggest you remove that item from your life and replace it with something else.
-
I'm not happy with my phone subscription. I'm not happy with my Internet subscription. I'm not happy with my TV subscription. I chose them diligently, I use them...and I move on. I don't endlessly complain about them. I do raise my head from time to time to see what competition there is...but then duck down and proceed with life.
Constantly complaining about something you don't like does no good for you or others. If you don't like something so much that you need to constantly complain, I suggest you remove that item from your life and replace it with something else.
I've noticed that there IS something you endlessly complain about ::) ...just sayin'
-
Well Chez if you think trying to say something about things you do not like I guess once again, we would still have slaves no minimum wage women would not vote and on and on. I guess you do not know anything about history.
-
I've noticed that there IS something you endlessly complain about ::) ...just sayin'
;)
-
If you don't like something so much that you need to constantly complain, I suggest you remove that item from your life and replace it with something else.
I just simply don't place much importance on your advice ... It's a bit of a double standard ...
-
I just simply don't place much importance on your advice ... It's a bit of a double standard ...
Butch...really don't care what you do with my advice as its obvious you just love to complain. I've seen it over and over...same thing...over and over.
As long as you are happy do it...no sweat off my back. Just save a bit of time in the day between complaints to enjoy your photography. Like I said, life's too short to be obsessed with something you don't like. Just use something you like and be happy.
-
Well Chez if you think trying to say something about things you do not like I guess once again, we would still have slaves no minimum wage women would not vote and on and on. I guess you do not know anything about history.
Little dramatic no? Should all the female photoshoppers take off their bras and burn them? :D
-
Well Chez if you think trying to say something about things you do not like I guess once again, we would still have slaves no minimum wage women would not vote and on and on. I guess you do not know anything about history.
You might have heard this one:
"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference" Reinhold Niebuhr
-
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Do not remember who said it but it is true
-
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Do not remember who said it but it is true
It's a slight misquote from Eldridge Cleaver.
However, it's usually more accurate to say:
If you are not part of my solution you are part of my problem.
It's a matter of perspective.
-
During the 60s after Eldridge Cleaver it was a popular button with how I quoted it amongst the anti war crowd. thanks though for giving its origins.
David
-
Little dramatic no? Should all the female photoshoppers take off their bras and burn them? :D
Can I be the one taking the pictures :) - If it helps, I can promise to process them only in DxO.
-
Little dramatic no? Should all the female photoshoppers take off their bras and burn them? :D
They certainly could if they so wished.. They can simply use the transform tool to provide the uplift they desire.
-
Fact: John Nack leaving Adobe to Google... Any speculation on the motives?
He got an subscription with Google ;)
-
He got head hunted...happens all the time in Silicon Valley. Not sure how you could possibly see some sort of ulterior motive to somebody who gets a better job? John's a friend (known him since he started at Adobe), married with two kids and just like anybody, looked to advance his career. A former Photoshop engineering manager and a former Camera Raw engineer already work at Google and Apple has head hunted several former Photoshop & Lightroom engineers. So what? On average, people change jobs about 11 times in their lives... (http://jobsearch.about.com/od/employmentinformation/f/change-jobs.htm)
Note, if you want to try to read tea leaves, it helps if know a little something about tea.
Jeff, with all due respect, you are very defensive here. What are your views and speculation on GOOGLE's MOTIVES, not Nack's?
-
a friend subscribing to PS CC just reported:
PS 14.2. A notice to update was sitting in my Creative Cloud app when I returned from Australia this week. I'm currently doing my 4th re-install. PS CC just quits immediately upon loading. This is on an I7 PC with 12 gigs of ram, a 2 T c: drive, and a 3 T data drive. Win 7.
One drawback from downloading from the cloud is that you don't have ready access to a previous, working version of the software.
this type of problem is one reason why I haven't pulled the trigger.
-
It is getting pretty annoying that to open photoshop I once in a while need to re-login to the cloud.
Also, the popup to complete my registration details keeps coming up, although I have completed it numerously...
This is on Win7x64
-
It is getting pretty annoying that to open photoshop I once in a while need to re-login to the cloud.
Also, the popup to complete my registration details keeps coming up, although I have completed it numerously...
This is on Win7x64
If you can send me an email at mesh@adobe.com, I can put you in touch with someone who can help figure out what is going on.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
-
Jeff, with all due respect, you are very defensive here.
You are welcome to your opinion (regardless of how wrong you are).
-
It is getting pretty annoying that to open photoshop I once in a while need to re-login to the cloud.
Also, the popup to complete my registration details keeps coming up, although I have completed it numerously...
This is on Win7x64
Yes, I get the same thing running Windows 8.1x64. No rhyme or reason as to when is shows up. Ironically, I keep getting this email from Adobe "Three key things about your Creative Cloud Membership":
1. We've got your back
" As part of your membership, free help resources are available 24/7. The Creative Cloud Help hub lets you chat directly with Customer Support experts, check out FAQs, and access tutorials to help you get started using your favorite apps. Our Adobe Community site lets you ask questions and participate in product forums. Still need help? Call 800-833-6687. "
2. No internet connection? No problem.
"All your Creative Cloud desktop applications are installed directly on your computer. Access all your apps through the Creative Cloud app. Once apps are installed, you won't need an Internet connection to use them."
3. Your files are your files. Always.
"When you sync files to Creative Cloud, you'll always have a local copy of your files in addition to the 20GB of cloud storage included in your membership. Even if your membership status changes, you can access all of the files in the Creative Cloud folder on your computer and via the Creative Cloud website."
#2 seems to be applicable here, and it's complete BS. Every now and then I've had to log in to my account to even open PS. This is a service that is completely based on the internet. You have to download all the software and activate it periodically. It's not a problem if you don't have a connection?
#1 24/7 Chat line with Adobe customer service. Enough said. There are also online tutorials and the help forums. I've generally found these very useful, but again "No internet connection? No problem."?
#3 Seems to be Adobe's answer to our questions about an exit strategy. Their definition of "access" is different from mine. "Hey, your files are your files! Move 'em around, burn 'em to disc -- oh, you wanted to ACCESS them. Sorry, you have to subscribe.
-
My understanding is that access to YOUR files is never blocked but that acces to ADOBE'S files (i.e. the software) is dependent upon periodic checks that require online connection. (How else would they stop you using their programs if your subscription lapsed?)
-
Follow-up on my post from two days ago:
a friend subscribing to PS CC just reported:
PS 14.2. A notice to update was sitting in my Creative Cloud app when I returned from Australia this week. I'm currently doing my 4th re-install. PS CC just quits immediately upon loading. This is on an I7 PC with 12 gigs of ram, a 2 T c: drive, and a 3 T data drive. Win 7.
One drawback from downloading from the cloud is that you don't have ready access to a previous, working version of the software.
this type of problem is one reason why I haven't pulled the trigger.
Now, in the 4th day of troubleshooting after spending hours on the chat with support people from India, upgrading all his drivers and video card firmware, he finally connected to a phone conversation (after a 1-hour lineup), but as of now he is still without access to Photoshop.
He summarised his experience in following words:
Updates from the cloud can be very destructive.
Adobe help is hard to reach [e.g. text chat (depending on problem) and live chat closed on weekends and after 7 on weekdays].
Google doesn't always provide a solution. In this case it just confirms that lots of users have this problem -- no useful solutions yet.
My own desire to try out the PS CC is suddenly not so pressing anymore.
-
It's probably covered somewhere in this thread, but can someone in the know please break it down for me?
I have PS CS6, I'm thinking of trialing/subscribing to CC.
In the event that something goes wrong with my subscription, or I wish not to continue, but I need to continue working on files in CS6 which began in CC, and used some features of CC that are not in CS6: how functional are those files in CS6? Is it that moves done in 'exclusive features of CC' are unreadable by CS6, or are they simply "frozen" at the state of last settings and not further manipulable in CS6?
Is there somewhere I can download a heavily manipulated CC file so that I can see for myself how it is handled by CS6?
-
My own desire to try out the PS CC is suddenly not so pressing anymore.
I decided to try it for a year and signed up for the photography bundle in December (before the previous, previous deadline). So far, I've been required to sign in to my Adobe account at least 4 times in order to open Photoshop. Ironically, about a half hour after my post above, I opened PS and was again required to log in. I guess I'll have to email Mike Chambers to see how I can contact the person who knows how to fix this.
So far, two of my major misgivings about this business have come to pass. First the security breach, and now, about two months into my subscription, serious questions about the reliability of the service. Given the unexpected log in requests, and the absolute need for an internet connection to accomplish them, I would now never load a CC product on a laptop and travel with it. I'll continue to purchase a perpetual license for LR to use on my laptop, which kind of devalues the deal that the bundle is supposed to provide.
-
It is a flawed architecture and the people at Adobe are too clueless or too greedy to back track. Rational tried the same thing with Catapult and after 6 months they shut it down and wrote it off. I don't mind having email in the cloud but not applications that I need to get work done.
I can use Nikon's Capture NX2 indefinitely and not be held hostage to ACR for RAW conversion and for now my company has a bulk license to Photoshop CS6 along with InDesign and Illustrator but that is the end of our investment in Adobe products. We lost time and money over the years as Adobe bought out competitors and then killed their applications and forced customers to migrate and often do work from scratch using the Adobe products instead. Most recent experience was with Macromedia and Freehand.
Hopefully GIMP will continue to evolve as well and the next release is supposed to provide support for 16-bit files.
Aren't monopolies great?
-
Hopefully GIMP will continue to evolve as well and the next release is supposed to provide support for 16-bit files.
Hope you aren't holding your breath doode...good luck to you, the rest of us are learning how to use a subscription (and it ain't as hard as some have indicated–sorry, it's pretty easy to click connect).
-
sorry, it's pretty easy to click connect
IF you have the internet available all the time. Not everyone has.
-
IF you have the internet available all the time. Not everyone has.
You don't need the Internet available all the time. It needs to call home every month (for a monthly subscription), and you get warning (they say) before it stops working.
-
IF you have the internet available all the time. Not everyone has.
Seems like you are doing pretty good with your Internet connection right now. That is all you need to do, connect once a month so your subscription can be verified.
In today's world, I think not having an Internet connection, especially when we are all connected together here by Internet, is really a low digging point.
-
Seems like you are doing pretty good with your Internet connection right now. That is all you need to do, connect once a month so your subscription can be verified.
In today's world, I think not having an Internet connection, especially when we are all connected together here by Internet, is really a low digging point.
I work always on location, in factories. None I have ever encountered have wireless internet I can access. Connecting via ethernet to the corp system is not possible.
So tell me chez, if my subscription won't activate and I can't call home to Adobe, just how "low of a digging point" is it now?
-
Either way, the necessity to sign to Adobe account every two weeks (as reported by Rick Popham) is a major inconvenience. Maybe not to Adobe, but to the users.
In almost three years of owning PS CS5 (and I'd like to emphasize the owning part), I never had to do that. I never missed that and Adobe has saved a lot of bandwidth and many rupees on their support team.
-
I work always on location, in factories. None I have ever encountered have wireless internet I can access. Connecting via ethernet to the corp system is not possible.
Got an iPhone or similar? I had my internet go out for 2.5 days, backup is always using a mobile hot spot, the phone even at G3 is well up to the task to at least activate the software on the laptop.
-
It's probably covered somewhere in this thread, but can someone in the know please break it down for me?
I have PS CS6, I'm thinking of trialing/subscribing to CC.
In the event that something goes wrong with my subscription, or I wish not to continue, but I need to continue working on files in CS6 which began in CC, and used some features of CC that are not in CS6: how functional are those files in CS6? Is it that moves done in 'exclusive features of CC' are unreadable by CS6, or are they simply "frozen" at the state of last settings and not further manipulable in CS6?
Is there somewhere I can download a heavily manipulated CC file so that I can see for myself how it is handled by CS6?
Any suggestions on a place to get answers to such questions? My google-fu isn't getting it done.
-
Just as now, the layers containing incompatible edits will be rasterized when the file is opened in an older version of PS - ie converted to pixel layers and without any of the newer editing settings. The main loss will be work applied to smart object layers, which you might not use.
-
I work always on location, in factories. None I have ever encountered have wireless internet I can access. Connecting via ethernet to the corp system is not possible.
So tell me chez, if my subscription won't activate and I can't call home to Adobe, just how "low of a digging point" is it now?
You have a web page, you are active on this forum...you are telling me that you don't have access to the internet once a month? Come on....
-
Got an iPhone or similar? I had my internet go out for 2.5 days, backup is always using a mobile hot spot, the phone even at G3 is well up to the task to at least activate the software on the laptop.
Oh I have an iPhone and a cellular iPad, but now I need to add a hotspot as well just to be sure I can "activate" software that used to be available as a perpetual? No thanks. What a great move forward. [/sarcasm]
-
You have a web page, you are active on this forum...you are telling me that you don't have access to the internet once a month? Come on....
Are you capable of actually reading words I posted?.
Here, let me repost them on the unlikely chance you will actually understand them this time.
"I work always on location, in factories. None I have ever encountered have wireless internet I can access. Connecting via ethernet to the corp system is not possible.
So tell me chez, if my subscription won't activate and I can't call home to Adobe, just how "low of a digging point" is it now?"
Now chez, if my subscription needs to be activated while working on location, and I'm unable to access the internet, is that really a "low digging point"?
Oh never mind, this is beyond your ability to comprehend.
-
Are you capable of actually reading words I posted?.
Here, let me repost them on the unlikely chance you will actually understand them this time.
"I work always on location, in factories. None I have ever encountered have wireless internet I can access. Connecting via ethernet to the corp system is not possible.
So tell me chez, if my subscription won't activate and I can't call home to Adobe, just how "low of a digging point" is it now?"
Now chez, if my subscription needs to be activated while working on location, and I'm unable to access the internet, is that really a "low digging point"?
Oh never mind, this is beyond your ability to comprehend.
OK...so you work in the factories...do you also eat, sleep there or do you go outside that factory sometimes in the month where you might have internet access. You DON'T need internet access to use CC, it just needs to connect once a month to verify your subscription...then you can be off the grid. Again, I ask, do you really not have internet access for a whole month at a time?
-
OK...so you work in the factories...do you also eat, sleep there or do you go outside that factory sometimes in the month where you might have internet access. You DON'T need internet access to use CC, it just needs to connect once a month to verify your subscription...then you can be off the grid. Again, I ask, do you really not have internet access for a whole month at a time?
You simply don't have a clue do you? Why don't you get back to us when you buy your first one?
Lets try this once more for the mentally impaired.
If my subscription needs to be activated WHILE I AM ON A JOB IN A FACTORY, WITH NO INTERNET ACCESS...am I now going to tell my client, oh gee, I need to leave the job site and find some internet access so I can GET MY SOFTWARE TO RUN, so I can complete the job I'm here to do?
Which all goes directly the point that is beyond your ken.
This is not a "low of a digging point" as you foolishly suggest.
-
maybe if they bring in some new hires poached from Google or Topaz, they could figure out a way for Photoshop running without being dependent on the mother ship
-
OK...so you work in the factories...do you also eat, sleep there or do you go outside that factory sometimes in the month where you might have internet access. You DON'T need internet access to use CC, it just needs to connect once a month to verify your subscription...then you can be off the grid. Again, I ask, do you really not have internet access for a whole month at a time?
That may be the design of CC ... it may work flawlessly for most ... however, for some users, albeit a small percentage, are being asked to confirm their subscription much more often than once a month.
While it may be trendy and popular to blame user ignorance or misunderstanding, for at least a few users, it can be a real problem. As evidenced by some discussions here and elsewhere.
-
That may be the design of CC ... it may work flawlessly for most ... however, for some users, albeit a small percentage, are being asked to confirm their subscription much more often than once a month.
While it may be trendy and popular to blame user ignorance or misunderstanding, for at least a few users, it can be a real problem. As evidenced by some discussions here and elsewhere.
Hi,
Reading this in amazement, am I correct in assuming that one all of a sudden gets locked out of Photoshop until confirmation has been achieved, or does the system warn that confirmation needs to be done within a certain period of time?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Actually, a lot of business computers are not connected to the internet. Fear of hacking, theft, employees/family/kids playing, files stolen, accounts compromised, etc. Couple of local photo businesses took their editing stations offline as their employees were sharing files online and messing with them. Even the military and DOJ have ones that are not connected and probably never will be as my brother used to program or repair them at their site and often had to call Microsoft for a given file to load them manually. Once online, you are not secure nor have any privacy.
Personally, I'm not in favor of the monthly subscription deal as I change my credit cards too many times in a year due to ID theft matters. Seems I get about 3 months of use out of one card, and then the bank issues a new one with a downtime of maybe 2-3 weeks of waiting for a new card. An annual one - or even buy the number of months/years you need it - might work better overall than the monthly one. Having an issue now with PayPal and an old card that resurfaced. What a mess!
SG
-
If my subscription needs to be activated WHILE I AM ON A JOB IN A FACTORY, WITH NO INTERNET ACCESS...am I now going to tell my client, oh gee, I need to leave the job site and find some internet access so I can GET MY SOFTWARE TO RUN, so I can complete the job I'm here to do?
I don't think that's how it works. It doesn't need to be activated at some particular time when you might not be online. It needs to call home at some time during the month. If you're offline when it tries, it will try again later. I'm sure I read somewhere that if it gets to a month or so (on a monthly-paid contract) with no contact home, it warns you that it must contact home with x days or it stops working.
You have to be online to install it, but you don't have to be online to use it. You just have to be online some time in the month.
-
I don't think that's how it works. It doesn't need to be activated at some particular time when you might not be online. It needs to call home at some time during the month. If you're offline when it tries, it will try again later. I'm sure I read somewhere that if it gets to a month or so (on a monthly-paid contract) with no contact home, it warns you that it must contact home with x days or it stops working.
You have to be online to install it, but you don't have to be online to use it. You just have to be online some time in the month.
Can you confirm that?
-
Can you confirm that?
Yes, that is exactly how it works. That is what I've been trying to tell you, but you are too quick to do personal attacks rather than understand what others are talking about. Like I said, once a month connect to the Internet, get verified and you are good for another month without Internet access. This was discussed previuosly but you chose to not read it.
-
Yes, that is exactly how it works. That is what I've been trying to tell you, but you are too quick to do personal attacks rather than understand what others are talking about. Like I said, once a month connect to the Internet, get verified and you are good for another month without Internet access. This was discussed previuosly but you chose to not read it.
So I'm still correct. I don't connect these computers to the internet (2 location MBP's that only get used for location shoots.) and they almost never leave their cases when not in use on a job. So its clearly STILL a problem, if I don't make it a POINT to verify the activation I've still got the potential for my software NOT to run while on a job.
Not at problem at all with perpetual licenses, CC is a BIG potential problem for me.
You still failed to understand. Imagine that.
-
So I'm still correct. I don't connect these computers to the internet (2 location MBP's that only get used for location shoots.) and they almost never leave their cases when not in use on a job. So its clearly STILL a problem, if I don't make it a POINT to verify the activation I've still got the potential for my software NOT to run while on a job.
Not at problem at all with perpetual licenses, CC is a BIG potential problem for me.
You still failed to understand. Imagine that.
Well I guess you are SOL then. Either connect to the net or look for something else. Good luck in trying to load just about any software these days without an internet connection.
-
Well I guess you are SOL then. Either connect to the net or look for something else. Good luck in trying to load just about any software these days without an internet connection.
No, I'm doing just fine, using software that does not require phoning home every 30 days. Loading software without an internet connect is really quite easy. This really is beyond your ken.
Bye chez.
-
No, I'm doing just fine, using software that does not require phoning home every 30 days. Loading software without an internet connect is really quite easy. This really is beyond your ken.
Bye chez.
Craig...you know what, loading software via the internet is really quite easy as well. In fact...it is sort of like getting out of the 80's. I guess that is really beyond your ken.
-
Craig...you know what, loading software via the internet is really quite easy as well. In fact...it is sort of like getting out of the 80's. I guess that is really beyond your ken.
You should memorize the first rule of holes chez.
That too might be beyond your ken.
-
Craig - there's really no need to be so abusive. No one's making personal attacks on you.
-
So I'm still correct. I don't connect these computers to the internet (2 location MBP's that only get used for location shoots.) and they almost never leave their cases when not in use on a job. So its clearly STILL a problem, if I don't make it a POINT to verify the activation I've still got the potential for my software NOT to run while on a job.
Yes, in that scenario, you could be on location, boot up the machine and not activate the Adobe product.
I think it would be prudent prior to going on location to boot up the machines if for anything, to see if there are new software updates, OS, CC or otherwise. And as a backup, on location, using that mobile device you have could be used in a pinch to get the laptop talking to the net. Like anything else, plan for the tool usage. Or have a backup copy of CS6, no problems.
-
Yes, that is exactly how it works. That is what I've been trying to tell you, but you are too quick to do personal attacks rather than understand what others are talking about. Like I said, once a month connect to the Internet, get verified and you are good for another month without Internet access. This was discussed previuosly but you chose to not read it.
Except that's not what's happening with me. I started my membership in December -- downloaded, installed, activated and have been billed twice. Yet, every so often when I open PSCC, it asks me to log into my Adobe account. If I don't, PS won't start. This has happened about 4 times (every time i re-activate, I get one of those "Three key things" emails) - I haven't noticed any pattern: PSCC runs fine, but suddenly decides I'm not paying for it.
This hasn't been a real issue (it's very annoying), because I have PSCC loaded on my desktop, which has a good internet connection. But, having this experience, why would I trust CC software on a laptop that usually doesn't have an internet connection when it decides to want an activation? There is no warning, and in fact this is contrary to Adobe's revised policy on activations, which is that, having a yearly subscription contract, the software will attempt to activate every 30 days but will allow 99 days of use without an activation.
I'm reluctant to try the "support chat", because I really don't have time to keep uninstalling and reinstalling software -- which is what their script will require. I checked the forums the other night, and it was suggested to set PSCC to "Run as Adminstrator", which I did. Still too early to tell if it solved anything.
-
Just as now, the layers containing incompatible edits will be rasterized when the file is opened in an older version of PS - ie converted to pixel layers and without any of the newer editing settings. The main loss will be work applied to smart object layers, which you might not use.
Just to add, it's a good idea to save the file with "Maximum Compatibility", if you're saving PSDs.
-
Just as now, the layers containing incompatible edits will be rasterized when the file is opened in an older version of PS - ie converted to pixel layers and without any of the newer editing settings. The main loss will be work applied to smart object layers, which you might not use.
Hi John. Could you please clarify how it affects smart objects. I do use them a lot.
Say I have a smart object that includes some CC only filters as well as some legacy filters. Can I use CS6 to edit the legacy filters but not the CCs? In CS6 are the CC filters locked as if rasterized, or simply not even readable by CS6? Or does the whole Smart Object get flattened/rasterized upon opening in CS6?
Thanks
-
Yes, in that scenario, you could be on location, boot up the machine and not activate the Adobe product.
I think it would be prudent prior to going on location to boot up the machines if for anything, to see if there are new software updates, OS, CC or otherwise. And as a backup, on location, using that mobile device you have could be used in a pinch to get the laptop talking to the net. Like anything else, plan for the tool usage. Or have a backup copy of CS6, no problems.
I don't update these machine oftener, since they work and I'm not interested in breaking things. I've been on 10.8.2 for about forever. Just updated recently to Mav after using my undated air on a few jobs to make sure Mav and c17.2 worked without issue. I suspect it will be quite a while before these machines update again.
I don't travel blind. Each machine has a verified carbon copy clone and TM backup on an external along with installable copies of all required software along with serial numbers. That said I've never used any of that and the backup machine went unbooted for many months. Knock on wood.
-
Hi John. Could you please clarify how it affects smart objects. I do use them a lot.
Say I have a smart object that includes some CC only filters as well as some legacy filters. Can I use CS6 to edit the legacy filters but not the CCs? In CS6 are the CC filters locked as if rasterized, or simply not even readable by CS6? Or does the whole Smart Object get flattened/rasterized upon opening in CS6?
Thanks
I think smart objects are one of the biggest risk areas if you ever end a CC subscription, so much so that I hesitate to recommend them as much as I did in the past - which is a real shame. If a smart object layer includes some CC-only filters, you will be able to open the file in CS6 and the layer will be displayed in rasterized form, and the CC-only filter info will be lost if you re-save the file. The trouble is, there are different types of smart object so you're going to have to stay aware of potential risks and will have to test details (eg linked smart objects) to be sure your work is reasonably available if you stop subscribing.
-
I think smart objects are one of the biggest risk areas if you ever end a CC subscription, so much so that I hesitate to recommend them as much as I did in the past - which is a real shame. If a smart object layer includes some CC-only filters, you will be able to open the file in CS6 and the layer will be displayed in rasterized form, and the CC-only filter info will be lost if you re-save the file. The trouble is, there are different types of smart object so you're going to have to stay aware of potential risks and will have to test details (eg linked smart objects) to be sure your work is reasonably available if you stop subscribing.
Thanks John. That is problematic indeed.
Adobe: better would be if the CC filters were just locked to legacy versions but to remain "live" for future use in higher versions.
-
I just got off with Adobe chat, which is always an exercise in futility, so I ask here.
If one goes with an annual prepaid plan, can one activate once for the year or is it still the 30 day re-activation nonsense?
Seems a detail Adobe's support should be able to readily document, but no...
-
Just a fun question:
Does anybody install software from anything but the internet?
I can't remember the last time I did it; maybe six or seven years ago? And then I had to go online to update it.
Glenn
-
I just got off with Adobe chat, which is always an exercise in futility, so I ask here.
If one goes with an annual prepaid plan, can one activate once for the year or is it still the 30 day re-activation nonsense?
Seems a detail Adobe's support should be able to readily document, but no...
It works the same as if you paid month to month (and its 99 days, not 30).
Hope that helps clarify...
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
-
It works the same as if you paid month to month (and its 99 days, not 30).
Hope that helps clarify...
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
I bolded the quote from Mike above - that's really worth everyone noting and making sure others are aware.
Mike - I don't think that message is making it out, nor how far in advance a warning is given and so on. Some really clear details on the activiation/phone home etc would really help.
And thanks for braving the forums :-)
-
I bolded the quote from Mike above - that's really worth everyone noting and making sure others are aware.
Mike - I don't think that message is making it out, nor how far in advance a warning is given and so on. Some really clear details on the activiation/phone home etc would really help.
And thanks for braving the forums :-)
fyi for future reference.
This is covered in the Creative Cloud FAQ:
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.html
--
Do I need ongoing Internet access to use my Creative Cloud desktop applications?
No. Your Creative Cloud desktop applications (such as Photoshop and Illustrator) are installed directly on your computer, so you won't need an ongoing Internet connection to use them on a daily basis.
An Internet connection is required the first time you install and license your desktop apps, but you can use the apps in offline mode with a valid software license. The desktop apps will attempt to validate your software licenses every 30 days.
For annual members, you can use the apps for up to 99 days in offline mode. Month-to-month members can use the software for up to 30 days in offline mode.
--
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
-
..... The desktop apps will attempt to validate your software licenses every 30 days......
That might be how it was designed to work, but previous comments in this thread say that it isn't working like that in practice.
-
Just a fun question:
Does anybody install software from anything but the internet?
Hi Glenn,
No sure what you mean, but I always download the installer package first if possible.
That allows me to first go to the download page of the official website (and not be directed via obscure potentially corrupted links that may arrive via email notification). These installer files often have a built-in mechanism to verify file integrity (or an MD5 hash code is provided as signature on the official website), and it allows my virus protection to verify if this file has been reported as corrupted.
It also prevents getting stuck in the middle of an installation when the internet or something else goes down, and leave me without the prior installation half updated.
It also allows me to create a system restore point before installing, so I can roll back should anything go wrong during installation.
It also allows me to first de-activate and de-install a prior version and remove legacy clutter before adding the new files and registry hooks.
Call me cautious, but I'm never sorry, and always up and running (instead of troubleshooting) with deadlines approaching.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It works the same as if you paid month to month (and its 99 days, not 30).
Hope that helps clarify...
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
Thanks for your help Mike. Someone should make your chat support team aware of these details.
Gotta admit, I came very close to pulling the trigger on the whole suite, and would have if it were annual validation for the yearly prepaid. But I'm just not down with the whole checking-in monthly thing. Too paternalistic and intrusive. I'll wait another year or so and see if they find a better way.
-
This is covered in the Creative Cloud FAQ:
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.html
"For annual members, you can use the apps for up to 99 days in offline mode. Month-to-month members can use the software for up to 30 days in offline mode."
I wonder why there are weasel words???
-
I think it's worth pointing out that the student/education licence of Adobe CC (the full suite, no Photoshop only option) can be rented for $19.99 a month with an annual commitment. Cost $240 a year.
Prepay that and the cost is $199. One payment - one activation - end of story.
-
I think it's worth pointing out that the student/education licence of Adobe CC (the full suite, no Photoshop only option) can be rented for $19.99 a month with an annual commitment. Cost $240 a year.
Prepay that and the cost is $199. One payment - one activation - end of story.
If it were true. That's why it's not the end of the story: it's not one activation. See Mike's post above.
-
That's why it's not the end of the story: it's not one activation.
Not sure that's any different from CS6 and earlier activation.
-
What would truly be useful is if people (including Adobe employees) would document what they're saying and alluding to with links to Adobe's printed matter. I'm/we're just wallowing in rumor and innuendo here. Frankly, it's maddening.
-
Hi Glenn,
No sure what you mean, but I always download the installer package first if possible.
Bart
What I meant was, "who uses disks to install software?"
I'm on version 5 of LR and have never had a hard copy, and this applies to virtually all my software. After DL'ing something I often copy to an external disk for convenience rather than DL again if something goes awry.
Glenn
-
So there is a "one time pay annual plan" now? ???
On their website, I see an annual student/teacher for $199, but nothing for the general public? The annual (one item) seems to be $19.95 monthly which doesn't help me at all.
My credit card company will not allow "monthly billings" off my Visa card. They treat it as "fraudulent activity" and issue me a new card that takes 2-3 weeks once I get the phone call. Seems I someone in Europe must be enjoying a lot of porn that they use my card for (Identity theft runs wild here!) so the bank kills my card and sends me a new one once it gets hit with some monthly subscription that they know I didn't sign up for. I got 4 cards last year alone: two required me to go to the bank, and even one to the DMV along with my SS card in hand too. Passport was another 3 month mess. Damn ID thefts!
SG
-
So there is a "one time pay annual plan" now? ???
It is my understanding you can purchase annual subscriptions for CC from select resellers like Staples, Amazon and B&H ... but they are not available directly from Adobe.
-
But making a single payment for a year is not the same (necessarily) as authorizing once per year. Unfortunately the Adobe employees seem not to be in agreement on which it is, and I've yet to see clarified in writing.
-
That might be how it was designed to work, but previous comments in this thread say that it isn't working like that in practice.
Works like that for me.
-
,
-
It is my understanding you can purchase annual subscriptions for CC from select resellers like Staples, Amazon and B&H ... but they are not available directly from Adobe.
fyi
You can also prepay for a year of complete creative cloud on adobe.com:
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/buying-guide.html
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
-
fyi
You can also prepay for a year of complete creative cloud on adobe.com:
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/buying-guide.html
Mike,
Please do us all huge a favour; persuade Adobe to offer an annual prepay option on the 'Ps and Lr' bundle and then we can all go home ...
-
Mike,
Please do us all huge a favour; persuade Adobe to offer an annual prepay option on the 'Ps and Lr' bundle and then we can all go home ...
+1 Its absolutely ridiculous that Adobe doesn't allow an annual payment for the PS and LR bundle. Just don't get it!
Victor
-
What happens if you pay an annual fee up front and after three months you decide to ditch it would you be wanting the other nine months refunded?
-
fyi
You can also prepay for a year of complete creative cloud on adobe.com:
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/buying-guide.html
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
Mike, can you clarify how the activation frequency works on the annual plans (including the education plan)? I know you already answered (quoted below) but it just makes no sense to me and apparently others in this thread, so I feel the need to ask again to be sure. Ideally, it would be great if you could point to the specifics somewhere in Adobe's Eula or site. Sorry for the trouble.
It works the same as if you paid month to month (and its 99 days, not 30).
Hope that helps clarify...
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
-
What happens if you pay an annual fee up front and after three months you decide to ditch it would you be wanting the other nine months refunded?
If I remember correctly, you pay a fine for early termination, of 50% of the remaining payments. It's mentioned somewhere on the Adobe pages with terms and conditions of the particular subscription one has.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Therefore annual payments don't make financial sense? :(
-
If Adobe had a year for 80 bucks and no need to check in except when you got it, then I would consider joining. That would be the price of upgrading every other upgrade. Also to Digital Dogs point that you can go on with your hot spot well, I live in Idaho plenty of folks here do not have cell service.
-
Also to Digital Dogs point that you can go on with your hot spot well, I live in Idaho plenty of folks here do not have cell service.
Amazing to think they even have computers! Seriously, all you need to do is have one opportunity every 30-90 days to have net access and launch the product for activation. Big friggin deal. Next we'll hear about some photographer stranded for months in the jungle with his laptop and camera and he can't access Photoshop (god forbid).
IF the price and requirements to use the subscription is just so overwhelming impossible for you, don't do it! The rest of us will just have to move onward.
-
Actually sod's law will dictate that the time you NEED to check in will probably coincide with an important job and flakey connections.
The simpler, fair and sensible thing to do for a paid annual subscription is to check in annually.
I can see people getting pirate copies to back up their paid for version just like when Adobe first tried activation and people could not access their genuine versions.
-
Actually sod's law will dictate that the time you NEED to check in will probably coincide with an important job and flakey connections.
Then check the software before you leave on location. You check your camera batteries? Enough PC cards? The little goodie in your keyfob that starts the car works? For goodness sake, if the idea that maybe, you'll be on location and have to launch Photoshop, and at that very time you can't because you haven't used the product in 30 days suggests you're either really poorly organized for the task or you don't use the product enough to warrant spending any money on it. Get Elements, it's a prefect fit for that kind of 'photographer'.
-
You don't quite understand sod's law do you and having to do something that it actually pointless is an irritant.
Finding solutions to a problem that shouldn't exist in first place, is not what people are asking for.
I have an eMusic download subscription that resets every 30 days and I have a calendar to remind me to do it but it often reminds me when I'm not at my computer or have the to sort things out, so I have to set another reminder and hope I happen to be back at my desktop or I will need to reset yet again. I'm pretty organised with regard to this subscription, but still sometimes work gets in the way and it gets put on back burner and I've missed a deadline as a result. Not quite the same admittedly, but illustrative of the fact being well organised is not the same as being foolproof.
-
Then check the software before you leave on location. You check your camera batteries? Enough PC cards? The little goodie in your keyfob that starts the car works? For goodness sake, if the idea that maybe, you'll be on location and have to launch Photoshop, and at that very time you can't because you haven't used the product in 30 days suggests you're either really poorly organized for the task or you don't use the product enough to warrant spending any money on it. Get Elements, it's a prefect fit for that kind of 'photographer'.
I think my earlier comment must have passed you by ...
That may be the design of CC ... it may work flawlessly for most ... however, for some users, albeit a small percentage, are being asked to confirm their subscription much more often than once a month.
While it may be trendy and popular to blame user ignorance or misunderstanding, for at least a few users, it can be a real problem. As evidenced by some discussions here and elsewhere.
There are indeed at least a few CC subscribers who are being asked to authenticate their subscription far more often than once every 30 days ... yet that fact is being overlooked in the name of repeating the same minutia of "this is how it works, if you don't get it, you are a fool" ...
I agree ... for most users ... it does works as described ... though, that is not much consolation for the few folks for which it does not work as described. Questioning the organizational skills of others won't go very far in solving that issue.
-
I think my earlier comment must have passed you by ...
That may be the design of CC ... it may work flawlessly for most ... however, for some users, albeit a small percentage, are being asked to confirm their subscription much more often than once a month.
But not you, certainly not I and I've been using CC for Photoshop, Acrobat, InDesign longer than just about anyone here (perhaps the exception of Schewe or other pre-release testers). So there's some antidotal 'evidence' that some rare users, but no one specifically are asked to confirm their subscriptions. Again, BFD! And as I asked and no one answered, I don't believe this is any different from CS6 or earlier in terms of the activation schema. In fact, I have had older Adobe activation ask to be updated, specifically a very old copy of Go Live and without net access, I was able to activate it by calling Adobe (by phone, even in New Mexico, a location some don't believe is in the USA, we have phone's).
Bottom line is, this activation schema is a silly excuse not to subscribe. You don't like renting software, you don't want to have to pay a subscription continuously? OK, I get that, don't subscribe. But the activation maybe not working on location because you failed to use the software in the last 29 days and you didn't launch it prior to this super critical use of the software in a location without net access, presumably phone access is a dumb excuse. Just admit you don't want to pay for software subscription, that's a good reason not to subscribe.
Does anything work flawlessly for everyone? And when it doesn't, shouldn't people be proactive or just throw up their hands and say "I'm not going to use that product"?
-
+1 Its absolutely ridiculous that Adobe doesn't allow an annual payment for the PS and LR bundle. Just don't get it!
Victor
3rd to agree on this!
I don't care for their full annual creative cloud package as I never will use it all. Just PS, or maybe LR, or a combo for some.
My Visa does not allow "auto-payments" due to ID theft so they can know it wasn't me who signed on for some monthly auto-billing that appears and they can get back to me saying they killed the card due to fraudulent activity. An annual "one-time payment" would work for me (and keep any outfit from storing my card's info for future corporate hacks too!), but not the current monthly scheme they have in place. Auto pay - if you don't stay on top of it - can lead to a disaster. Then dealing with your credit score getting hammered due to one outfit not being able to collect due to a new Visa card re-issue who thinks you bailed without paying an early-exit fee (cell phone).
So where is the annual one-payment, annual activation thing anyway for single apps? An annual payment along with 90 day activations seems a bit much too. ???
SG
-
But not you, certainly not I and I've been using CC for Photoshop, Acrobat, InDesign longer than just about anyone here (perhaps the exception of Schewe or other pre-release testers).
Not the tedious and rather unaware 'I haven't had a problem, therefore there isn't a problem' argument. Well I haven't had a heart attack either, but I wouldn't start doubting stories about those keeling over just because I'm doing OK.
-
Not the tedious and rather unaware 'I haven't had a problem, therefore there isn't a problem' argument. Well I haven't had a heart attack either, but I wouldn't start doubting stories about those keeling over just because I'm doing OK.
Correct, it's not a problem for me, and I don't know a single preson who has this problem. But again, it's a lame excuse. There are far more valid reasons not to go for the subscription than this nonsense. We're to believe this issue, which affects very few (?) who don't use the product for 29-89 days and then go on location without any means to phone or connect to the net is the big boggy man issue here. Ridiculous.
-
Stop being so insular Andrew and actually read what people want and why. Credit card charges are also a problem and if you were one of those having problems with activations, I doubt very much you'd be so dismissive.
-
Stop being so insular Andrew and actually read what people want and why.
I want world peace and a perpetual motion machine as well as an anti-gravity device.
I have no such restrictions on my credit cards and if I did, I have plenty of other options for credit card providers. Any silly excuse you can come up with, I can find a fix for.
Bascially I don't really care if people use silly/stupid logic not to use a product, it's their choice. You can bitch and moan till the cows come home and Adobe and the rest of us who need the tools and are willing to pay for the proposition will continue forward. You and your friends can continue to worry about non prefect, foolproof possibilities and worry yourself sick about it, knock yourself out.
-
We're to believe this issue, which affects very few (?) who don't use the product for 29-89 days and then go on location without any means to phone or connect to the net is the big boggy man issue here. Ridiculous.
My oh my...
Its one of MANY reasons why CC is not acceptable to some. BTW, according to Adobe you can't do a phone in activation of PS CC...
You're happy? Cool. Others are not. Welcome to reality.
-
Its one of MANY reasons why CC is not acceptable to some. BTW, according to Adobe you can't do a phone in activation of PS CC...
You're happy? Cool. Others are not. Welcome to reality.
Super happy and cool. If you have issues, don't upgrade. Other's are not happy, join the club of unhappy people. That's reality. 16 pages of people who are telling others they are unhappy and will not upgrade, we get the point. Don't upgrade. That will show Adobe!
-
Super happy and cool. If you have issues, don't upgrade. Other's are not happy, join the club of unhappy people. That's reality. 16 pages of people who are telling others they are unhappy and will not upgrade, we get the point. Don't upgrade. That will show Adobe!
I'm so happy for you. And i have not upgraded and have no plans to upgrade at this point in time. I'm happy too.
Wanna know what else is reality? You can ignore this thread if you don't like it.
That will show us!
-
Wanna know what else is reality? You can ignore this thread if you don't like it.
Much but not all that has been written here deserves to be ignored. Especially from people who expect foolproof, perfect solutions and refuse to live in a real world.
-
Much but not all that has been written here deserves to be ignored. Especially from people who expect foolproof, perfect solutions and refuse to live in a real world.
Ignore away, I won't miss you.
-
Ignore away, I won't miss you.
You can't imagine how shattered such a statement affects me. You simply can't imagine.
-
You can't imagine how shattered such a statement affects me. You simply can't imagine.
I see reality escapes you once again....
Bye
-
I see reality escapes you once again....
Your so called reality, indeed!
-
Much but not all that has been written here deserves to be ignored. Especially from people who expect foolproof, perfect solutions and refuse to live in a real world.
Well, for the last twenty years, I lived in the real world and used this great program without any problems or need to contact Adobe. Then some bright minds in faraway land decided that that method of selling Photoshop was unsustainable and they have to move with the times.
I wouldn't mind trying some of the new program features, and actually I came here to listen to the positive feedback and reports on benefits of the new features. It's sad to hear about all the problems at this time and uncertainties in the future. I welcome all kinds of user reports, and even hearing about all the problems is beneficial. Although some other words when speaking about CC in connection with real-world come to the mind.
I used to work in the software industry, both in the development and support, but never heard of so many problems as now with PS CC. And all was totally unnecessary. If something works, don't touch it. Any potential benefit in gaining new features must be weighed against the time waste (on both sides) and frustration connected with the subscription scheme and unless that balance changes, PS CC will just scare and turn away many potential users. Experiencing plenty of frustration with Win8, I really don't need any more problems.
-
I have no such restrictions on my credit cards and if I did, I have plenty of other options for credit card providers. Any silly excuse you can come up with, I can find a fix for.
So how do you stop people's IDs being fraudulently abused then, which was one issue? Because if you know, you stand to make a fortune. And once again you have not read the post describing the problems correctly and because you personally do not have an issue, everyone else must be at fault.
Bascially I don't really care if people use silly/stupid logic not to use a product, it's their choice. You can bitch and moan till the cows come home and Adobe and the rest of us who need the tools and are willing to pay for the proposition will continue forward. You and your friends can continue to worry about non prefect, foolproof possibilities and worry yourself sick about it, knock yourself out.
Translation: I'm a selfish person who is way too lazy to read posts correctly and will continue to sneer at the rest of the plebs who dare to question how things are done.
-
I guess Andrew should change his name to Adobe Attack Dog. Sad really taking some moral high ground on a company that has betrayed those of us that have been there supporting them for years.
-
He is however a bit toothless in his arguments though. ;D
-
a company that has betrayed those of us that have been there supporting them for years.
I’ve used Photoshop since version 3, so a very long time, and I can’t see how anyone can describe this as a “betrayal”. While I see random discussions by a few who don’t like it there were just as many constantly complaining about upgrade pricing and in fact that probably led to the current model ... users bitching because their CS2 wouldn’t work on their brand new computer and thinking it was adobe’s responsibility to fix that. In fact I think this is the beginning, I believe more and more software makers will move to this concept.
I’ve been on CC for over 18 months and like how it’s working as do most around me. And I believe it’s expanding Adobe’s user base, I know of at least 10 or more who have been students in classes at my store that felt they could never afford photoshop who have since subscribed with the PS/LR bundle and are delighted. I’m a pretty small operation, but I can’t believe this is a unique occurrence.
-
Correct, it's not a problem for me, and I don't know a single preson who has this problem. But again, it's a lame excuse. There are far more valid reasons not to go for the subscription than this nonsense. We're to believe this issue, which affects very few (?) who don't use the product for 29-89 days and then go on location without any means to phone or connect to the net is the big boggy man issue here. Ridiculous.
Well, you don't know me, but I've been having the problem. I've had the subscription for two months and have been required to log in to my account about 4 times (if I don't log in, PSCC won't open). I have the idea that this is all supposed to happen (the activation) automagically behind the scenes, but since this hasn't been my experience I'm not sure what the correct behavior should be. There doesn't seem to be any description of EXACTLY how the process works on any of the Adobe FAQs, just that it will want to connect but you can go for 99 days (far longer than I've had my subscription)
While your suggestion to limber up the laptop and connect to the internet before going on location is reasonable, I wonder if you can tell me if there's a way to be sure that the activation actually took place? I'd like to see some sort of indicator in the "Help" drop down that tells the status of the activation. Something like "Reauthorize by xx/xx/2014" would work, or if Adobe wants to make us do the math, "Last Authorized xx/xx/2014".
There ARE many valid reasons not to go for (or like) the subscription model and for me so far this has been a very valid reason -- more for traveling with CC than for using it on my desktop with a good connection. I haven't found out what's going on, though I did take a suggestion from the Adobe forums to have PS run as administrator (I'm running Win 8.1). Since I only did this a couple of days ago, I'm not sure if it solved anything.
I don't want to further annoy you (you seem annoyed), but I live in NW CT and can't even get cell service at my house, though a text might make it through. There are huge cell dead zones heading north into the Berkshires, though service is pretty good around the cities. And most of Western Massachusetts doesn't even have broadband available. Though I use and enjoy both my cell phone and the internet, I really don't want to rely on them.
-
I wonder if you can tell me if there's a way to be sure that the activation actually took place?
Don't know but I can ask and maybe Mike here can comment. In my case, I never see anything about activation. I use the products nearly everyday, they just launch. I also don't know if having more than one CC product makes a difference, I currently use 3 regularly.
I wonder if the machine you're using is part of the issue (firewall, other such issues).
I don't want to further annoy you (you seem annoyed)
Actually I'm not the least bit annoyed. Others here who disagree with me seem to be, they have to resort to saying I have a reality vortex, I should be the angry dog. Everything works just fine on this end and the software is the cat's meow (that says a lot coming from a dog). No regrets about CC whatsoever. That's why I have no issue if folks decide it's not for them. The numbers of people using or not using CC has no bearing on my happiness of level of annoyance. After 16 pages of this "how's the subscription service working" enough is enough.
-
I did not say angry I said attack. That you have no problems well Andrew you make money teaching the program so I guess you do not want to say a word against your wallet. Sixteen pages enough well until things change nothing is enough. David
-
I did not say angry I said attack. That you have no problems well Andrew you make money teaching the program so I guess you do not want to say a word against your wallet. Sixteen pages enough well until things change nothing is enough.
Utter bullshit. I will repeat, I've had no problem with activation with the new CC schema. I've gone on record here more than once criticizing aspects of the Adobe subscription plan. That I "teach" anything has nothing to do with my opinion and in fact, there are plenty of people perfectly happy with Adobe, maybe more now that the product is affordable to them on a payment plan. No attact either. Some are using ridiculous FUD in respect to the subscription plan, it isn't even necessary. But of course, when the 'other side' has no salient points to dismiss an opinion, they have to throw up this nonsense that the other side makes money by teaching, owning stock, etc. Again, complete BS. But I dont' expect you to actually read my criticism of the subscription plan, anyone that attempts to argue the other side is angry/attack, in a reality void, has monetary interests etc. You have absolutely NO idea what I do to make a living or how my opinions are formed but you'll make statements that are not based on fact.
-
Hmm Andrew I recall being at a lecture you gave at the Javits center show abut photoshop. It was plainly stated on the literture you were an adobe certified instructor and the lecture cost me money .
-
Don't know but I can ask and maybe Mike here can comment. In my case, I never see anything about activation. I use the products nearly everyday, they just launch. I also don't know if having more than one CC product makes a difference, I currently use 3 regularly.
I wonder if the machine you're using is part of the issue (firewall, other such issues).
Yeah, that's what I thought about the activation. The last few versions activated automatically, but then you could see a "Deactivate" selection under "Help", so you could be sure it took. Of course you also got a nag screen if it was in trial mode.
Hard to tell about the machine. PSCS6 (perpetual) activated without problem, and after I sign in to my account PSCC works fine for a few days -- but then makes me log in again. I don't do email, browsing or much of anything besides photo work on that machine, so I just have the standard Windows firewall going (the machine IS connected so that's not an issue). PSCC and BridgeCC are the only CC apps that are running besides the Creative Cloud launcher. No issues with anything else I've loaded - Photo Kit Sharpener 2 & Color 2, GoogleNIK suite, onOne Suite - all loaded/activated OK.
I'm sure I'll get it sorted out eventually, but despite the fact that this isn't normal behavior, it's made me gun-shy about using CC apps on a laptop away from my home base. If it happened once, it can happen again. No, I don't expect perfection, but I do expect reliability at least equal to what I've been using all along. As I said before, I would be more reassured if Adobe would let us see our current status.
Thanks,
Rick
-
Just a fun question:
Does anybody install software from anything but the internet?
I can't remember the last time I did it; maybe six or seven years ago? And then I had to go online to update it.
Glenn
I do. I built a new machine last summer. I installed Win 8 from disc, PSCS6 from disc and LR5 from disc. Yeah, the updates are only available online, but they're usually smaller than downloading the whole program (LR excepted, I think).
-
Hmm Andrew I recall being at a lecture you gave at the Javits center show abut photoshop. It was plainly stated on the literture you were an adobe certified instructor and the lecture cost me money .
Uh huh...and exactly what do you think this proves?
It proves that Andrew was a certified instructor and you paid money to listen to him. Odds are you learned something (otherwise you should have asked for your money back).
But if you think for a moment Andrew takes a "pro Adobe" stance because of his knowledge and experience, you are way, way off base. Andrew has the credentials and experience that few people have. Andrew has no problem speaking against Adobe (he does so a lot-even on internal alpha/beta forums). Andrew has zero to gain and everything to lose by saying what he honestly thinks. If you don't like it, lump it, but kindly quite with the conspiracy theories...
Not for nothing, I seem to suffer that same fate. If I don't line up with the anti-Adobe line, I'm painted as an Adobe fanboy in the pocket of Adobe and beholding to them and thus controlled by them. Yeah, well, I'm tired of that shit...I say what I think, the ramifications be damned. If you don't like it, you know exactly what you can do with yourself...
-
Hmm Andrew I recall being at a lecture you gave at the Javits center show abut photoshop. It was plainly stated on the literture you were an adobe certified instructor and the lecture cost me money .
If your little story has a point, it's lost on me. You went to a lecture at the Javits center and it cost you money, so what? Yes, I'm a certified adobe instructor, been listed on my web site for years, so what?
-
PSCS6 (perpetual) activated without problem, and after I sign in to my account PSCC works fine for a few days -- but then makes me log in again.
That's odd, the part about having to log in again. You might see if there's some issue with your Adobe account. When you go there (the web site), do you have issues logging in? As I said, I've never even seen CC make any kind of activation request and I thought that whatever it did, does so behind the scenes. Do you have more than one machine running CC?
-
Jeff - Andrew's problem as I see it, is not that his stance on pro or anti Adobe. It's the fact that he is shooting people down and sneering at them whilst not actually bothering to read any valid points they may be raising.
His general attitude seems to be "it works fine for me so there aren't any problems, now quit whining".
An annual licence that is authorised annually seems to be a perfectly fine solution to some issues, but one apparently not available to those using the PS/LR option.
-
His general attitude seems to be "it works fine for me so there aren't any problems, now quit whining".
If you can find a post where I said that, let me know. While you're looking, be sure to ignore my negative comments about CC subscription, that makes it so much easier to paint my position in black and white to substantiate the poor points you've been making! As for quit whining, yes. Either subscribe or don't, I don't give a rat's ass which you do. The activation process is such that the user has to at the very least, use the damn product while hooked up to the net once every 30-90 days. If Adobe changed this to 90-120 days, a group would still bitch and moan. Why not ask them to simply remove all activation? You might be in some location prior to some important shoot, without having used the product in a quarter of a year and maybe, maybe you wouldn’t be able to launch the product. Oh what a world of hurt that be! Pitty poor you for this. If that's the rational for not subscribing, do Adobe and the rest of us a break and please don't subscribe.
-
That's odd, the part about having to log in again. You might see if there's some issue with your Adobe account. When you go there (the web site), do you have issues logging in? As I said, I've never even seen CC make any kind of activation request and I thought that whatever it did, does so behind the scenes. Do you have more than one machine running CC?
Just one machine running CC. No issues logging in, but that's worth looking into. Maybe it's activating alright (again -- no way to tell) and it's an account problem. It didn't occur to me that they might be separate from each other. I'll look into that tomorrow.
-
Just one machine running CC.
You should be able to install on a 2nd machine and for grin's, be interesting to see if that works for you. Let's see if Mike can come up with some answers too. The bit about logging in seems odd. Next time this happens, be useful to make a screen capture of exactly what is presented.
-
I guess Andrew should change his name to Adobe Attack Dog. Sad really taking some moral high ground on a company that has betrayed those of us that have been there supporting them for years.
They haven't betrayed you and you haven't been supporting them. They've been offering products and you bought them. You're taking the business relationship way outside of what it really is.
-
If that's the rational for not subscribing, do Adobe and the rest of us a break and please don't subscribe.
See this is the problem with you, you don't read posts properly, assume what someone has said and then attack them for it.
I've not argued for or against against subscribing in this thread. I simply pointed out flaws in some of your posts and also agreed with some people who raised valid concerns about activation problems which could mitigated by a easy solution. Activation is an issue independent of subscription and was problematic for some when it first appeared with perpetual licences a long time back.
My stance on subscription is that it was inevitable and the cost of PS/LR CC is pretty good value. I had thought for many years that it was an obvious next step, as it was the easy and quite probably the only way for companies like Adobe to maintain profits with a business that was transitioning from a rapidly developing [high turnover of product] to a mature market [low turnover of product].
-
I have exactly the same issue and I spent some time with Adobe support on the phone (Thanks Mike for the coordination).
Suspect was that some directories (OOBE*) which hold license information needed to be recreated. That was done by renaming the current into *_old and re-signing in to CC.
Problem the returned again. Ultimately Adobe support advised as follows:
1. Uninstall CS6 (which I hesitate doing - there is too much stuff configured there now and I intend to keep it)
2. the root cause is likely some conflict due to WMS (windows media service?) and that Adobe is working with Microsoft to get that resolved, but no date promised...
Quote from: Rick Popham on Today at 07:27:54 PM
PSCS6 (perpetual) activated without problem, and after I sign in to my account PSCC works fine for a few days -- but then makes me log in again.
That's odd, the part about having to log in again. You might see if there's some issue with your Adobe account. When you go there (the web site), do you have issues logging in? As I said, I've never even seen CC make any kind of activation request and I thought that whatever it did, does so behind the scenes. Do you have more than one machine running CC?
-
I've not argued for or against against subscribing in this thread. I simply pointed out flaws in some of your posts and also agreed with some people who raised valid concerns about activation problems which could mitigated by a easy solution. Activation is an issue independent of subscription and was problematic for some when it first appeared with perpetual licences a long time back.
You can't subscribe without activation so the two are tied at the hip. The activation if a problem is for a tiny minority of users. The lame excuses (I'm in a factory without net access and maybe the software will not run) is simply silly. Launch the software before you leave, have a backup net access plan, have CS6 on the machine, don't shoot and play with Photoshop at the same time etc. One could be in the same situation and a meteor could squash you. Adobe isn't going to remove activation nor should they. IF the activation is such a huge burden, and I've seen none of this nor know anyone in that camp, don't put yourself in that position, don't subscribe, hence you never need to activate. Simple.
-
Just one machine running CC. No issues logging in, but that's worth looking into. Maybe it's activating alright (again -- no way to tell) and it's an account problem. It didn't occur to me that they might be separate from each other. I'll look into that tomorrow.
Rick,
Sorry I missed this earlier. If you can shoot me an email at mesh@adobe.com, I can get someone who can try and help you out.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
-
....Launch the software before you leave, have a backup net access plan...
You seem to be deliberately ignoring the key worry here. You can't choose when to (re)activate the software. As reported in this thread; For some people that activation request happens more frequently than it should AND the software fails to work if it isn't activated on request, that is rather a major problem.
You also need to understand that net access often isn't easily available for people, especially when away from home.
-
You seem to be deliberately ignoring the key worry here. You can't choose when to (re)activate the software.
I don't think that's correct.
Provided the software has been activated, then it won't stop working unless you've been away from the Internet for more than 30 days. It doesn't have to activate at the very moment it decides to do so. It will keep trying for many days before it stops working.
If some people are finding otherwise, then I suspect something's wrong with their installation. That's quite possible: IMHO CC installation (and the infrastructure behind it for managing user subscriptions) is a bit buggy.
-
You can't subscribe without activation so the two are tied at the hip. The activation if a problem is for a tiny minority of users. The lame excuses (I'm in a factory without net access and maybe the software will not run) is simply silly. Launch the software before you leave, have a backup net access plan, have CS6 on the machine, don't shoot and play with Photoshop at the same time etc. One could be in the same situation and a meteor could squash you. Adobe isn't going to remove activation nor should they. IF the activation is such a huge burden, and I've seen none of this nor know anyone in that camp, don't put yourself in that position, don't subscribe, hence you never need to activate. Simple.
When you learn to read and correctly parse people's posts, please get back to us. Until then you may as well stop posting your ignorant and unhelpful rants.
-
You also need to understand that net access often isn't easily available for people, especially when away from home.
Or even at home. I've stayed in Montana at a place where mobile phones didn't work, internet access was unusably awful and the nearest place to get connected requires driving miles down a dirt track to the actual road and then 30 miles to the nearest town. And that was in a relatively populous part of the state.
-
Some guy sitting at a desk wrote:
"The activation if a problem is for a tiny minority of users. The lame excuses (I'm in a factory without net access and maybe the software will not run) is simply silly. Launch the software before you leave, have a backup net access plan, have CS6 on the machine, don't shoot and play with Photoshop at the same time etc"
So, lets see what's really silly here.
Using CS6 or earlier:
Arrive on job site to produce actual photography at internet challenged location.
Boot laptop. Start Photoshop. Create images for client.
Nothing silly here
Using Photoshop CC
Either/or:
Boot laptop(s) or computers prior to leaving for the jobsite. Start Photoshop. Shutdown computer(s) and repack.
Add a mobile wifi hotspot to your required equipment list.
MAKE SURE YOU HAVE ANOTHER VERSION OF PHOTOSHOP ON YOUR MACHINE.
Or just don't use Photoshop while you are at the jobsite.
Arrive at Job site. Boot Laptop. Run Photoshop or not. (some version, which ever one actually works) Create actual images for the client.
This is BEYOND silly.
-
Some guy sitting at a desk wrote:
"The activation if a problem is for a tiny minority of users. The lame excuses (I'm in a factory without net access and maybe the software will not run) is simply silly. Launch the software before you leave, have a backup net access plan, have CS6 on the machine, don't shoot and play with Photoshop at the same time etc"
Nail. Head. Hit - "Some guy sitting at a desk wrote:" as opposed to "a working photographer". On his website there seems just a few holiday snaps that the mutt has taken and that's about it.
So, lets see what's really silly here.
Using CS6 or earlier:
Arrive on job site to produce actual photography at internet challenged location.
Boot laptop. Start Photoshop. Create images for client.
Nothing silly here
Using Photoshop CC
Either/or:
Boot laptop(s) or computers prior to leaving for the jobsite. Start Photoshop. Shutdown computer(s) and repack.
Add a mobile wifi hotspot to your required equipment list.
MAKE SURE YOU HAVE ANOTHER VERSION OF PHOTOSHOP ON YOUR MACHINE.
Or just don't use Photoshop while you are at the jobsite.
Arrive at Job site. Boot Laptop. Run Photoshop or not. (some version, which ever one actually works) Create actual images for the client.
This is BEYOND silly.
You forgot to mention
Open old version of PS or LR that needed to be bought in case new version failed to open.
Old version opens.
Can't handle raw files from new camera.
Open Adobe's DNG convertor. Tediously convert files to a format old PS/LR recognises.
Start to edit, realises new tools in CC that you had planned to use for shoot don't exist and then have to do things the old way and start to run out of time.
Meanwhile client is on phone trying to find a photographer who actually has some working software on his laptop unlike the one swearing at computer in front of him.
-
And the beat goes on....like a stuck record.
-
Quote jjj
Start to edit, realises new tools in CC that you had planned to use for shoot don't exist and then have to do things the old way and start to run out of time.
Meanwhile client is on phone trying to find a photographer who actually has some working software on his laptop unlike the one swearing at computer in front of him.
Unquote
What tools would that be? I have looked at the upgrade.
http://prodesigntools.com/compare-versions-differences-adobe-cs6-vs-cc.html
I don't see much difference. The new New Camera Shake Reduction isn't recommended because it has some way to go and I wouldn't expect a Pro to have need of it. Smart Sharpen can be replicated with other methods. Andrew might have been a bit strident in his posts but the thrust of his posts seem fine to me. :)
-
I don't think that's correct.
Provided the software has been activated, then it won't stop working unless you've been away from the Internet for more than 30 days. It doesn't have to activate at the very moment it decides to do so.
If you provide the facts of activation, it blows holes in the silly scenarios provided. Namely, so called photographers haven’t used Photoshop for the last 29-89 days, go on location with laptop that must launch the product or client rips them a new one. Photographer didn't check much important laptop prior to leaving and now, out in the middle of nowhere, with no possible access to the net, the shot is ruined because they didn't check their gear properly before leaving! I suppose if they forget their lens, that too is Adobe's fault.
As someone that has traveled the world building profiles on software that cost many thousands of dollars more than Photoshop, software that will not run without a hardware dongle, I've always had a backup plan and that dongle so I can actually get the work done. But that's just me. Instead of bitching at x-rite and Colorlogic about hardware protection that would hose an entire job, I ensure I can use the tools.
-
If you provide the facts of activation, it blows holes in the silly scenarios provided. Namely, so called photographers haven’t used Photoshop for the last 29-89 days, go on location with laptop that must launch the product or client rips them a new one. Photographer didn't check much important laptop prior to leaving and now, out in the middle of nowhere, with no possible access to the net, the shot is ruined because they didn't check their gear properly before leaving! I suppose if they forget their lens, that too is Adobe's fault.
As someone that has traveled the world building profiles on software that cost many thousands of dollars more than Photoshop, software that will not run without a hardware dongle, I've always had a backup plan and that dongle so I can actually get the work done. But that's just me. Instead of bitching at x-rite and Colorlogic about hardware protection that would hose an entire job, I ensure I can use the tools.
You mean you acted like a professional. Seems like that is getting lost on many folk here.
-
If you provide the facts of activation, it blows holes in the silly scenarios provided. Namely, so called photographers haven’t used Photoshop for the last 29-89 days, go on location with laptop that must launch the product or client rips them a new one. Photographer didn't check much important laptop prior to leaving and now, out in the middle of nowhere, with no possible access to the net, the shot is ruined because they didn't check their gear properly before leaving! I suppose if they forget their lens, that too is Adobe's fault.
As someone that has traveled the world building profiles on software that cost many thousands of dollars more than Photoshop, software that will not run without a hardware dongle, I've always had a backup plan and that dongle so I can actually get the work done. But that's just me. Instead of bitching at x-rite and Colorlogic about hardware protection that would hose an entire job, I ensure I can use the tools.
Earth the guy at sitting at the desk....
I might use Photoshop nearly every days for months on end, WITHOUT said computer being connected to the internet. Pre CC it was never a problem as far as Photoshop is concerned.
Abobe Photoshop versions prior to CC also provided a great backup plan, for WORKING photographers with a brain...a BACKUP COMPUTER. Just like all the other backup equipment that gets taken to assure a successful shoot.
Funny how the reality works..
Bedsides, the odds of TWO separate computers FAILING while sitting on the shelf kind of BLOWS HOLES in the silly statements of the man sitting at the desk.
-
You mean you acted like a professional. Seems like that is getting lost on many folk here.
This is still way beyond your ken...
-
This is still way beyond your ken...
And your scenario of working in a cave without any access to the outside for months on end is getting a little far fetched. Maybe computers with electricity and such is just not made out for you.
-
And your scenario of working in a cave without any access to the outside for months on end is getting a little far fetched. Maybe computers with electricity and such is just not made out for you.
Reading is also beyond your ken....imagine that.
Let me explain it again the the hard of reading.
I have laptop computers that are DEDICATED to being used as location tether and processing stations. They don't get used for anything else. As a rule they don't get updated often, simply because if they are working, there is no need to potential "break" them. They run while on location, usually with no net access. They don't get booted when back in the office as the days working files are written an external drive and that is used to transfer the files to the server back at the office.
They just don't get connected. By choice.
Again, pre CC this was never a problem as far as Photoshop was concerned. However now ...if I choose to use PSCC on these machines another couple of steps have been added to an already complicated enough workflow...NEEDLESSLY.
You might want to check out that first rule of holes thing again...
-
Reading is also beyond your ken....imagine that.
You might want to check out that first rule of holes thing again...
Seems its beyond a lot of people then I guess...except you of course. As usual, you just resort to name calling etc...
I suggest you don't get CC and just move along with your life. Your contrived scenario just does not fit into the CC model...good luck with using the perpetual GIMPER...hahaha.
-
Seems its beyond a lot of people then I guess...except you of course. As usual, you just resort to name calling etc...
I suggest you don't get CC and just move along with your life. Your contrived scenario just does not fit into the CC model...good luck with using the perpetual GIMPER...hahaha.
Again you can't read...imagine that.
-
They just don't get connected. By choice.
Dumb choice. But you're free to do so and suffer the consequences be it an inability to activate software or end up on site with a laptop that doesn't work.
Again you can't read...imagine that.
Translation: if you don't agree with my silly premises it's because you can't read. If that's the best you can do to argue your case, you don't have a case. And the beat goes on....
-
If you want to circumvent all the necessary checks and balances to ensure all your equipment operates on location, then blame (in this case) Adobe, you're really not a professional.
Meanwhile, the boneheads that like to attempt an insult with 'the guy behind the desk' might find it interesting that this so called angry dog traveled to three continents last year alone to build ICC profiles for a Fortune 25 company using products that require hardware activation. The client was on site. I had no less than 3 backup schemes to run the necessary software and had of course, no such issues. Photoshop CC (necessary to complete the work) was utilized too and of course, no issues.
Don't want to connect a laptop to the net and launch Photoshop? Don't want to charge the camera batteries, check the stobes and have extra flash tubes, a 2nd camera body etc and then blame anyone but yourself for a failure to complete the job lands squarely on your shoulders. There are no other excuses acceptable if you call yourself a professional (anything).
-
Dumb choice. But you're free to do so and suffer the consequences be it an inability to activate software or end up on site with a laptop that doesn't work. Translation: if you don't agree with my silly premises it's because you can't read. If that's the best you can do to argue your case, you don't have a case. And the beat goes on....
What a dumb statement. I have no need to activate software if the laptop is running fine and thus I'm not going to have a laptop that fails to work on location because of an activation issue. And even if that somehow should happen I have backup.
What pathetic logic on your part.
Seems digital of would review the rule of holes as well.
-
An annual plan with annual activation would seem a reasonable compromise. Any reason Adobe couldn't offer this?
-
Seems digital of would review the rule of holes as well.
?
Yes attempting to read what you've written is difficult, perhaps English is a 2nd language. Not the first post of your's that makes NO sense.
And the beat goes on...
-
If you want to circumvent all the necessary checks and balances to ensure all your equipment operates on location, then blame (in this case) Adobe, you're really not a professional.
Meanwhile, the boneheads that like to attempt an insult with 'the guy behind the desk' might find it interesting that this so called angry dog traveled to three continents last year alone to build ICC profiles for a Fortune 25 company using products that require hardware activation. The client was on site. I had no less than 3 backup schemes to run the necessary software and had of course, no such issues. Photoshop CC (necessary to complete the work) was utilized too and of course, no issues.
Don't want to connect a laptop to the net and launch Photoshop? Don't want to charge the camera batteries, check the stobes and have extra flash tubes, a 2nd camera body etc and then blame anyone but yourself for a failure to complete the job lands squarely on your shoulders. There are no other excuses acceptable if you call yourself a professional (anything).
You really do have your panties in a bunch.
Take the lame CC out of the equation and you have no argument.
I have AMPLE backups of everything , in fact a TRUCK full of them. I'm not circumventing anything other than the onerous activation CC scheme enacted by ADOBE.
Again, you go off half cocked again and prove you can't read.
I'm not blaming Adobe. Its their product and they can choose to sell it as they see fit. I in turn and decide to reject it if I see fit. I've simply spelled out ONE of my reasons I reject it. My method works perfectly. No need for the silly procedures you suggest.
If I fail to complete a job because I have an equipment failure, no one is to blame but me. Which is WHY I take steps to minimize failures, such as not potentially breaking things that are working just fine by "updating" to a less reliable product. Again...FOR MY SITUATION.
Amazingly I've not failed to complete a job because of equipment failures in decades. Oh plenty of things have failed but with proper prep that's not an issue.
I'm so glad you have such good luck sitting at a desk using CC. Enjoy.
-
?
Yes attempting to read what you've written is difficult, perhaps English is a 2nd language. Not the first post of your's that makes NO sense.
And the beat goes on...
Pardon me for not proofing my post. You are clearly the superior human being. [/sarcasm]
-
Translation: if you don't agree with my silly premises it's because you can't read. If that's the best you can do to argue your case, you don't have a case. And the beat goes on....
No you seem to have reading/comprehension issues, which is why the point keeps getting raised.
An annual plan with annual activation would seem a reasonable compromise. Any reason Adobe couldn't offer this?
It is indeed the sensible plan and what people would like and have asked for.
I've never had activation issues myself, but also I never want them either. So anything that reduces the chance of that is a good thing.
I bet you can get a cracked copy to circumvent this issue entirely and then keep it next to your paid for version.
-
The real facts are Adobe have become a monopoly and are using their power to make sure we are giving every penny they can get out of us with a flawed CC.
-
No you seem to have reading/comprehension issues, which is why the point keeps getting raised.
It is indeed the sensible plan and what people would like and have asked for.
I've never had activation issues myself, but also I never want them either. So anything that reduces the chance of that is a good thing.
I bet you can get a cracked copy to circumvent this issue entirely and then keep it next to your paid for version.
Yep...and that would be truly professional of you.
-
For your information it was a tactic I heard about when Adobe first introduced activation, long before CC. I thought it was deeply ironic that something designed to reduce piracy, in fact drove some paying companies to use cracked versions in preference.
And exactly what is so unprofessional about the suggestion. You've paid for the product, you are simply ensuring you have a working copy available at all times.
-
I do. I built a new machine last summer. I installed Win 8 from disc, PSCS6 from disc and LR5 from disc. Yeah, the updates are only available online, but they're usually smaller than downloading the whole program (LR excepted, I think).
True enough, but that's likely one of the few instances where disks are required.
G
-
For your information it was a tactic I heard about when Adobe first introduced activation, long before CC. I thought it was deeply ironic that something designed to reduce piracy, in fact drove some paying companies to use cracked versions in preference.
And exactly what is so unprofessional about the suggestion. You've paid for the product, you are simply ensuring you have a working copy available at all times.
Nothing unprofessional about it if you have no ethics and are not worried that you are committing a crime. Other than that...you should be fine.
-
You should be able to install on a 2nd machine and for grin's, be interesting to see if that works for you. Let's see if Mike can come up with some answers too. The bit about logging in seems odd. Next time this happens, be useful to make a screen capture of exactly what is presented.
I thought of that, but my other machine (this one) is running Vista 64 -- CC not supported. The plan is to upgrade this machine to Win 7, but it hasn't happened yet...
-
I have exactly the same issue and I spent some time with Adobe support on the phone (Thanks Mike for the coordination).
Suspect was that some directories (OOBE*) which hold license information needed to be recreated. That was done by renaming the current into *_old and re-signing in to CC.
Problem the returned again. Ultimately Adobe support advised as follows:
1. Uninstall CS6 (which I hesitate doing - there is too much stuff configured there now and I intend to keep it)
2. the root cause is likely some conflict due to WMS (windows media service?) and that Adobe is working with Microsoft to get that resolved, but no date promised...
#1 Aaaarghhh. Me too.
#2 Makes sense. Every instance of this problem that I've seen during my searches about it have been on Win x64 machines.
Thanks, Michael
-
Nothing unprofessional about it if you have no ethics and are not worried that you are committing a crime. Other than that...you should be fine.
So which part about paying for the software that is being used, is confusing you?
-
A lively discussion, but please avoid personal attacks. Those continuing to do so will be suspended from posting.
Michael
-
So which part about paying for the software that is being used, is confusing you?
Nothing wrong with using the software you paid for...but the "cracked copy" I have issue with. What about you, do you support acquiring illegal versions of software?
-
Nope. But you are completely missing the point.
"Why would someone who has paid for software, then install a cracked version of the same software?" is the question you should be asking.
-
Nope. But you are completely missing the point.
"Why would someone who has paid for software, then install a cracked version of the same software?" is the question you should be asking.
No, the real question is why a professional would download illegal software and talk about it like it's no skin off his knees...and people like you seem to condone this.
And by the way, I use CC and the thought if downloading illegal software has never crossed my mind.
-
Gah! Reading comprehension seems to be a real problem with some people. I never said that I did it. I just described the irony of what others had done.
People had problems with previous versions of Adobe's activation. The solution was to use a cracked version and not the one you paid for.
I'm simply reporting what some people did. I've never had an issue with activation myself.
But imagine if someone is on a commercial deadline and Adobe's activation servers thew a hissy fit and locked them out, why would their using a dodgy copy be the issue? The vendor because of a glitch is stopping them using what they have paid for, so if they have to use a workaround what's the big deal. After all they have already paid for the software, so they are not in fact stealing anything.
It's not like your car has broken down and you then help yourself to another one off the dealer's forecourt.
-
Gah! Reading comprehension seems to be a real problem with some people. I never said that I did it. I just described the irony of what others had done.
People had problems with previous versions of Adobe's activation. The solution was to use a cracked version and not the one you paid for.
I'm simply reporting what some people did. I've never had an issue with activation myself.
But imagine if someone is on a commercial deadline and Adobe's activation servers thew a hissy fit and locked them out, why would their using a dodgy copy be the issue? The vendor because of a glitch is stopping them using what they have paid for, so if they have to use a workaround what's the big deal. After all they have already paid for the software, so they are not in fact stealing anything.
It's not like your car has broken down and you then help yourself to another one off the dealer's forecourt.
You would have purchased one license ( car ) to use. That license ( car ) has problems so you illegally get another license ( car ) and just go about your merry ways. Just because you are not holding anything tangible in your hands with a CC license does not make it OK just to illegally download another "cracked" license and just use it. How does this differ from going to the car lot and lifting another car when yours has engine trouble? I ask you again, ethically as a professional you condone using pirated software?
-
Nowadays, the car manufacturers produce quite reliable vehicles, they don't expire on a random notice.
And once they are fully paid for, you can enjoy them for many years without any activation gimmicks.
During the recent extended power outage, a friend of mine retreated several times into his car to warm up and recharge his iPhone, and on one occasion he used there Photoshop Touch app on his iPad. Do you think, PSCC would have started in those circumstances?
-
It works the same as if you paid month to month (and its 99 days, not 30).
Hope that helps clarify...
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
Mike, I still confused regarding the annual prepaid plans.
Sean from Adobe Live Chat assured me that the annual plans are activated annually, but he couldn't document it. You've assured me it's monthly, but also can't/wont document it. Why is the information so hard to verify for consumer and employee alike? How is a consumer to know which Adobe employee (if either) is in the know? And what information is Adobe mining every 30 days on prepaid annual plans?
-
Mike, I still confused regarding the annual prepaid plans.
Sean from Adobe Live Chat assured me that the annual plans are activated annually, but he couldn't document it. You've assured me it's monthly, but also can't/wont document it. Why is the information so hard to verify for consumer and employee alike? How is a consumer to know which Adobe employee (if either) is in the know? And what information is Adobe mining every 30 days on prepaid annual plans?
Sorry, I could have sworn I posted the link for this earlier. Regardless, from the FAQ:
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.html
--
Do I need ongoing Internet access to use my Creative Cloud desktop applications?
No. Your Creative Cloud desktop applications (such as Photoshop and Illustrator) are installed directly on your computer, so you won't need an ongoing Internet connection to use them on a daily basis.
An Internet connection is required the first time you install and license your desktop apps, but you can use the apps in offline mode with a valid software license. The desktop apps will attempt to validate your software licenses every 30 days.
For annual members, you can use the apps for up to 99 days in offline mode. Month-to-month members can use the software for up to 30 days in offline mode.
--
Annual membership is annual membership regardless of if you prepay for the year, or pay monthly for the year commitment.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
-
Thanks for that, Mike.
So if I read this correctly, with the prepaid annual plan the apps will attempt to validate every 30 days but if it cannot they will grace you 99 days before shutting you down.
And can you tell me the data they are mining such that they require ongoing "validation" every 30-99 days, and will shut you down if it can't, even though your account is prepaid for a full year?
-
Thanks for that, Mike.
So if I read this correctly, with the prepaid annual plan the apps will attempt to validate every 30 days but if it cannot they will grace you 99 days before shutting you down.
And can you tell me the data they are mining such that they require ongoing "validation" every 30-99 days, and will shut you down if it can't, even though your account is prepaid for a full year?
From the FAQ:
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.html
--
Do I need ongoing Internet access to use my Adobe Creative Cloud desktop applications?
...
The desktop apps will attempt to validate your software licenses every 30 days.
--
Hope that helps...
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
-
Thanks again, Mike. But this time I was asking a bit more into the "why?" of it. Why does Adobe need/desire/require to connect with our computers every 30 days even though we've prepaid for the year? Some (not all) potential users find that requirement odious, so there must be something of great value in it, worth offending to get.
-
You would have purchased one license ( car ) to use. That license ( car ) has problems so you illegally get another license ( car ) and just go about your merry ways. Just because you are not holding anything tangible in your hands with a CC license does not make it OK just to illegally download another "cracked" license and just use it. How does this differ from going to the car lot and lifting another car when yours has engine trouble? I ask you again, ethically as a professional you condone using pirated software?
Dear me. This is not a difficult concept. Licensing is not the same as purchase, do not confuse the two. One is for usage, one is for ownership.
With a car you purchase that particular car and use of that car only. So if you decide to take someone else's car because yours is poorly, then you have deprived someone else of the use of that car and this is actually theft - if done without permission.
With software such as Adobe's you pay for a licence to use the software and you can use a variety of machines to utilise that software which will not necessarily be from the same install that is fine as it is the user that is licensed, not the computer. Obviously you need to stick within your max number of seats at any one moment, but you can activate/deactivate as required.
So if you use a pirated version that works where a non pirated version does not for whatever reason, you have still paid for the service you are receiving. You have not deprived anyone else the use of some software nor have you deprived the creator of the software of their deserved earnings. No-one is disadvantaged in any way whatsoever. But if you think not being able to work on software that you have paid for is somehow OK, yet using a harmless workaround to get what you have purchased, I guessing then you think you are holier than thou and probably believe in things like creationism too.
-
With a car you purchase that particular car and use of that car only.
For the past 10+ years, I've leased cars. I don't own them. Some could associate lease with rent, as some have associated a CC subscription to renting that software. No?
-
Indeed leasing is somewhat, but not entirely comparable.
But we were not talking about leasing but purchasing.
-
Indeed leasing is somewhat, but not entirely comparable.
But we were not talking about leasing but purchasing.
I am talking about professionals that would download "pirated" software and use it...that is what I am talking about. Really does not matter if you already purchased a leagal copy of that software...using pirated version of the software just promotes the software to be pirated more.
The bottom line is it seems like you have no issue with using a pirated copy of software while I do. Does that make me hollier than you...you decide on that. I know where I stand on pirated anything and I guess so do you. Bottom line....
-
Indeed leasing is somewhat, but not entirely comparable.
But we were not talking about leasing but purchasing.
I "bought" a stand alone copy of Lightroom - but I doubt that I actually own it. It seems to me that what I own is the right to use it but I don't own the software.
Anyone else want to comment on this?
Glenn
-
I "bought" a stand alone copy of Lightroom - but I doubt that I actually own it. It seems to me that what I own is the right to use it but I don't own the software.
Anyone else want to comment on this?
Glenn
Spot on, Glenn. What you have purchased is a licence to use the software under the conditions of the licence agreement.
-
While it's legally correct, for all practical purposes you are purchasing it and it's yours.
-
Not really. If you buy a car or a house or a chair, you can modify it, use it as a component in something else, rent out use of it, and so on. With licensed software, you don't have that option unless the terms say you do (and generally they specifically exclude such things).
There are core differences which relate to the idea that software isn't a physical thing and that the actual owners of it are the only ones who can pull it apart, rent it to others or whatever it is they want to do.
Yes, for most of us, the difference is just a legal one because we never seek to do those things that are restricted or prohibited, but that doesn't mean we should forget that there are differences.
-
It just amounts to little more than hair splitting. Technically it may be a licence, but for all practical purposes you own it.
-
Mike, since you've been so helpful and gracious in offering help, I forwarded your email address to my friend whose PSCC problems I reported in this thread previously.
I hope you can help him, here is his last report:
Hi Les,
I just wrote to Mike Chambers. Adobe hasn't responded in the promised 5 days with higher level assistance.
Within the past week yet another update was issued and it helped some people in the Adobe forums, but not me. I still have the program start, display the workscreen and disappear.
Hopefully Mike will have some ideas, but I'm wondering what's left to try. I think I've tried every suggestion the Adobe forums have mentioned.
Fortunately Lightroom works fine, and is proving to be the reliable workhorse it's always been. Photoshop is simply useless at this point.
As reported elsewhere, some of the principal PS designers moved over to LR. I wonder, .... nah, must be Windows.
-
Les - sorry if this has already been suggested, but has your friend done a complete uninstall and reinstall of the product? Ignore me if he has.
The reason I'm suggesting it is that I had a weird issue with PSCC the other day in that the "save for web" option was greyed out all the time. It had been working just fine. Doing a reinstallation sorted it. First issue I've had with it and I've been running PSCC for about 10 months or so from memory.
-
Yes, that was one of the first things he did. He performed uninstall and reinstall several times. I imagine that Adobe forum has also listed this procedure as one of the standard fixes. I don't know what else they advised.
This man happens to be a very experienced Photoshop user and has used and programmed computers for decades, he even teaches on both subjects, so I can imagine how very frustrating this whole experience must be. I know two other PSCC users who are running it also on Win7 machines and they don't have problems. Maybe it's some hardware incompatibility or conflict with some software drivers on his computer.
I personally never heard of such upgrade/installation problems, but then I never installed PS CC on my system.
Let's hope, Mike Chambers can resolve his problem.
-
It just amounts to little more than hair splitting. Technically it may be a licence, but for all practical purposes you own it.
It may be hair splitting or not - depends on one's point of view, knowledge, or attitude.
I use and "own" another software extensively; a physically modeled piano https://www.pianoteq.com/
In the legal agreement it specifically states that one does not own it, and furthermore that one cannot modify it internally (the code).
Hair splitting is what law is all about, and anyone who assumed they owned the software and therefor could do anything they wanted to do with it, could be in some reasonably serious legal trouble if found out.
Consider the very different case of buying vs leasing a vehicle - when the lease expires, you own nothing. The (critical) difference is when you buy a vehicle, you do own it and can modify it - which happens frequently.
-
It's nothing more than a legal nicety, for all practical purposes irrelevant, and you're rather confusing a licence's contractual agreement with wider IP law. If you insist on drawing a parallel with vehicles, like most analogies it's just a side track to nowhere, but licence restrictions on modifying software don't actually, practically, prevent you doing so. They're only a problem when you cross another line - eg infringing their IP by selling hacked software, or requiring their support - and that's just the same as contracts to buy a vehicle which usally include warranties. Try modifying your vehicle and setting up a competing brand or getting the manufacturer to fix something you've customized. Analogies are only as good as one's point of view, knowledge, or attitude. So, rightly, people regard software they've bought as software they really do own.
-
fao Mike Chambers
Mike,
I can't find the EULA for the Student/Teacher edition of CC. Could you please confirm whether or not
(a) the licence is the same as the full version, i.e. 2 installations, activated but not used concurrently, computers owned by the licencee.
(b) activation is NOT continent specific, i.e. my daughter is at NYU, she comes back to Europe 4 months of the year - will she still be able to activate her CC installation in EU even though her edition is purchased and prepaid in the USA ?
As always, thanks for the assistance.
-
I am talking about professionals that would download "pirated" software and use it...that is what I am talking about. Really does not matter if you already purchased a leagal copy of that software...using pirated version of the software just promotes the software to be pirated more.
Really!? What utter nonsense. So how exactly does that work then, as there seems to be an assumption of causality that is a bit random.
The bottom line is it seems like you have no issue with using a pirated copy of software while I do. Does that make me hollier than you...you decide on that. I know where I stand on pirated anything and I guess so do you. Bottom line....
I certainly believe one should pay for products or services one uses and I am certainly not advocating that people use software without paying for it, which you incorrectly seem to think I'm am saying.
There's lots of software that may be nice to have, but I do not possess it because I do not really need or can justify paying for it. Less is more these days I find.
Apart from anything else if you do not pay for things like software that you like to use, you could end up punishing yourself as the company may fail to stay in business. Also there is not much point in pirating if you are a business yourself, as costs like that are tax deductible anyway.
-
While it's legally correct, for all practical purposes you are purchasing it and it's yours.
For a perpetual licence, yes those are the practicalities. Not for subscription though, which is what folks are concerned with here.
-
... but licence restrictions on modifying software don't actually, practically, prevent you doing so.
? Laws do not actually prevent -- they record what actions will result in compensation and/or punishment.
So, rightly, people regard software they've bought as software they really do own.
So it's OK if I license your photos for a single use -- and then give them away?
-
So it's OK if I license your photos for a single use -- and then give them away?
Shoe sometimes does not fit so well on the other foot? :D
-
Thanks for the contribution, Isaac. As illuminating as ever, or perhaps not.
-
Shoe sometimes does not fit so well on the other foot? :D
Wow, two trollish posts in succession. Just goes to prove what I always think about those hiding behind pseudonyms....
-
So it's OK if I license your photos for a single use -- and then give them away?
Except that is not really what people are talking about. Which is buying a licence to use some software and then using said software, no-one has suggested then giving it away.
And I could buy a copy of PS and then sell or give it to someone else, as long as I stopped using it myself.
Like chez you are putting words into people's mouths.
-
Wow, two trollish posts in succession. Just goes to prove what I always think about those hiding behind pseudonyms....
Not just those two posts sadly.
And I'm in favour of a forum where poster's identities are known myself.
Amusingly, another troll had a go at me for hiding my identity. Despite my profile and signature containing a link to my work and contact info.
-
Thanks for the contribution, Isaac. As illuminating as ever, or perhaps not.
You've responded with distraction rather than addressing the obvious point.
Is it OK if I license your photos for a single use -- and then break that license agreement and give them away?
-
The point you have made is completely irrelevant Isaac as I've already explained above.
-
So, rightly, people regard software they've bought as software they really do own.
If you really do "own" johnbeardy's images when you license them, then you can give them away.
-
Wrong again Isaac. You are not comparing like with like.
-
You've responded with distraction rather than addressing the obvious point.
Is it OK if I license your photos for a single use -- and then break that license agreement and give them away?
No, I've responded to your "obvious point" on its merits!
-
No, I've responded to your "obvious point" on its merits!
Nicely put.
-
The subscription model seems to be a fait accompli - like the referee's call it's final - and in this case there is no coach's challenge available.
-
You are not comparing like with like.
You've already stated --
Dear me. This is not a difficult concept. Licensing is not the same as purchase, do not confuse the two. One is for usage, one is for ownership.
But you don't seem to think that is the correct response to --
While it's legally correct, for all practical purposes you are purchasing it and it's yours.
-
No, I've responded to your "obvious point" on its merits!
Apparently you can do no better than evasion.
-
The subscription model seems to be a fait accompli - like the referee's call it's final - and in this case there is no coach's challenge available.
And has been for quite a while.
-
Apparently you can do no better than evasion.
Sorry, no evasion on my part - just read the paragraph from which you initially quoted.
I just don't think your question was genuine, "Isaac". Grow some....
John
-
Isaac, mixing up my replies to different scenarios as if the were the same situation is disingenuous. And misleading.
Try and respond properly in future, Ta.
-
I understand that many don't like the Adobe subscription model. I have a question:
What are you going to do about it?
I have seen talk about looking for another application. Has anyone found one that stacks up? There are quite a few threads on several forums on this topic, but has anyone actually done something about it?
It's one thing to be upset and I understand it - but the world has a tendency to be harshly real and reality has changed.
EDIT - fixed grammar.
-
I understand that many don't like the Adobe subscription model. I have a question:
What are you going to do about it?
I seen talk about looking for another application. Has anyone found one that stacks up? There are quite a few threads on several forums on this topic, but has anyone actually done something about it?
It's one thing to be upset and I understand it - but the world has a tendency to be harshly real and reality has changed.
Well, firstly, anyone seeking an alternative to Photoshop CC doesn't have to adopt something else immediately. Fortunately, Adobe can't stop anyone from using CS6 for as long as it is feasible. There is time to allow other developers to prepare a worthy option. Keep in mind, those possible options really don't need to be an exact duplication of current Ps CC capabilities ... in fact, most photographers don't really need all that is capable in Ps.
Secondly, the "Photographer's Bundle" did not exist until there was an outcry for something other than what Adobe presented for CC last May. Don't you remember, Adobe had to "listen" for awhile and responded with a more palatable offering? Maybe a few of us are hoping that Adobe is still "listening."
The "harsh reality" is the vast majority of their traditional perpetual license holders are not embracing CC. While it may be interesting that having sub 2M CC subscribers is an indication of success ... that is still less than half of the number of CS6 licenses they sold in the first year CS6 existed. Add in the over 4M perpetual license holders of CS3-CS5 ... Adobe has a long way to go to convince those folks they need to get in line. That is about as real as it gets.
Adopting CC should be done because it is the best option available ... not submitting to it because it is perceived as the only option available.
-
I seen talk about looking for another application. Has anyone found one that stacks up? There are quite a few threads on several forums on this topic, but has anyone actually done something about it?
Well, right now, there is nothing comparable to the latest version of PS. However, PS CS5 or CS6 are pretty good too, and for many users fully adequate.
One of the new features in PS CS6 was the oil painting filter. If such a feature is important for the artist in you, Topaz Simplify plugin is a very good replacement for that. In that aspect, Topaz Simplify offers actually more than Photoshop. I wrote recently a short article on capabilities of this plugin and included some of the painting filter examples, you can read more about it at:
http://advantica.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/topaz-simplify/ (http://advantica.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/topaz-simplify/)
Topaz Clarity plugin is an excellent tool for tonal adjustments and contrast enhancing, and even many PS CC users prefer to use it instead of more time consuming PS processing through curves, masks, and adjustment layers. NIK's Viveza, and Color FX Pro are other good options. OnOne Software recently introduced their collection of similar plugins. I use LR, PS CS5, Topaz and NIK, and find that I can get all my needs satisfied through that combination. It's very likely that with all new enhancements in coming versions of LR, Topaz, NIK, and other programs, the need for having PS CC will drastically diminish.
Having said that, if one day Adobe re-introduces the "Classic PS" including post CS5 updates, I would upgrade to it, but at this time, I'm not missing anything.
Most importantly, I'm not missing any of the troubles some PSCC users are experiencing with new updates and totally unnecessary activation gimmicks.
-
Well, firstly, anyone seeking an alternative to Photoshop CC doesn't have to adopt something else immediately. Fortunately, Adobe can't stop anyone from using CS6 for as long as it is feasible. There is time to allow other developers to prepare a worthy option. Keep in mind, those possible options really don't need to be an exact duplication of current Ps CC capabilities ... in fact, most photographers don't really need all that is capable in Ps.
Secondly, the "Photographer's Bundle" did not exist until there was an outcry for something other than what Adobe presented for CC last May. Don't you remember, Adobe had to "listen" for awhile and responded with a more palatable offering? Maybe a few of us are hoping that Adobe is still "listening."
The "harsh reality" is the vast majority of their traditional perpetual license holders are not embracing CC. While it may be interesting that having sub 2M CC subscribers is an indication of success ... that is still less than half of the number of CS6 licenses they sold in the first year CS6 existed. Add in the over 4M perpetual license holders of CS3-CS5 ... Adobe has a long way to go to convince those folks they need to get in line. That is about as real as it gets.
Adopting CC should be done because it is the best option available ... not submitting to it because it is perceived as the only option available.
Well, as far as I'm concerned...it is the best option available. I don't see anything on the horizon that will come close to what can be done in PS.
-
I don't see anything on the horizon that will come close to what can be done in PS.
Just out of curiosity ... how many other options have you personally and thoroughly tested in the past year that would confirm your expert assessment?
I couldn't agree more that, today, Ps is the best possible option. Fortunately, my current version of Ps is much more than adequate for the relatively few projects I need it for. With the advent of Lr, Aperture and C1 ... Ps sees far less activity in my daily workflow. There is absolutely no compelling reason for me to hop on the perpetual monthly stipend merry-go-round any time soon. Especially considering doing so would not enhance my personal bottom line whatsoever.
Historically, enterprising entrepreneurs always seem to rise to the task and offer solutions when the market presents itself. I have little doubt, that in time (long before my current version of Ps will reach EOL) there will be a more acceptable option available.
I guess that is the difference in gauging whether you perceive the glass is half full ... or half empty ... I am wagering on half full.
-
I understand that many don't like the Adobe subscription model. I have a question:
What are you going to do about it?
Easy, not buy into it.
Photoshop is fantastic and definitely the best image editor, but version CS4 will be fine for me. The more recent versions don't add anything I find useful and have actually removed bits I use, so no need to upgrade.
I've tried out some of the alternatives and The Gimp and Photoline both have enough options to do what I do with PS.
If Lightroom goes subscription only, I'll just stick with the last perpetual licence version and migrate back to Capture One when I need to.
-
The "harsh reality" is the vast majority of their traditional perpetual license holders are not embracing CC. While it may be interesting that having sub 2M CC subscribers is an indication of success ... that is still less than half of the number of CS6 licenses they sold in the first year CS6 existed. Add in the over 4M perpetual license holders of CS3-CS5 ... Adobe has a long way to go to convince those folks they need to get in line. That is about as real as it gets.
The irony is that normally, many of the PS CS3-CS6 users would have at some point upgraded to CS7. As it stands now, many of those users will never upgrade to the CC and some will migrate to other programs.
-
The irony is that normally, many of the PS CS3-CS6 users would have at some point upgraded to CS7. As it stands now, many of those users will never upgrade to the CC and some will migrate to other programs.
Really, I'm hearing the opposite here. Most say their current version does everything they ever need. Why would they upgrade?
For me, I'd rather use the best product on the market to get the job done. My time is more important than a $10/month cost for the subscription. That same important time would be wasted looking for an alternative product that I know is not as complete as PS. To me, it makes no sense to waste time looking for an inferior product when the one I know inside and out and have been using for two years is available.
Sure I don't like the new subscription only model from Adobe, but that is what it is. I'm not going to hurt my processing skills and step back in time with abilities that are limited by some wannabe PS product just because I don't like Adobe's move. Frankly, from a financial sense, it costs me less today than it was 3 years ago...and that is a good thing.
I guess we all make our own choices. Hope everyone can get by their bitterness and find a system that works for them.
-
I just dipped back into this thread and I am amazed it is still running! The way I see it as a professional photographer is that the cost is very small compared to the utility of Photoshop. For any amateur who is really serious about their photography then the cost is also very reasonable. For the amateur who just dips into Photoshop now and then because they don't do much photography then perhaps Adobe's own Photoshop Elements would suffice.
The vast majority of amateurs I have met over the years were using a pirate version of Photoshop anyway so no loss to Adobe. It's an expensive programme, and despite having read lots of the negative comments about the subscription model, I still cannot see how it is much more expensive for the vast majority who like to keep reasonably up to date with software anyway. It seems the biggest complaint is the principle of the thing, and Adobe have made a decision. It is just a product and not unique so customers can vote with their feet. Time will tell.
Jim
-
For me, I'd rather use the best product on the market to get the job done. My time is more important than a $10/month cost for the subscription. That same important time would be wasted looking for an alternative product that I know is not as complete as PS. To me, it makes no sense to waste time looking for an inferior product when the one I know inside and out and have been using for two years is available.
Sure I don't like the new subscription only model from Adobe, but that is what it is. I'm not going to hurt my processing skills and step back in time with abilities that are limited by some wannabe PS product just because I don't like Adobe's move. Frankly, from a financial sense, it costs me less today than it was 3 years ago...and that is a good thing.
Someone a short while back in another thread, did a breakdown of the costs of moving from the perpetual licence to CC for his small design studio. And it was phenomenally more expensive.
The PS/LR bundle is I think pretty good value, but that only came about because of the huge outcry and interestingly the deadline for the this limited offer and who can take it, keeps being knocked back.
The other thing about the mere £8 p/m for pro photographers is that many now also do some video to make ends meet and then you suddenly need to pay £48p/m instead to get Premiere Pro as well. This I think is the main issue for CC, it's a bit all or nothing. If you use all the software it's a bargain, but the reality is very, very people will do that, so not so much of a bargain after all. Even when I did design + web work as well as photography stuff, I still never used all the Creative Suite.
-
I just dipped back into this thread and I am amazed it is still running! The way I see it as a professional photographer is that the cost is very small compared to the utility of Photoshop. For any amateur who is really serious about their photography then the cost is also very reasonable. For the amateur who just dips into Photoshop now and then because they don't do much photography then perhaps Adobe's own Photoshop Elements would suffice.
Lightroom will actually do all the work most photographers require and that includes the pros. Photographers make up a surprisingly small percentage of PS users, less than 10%.
The vast majority of amateurs I have met over the years were using a pirate version of Photoshop anyway so no loss to Adobe.
But imagine if Adobe could make them customers.....
-
Someone a short while back in another thread, did a breakdown of the costs of moving from the perpetual licence to CC for his small design studio. And it was phenomenally more expensive.
The PS/LR bundle is I think pretty good value, but that only came about because of the huge outcry and interestingly the deadline for the this limited offer and who can take it, keeps being knocked back.
The other thing about the mere £8 p/m for pro photographers is that many now also do some video to make ends meet and then you suddenly need to pay £48p/m instead to get Premiere Pro as well. This I think is the main issue for CC, it's a bit all or nothing. If you use all the software it's a bargain, but the reality is very, very people will do that, so not so much of a bargain after all. Even when I did design + web work as well as photography stuff, I still never used all the Creative Suite.
I guess if you use a whole spectrum of products from Adobe, you have to pay more. Thus seems very logical to me. Use more product, pay more money. Wouldn't it be the same thing to upgrade those same suite of products 3 years ago...you would be paying more than just the $200 PS upgrade cost?
-
Lightroom will actually do all the work most photographers require and that includes the pros. Photographers make up a surprisingly small percentage of PS users, less than 10%.
But imagine if Adobe could make them customers.....
The low cost of entry into PS at only $10/month is very enticing for new photogs that could not swallow the initial $700 cost of buying Adobe. I think you'll see a bunch of new photographers sign on that just would have not bought Adobe outright.
-
I guess if you use a whole spectrum of products from Adobe, you have to pay more. Thus seems very logical to me. Use more product, pay more money. Wouldn't it be the same thing to upgrade those same suite of products 3 years ago...you would be paying more than just the $200 PS upgrade cost?
Grief! Did it ever occur to you to try reading a post before responding with another dumb response?
-
I looked at the offer of about £8 for an annual fee and was tempted to go for it but for some reason it only applies if you have bought an Adobe product DIRECT from Adobe. I bought CS6 and LR5 from Amazon who I presume bought them from Adobe. Now why should THAT make a difference? ::) :'(
-
I thought it currently applied to everyone again. ???
-
Posts: 279
Quote from: LesPalenik on Today at 03:55:54 AM
The irony is that normally, many of the PS CS3-CS6 users would have at some point upgraded to CS7. As it stands now, many of those users will never upgrade to the CC and some will migrate to other programs.
By chez
Really, I'm hearing the opposite here. Most say their current version does everything they ever need. Why would they upgrade?
We must be reading different forums. Quite a few posters (myself included) stated, that the financial outlay is not the problem, but the rental model is. If you pay $120 a year for subscription, in two years it would be about the same as the upgrade payment with the important difference that if you buy the upgrade, you can use the program indefinitely (even if only once every few months), whereas if you pay two years of subscription and then stop, you have NOTHING.
-
Posts: 279
We must be reading different forums. Quite a few posters (myself included) stated, that the financial outlay is not the problem, but the rental model is. If you pay $120 a year for subscription, in two years it would be about the same as the upgrade payment with the important difference that if you buy the upgrade, you can use the program indefinitely (even if only once every few months), whereas if you pay two years of subscription and then stop, you have NOTHING.
I don't plan on stopping from using PS so I don't see the need to stop paying for a subscription. The day I stop paying is the day I'll use another product. I'm OK with this. My mindset has gone from using a physical product to using a service. Once I stop paying for the service, I stop the use of that service.
-
Grief! Did it ever occur to you to try reading a post before responding with another dumb response?
JJJ, your personal attacks are getting a little tiring. Please refrain, have another coffee, take another drag or whatever you need to do...but please stop your idiocy.
-
Well seeing as you post replies that indicate you haven't had the good manners to read what you are responding to chez, expect to be called out on it.
You seem to be the typical anonymous tinterweb troll at times.
-
I thought it currently applied to everyone again. ???
http://www.adobe.com/store/en_us/popup/offer/ccm_photoshop_app_offer.html
I think I may have mis read it. How can one purchase a subscription if you don't phone them? I thought it applied to the qualifying products. :-\
-
Michael indicated he would suspend members from posting if they carried on with personal comments. It looks as if one or two are about to be hung? ;) ;D
-
http://www.adobe.com/store/en_us/popup/offer/ccm_photoshop_app_offer.html
I think I may have mis read it. How can one purchase a subscription if you don't phone them? I thought it applied to the qualifying products. :-\
"This offer is only available to customers who purchase directly from the Adobe Store or by calling a regional Adobe Call Center"
So go online and get credit card out. :)
-
I've now put chez on ignore as he seems to contribute nothing to forum.
I think anonymous posters should be culled from the forum. There is zero need for anonymity on a forum like this.
-
Is JJJ your real name? The problem is that even if someone posts their real name how does the members know it is their real name? ;)
-
I'm OK with this. My mindset has gone from using a physical product to using a service. Once I stop paying for the service, I stop the use of that service.
Frankly, the only aspect of using Ps CC has that is similar to a "service" is the billing cycle ... Unless Adobe is going to send someone to my studio to adjust sliders for me ... I can't really equate the month-to-month use of software with being equated to a "service."
The phone company does not ask me to provide my own communication towers or configure the switching stations. I simply dial the number I want to reach. The cable company does not require me to purchase the latest and greatest hardware ... any old TV will do ... they also don't require me to produce my own content to be viewed ... I just need to tune in ... Netflix does not expect me to produce my own original programming ... all I need to do is select a video and push play ...
As long as running Adobe software requires state of the art hardware and OS and requires me to not only make all those slider adjustments on my own volition ... but also know why I am adjusting those sliders ... I fail to see where the "service" portion of the transaction lies ...
-
Is JJJ your real name?
Have you looked at his profile ? would you go to that much trouble with a false name ?
I haven't noticed John Beardsworth apologising for the same failure to read a profile at reply #414 .
-
Is JJJ your real name? The problem is that even if someone posts their real name how does the members know it is their real name? ;)
It's a nickname. But as a link to my website and contact details are in my signature and profile, I'm hardly anonymous.
I don't expect people to post all their bank details, but a link to a working website showing that they are actually a photographer and not simply a keyboard warrior is hardly a big barrier to taking part.
Seeing people's work can also give context to their posting. One thing I've noticed is that those who are cannot do good post processing, tend to slag off PS as cheating/not real photography.
And if say you are debating about how to do good nature photography, a stunning portfolio of animal shots may give you more credence than someone who is a studio photographer.
-
I haven't noticed John Beardsworth apologising for the same failure to read a profile at reply #414 .
This post?
Wow, two trollish posts in succession. Just goes to prove what I always think about those hiding behind pseudonyms....
Both people John is referring to, chez + Isaac are indeed anonymous.
Isaac has often been asked if he is indeed a photographer. As opposed to someone who likes word play.
-
Have you looked at his profile ? would you go to that much trouble with a false name ?
I haven't noticed John Beardsworth apologising for the same failure to read a profile at reply #414 .
Huh? In that post I was referring to both "chez" and "isaac". Both hide their identity. So what exactly do you imagine I should apologise for? Maybe it's you who should apologise, because I am so deeply offended, really, or maybe not.
Is JJJ your real name? The problem is that even if someone posts their real name how does the members know it is their real name? ;)
The point was anonymity, not pseudonyms. On your second point, sure it's easy to try to make the perfect the enemy of the possible, but culling anyone who is obviously hiding behind a pseudonym would definitely improve the atmosphere.
-
Huh? In that post I was referring to both "chez" and "isaac".
Sorry, I'd assumed you were having a pop at jjj as well.
-
A lively discussion, but please avoid personal attacks. Those continuing to do so will be suspended from posting.
Seems like time to shut the entire thread down, we've beat this dead horse a dozen times over. Nothing further served.
-
Seems like time to shut the entire thread down, we've beat this dead horse a dozen times over. Nothing further served.
Well ... the thread was relatively dormant back about page 16 ... then somebody came in and stirred things up ... can't quite recall who it was at this point ... ;)
Funny how some attempts never quite achieve their desired goal ... but do achieve exactly the opposite of what was intended ...
-
.... I know inside and out and have been using for two years is available.....
Always good to have such experienced and expert opinion ;-)
-
Seems like time to shut the entire thread down, we've beat this dead horse a dozen times over. Nothing further served.
Before you do that, I would't mind a reply (if Mike Chambers is still following ..)
fao Mike Chambers
Mike,
I can't find the EULA for the Student/Teacher edition of CC. Could you please confirm whether or not
(a) the licence is the same as the full version, i.e. 2 installations, activated but not used concurrently, computers owned by the licencee.
(b) activation is NOT continent specific, i.e. my daughter is at NYU, she comes back to Europe 4 months of the year - will she still be able to activate her CC installation in EU even though her edition is purchased and prepaid in the USA ?
As always, thanks for the assistance.
-
Sorry, I'd assumed you were having a pop at jjj as well.
OK, I think he and I posted at the same time and his slipped in between the other two posts. For my part I confess that I assume the worst of anyone hiding their identity. After all, go into a pub wearing a face mask and you can't expect people to want to listen to you - even if it might make you the life and soul elsewhere, if that's your taste.
-
;D And all the while I thought Michael himself must be spurring them on behind the scenes in an attempt to get LULA right up there w/ DPReview in stature, class and erudition!
You can take the little boys out of the schoolyard, but you can't ... ;)
Rand
-
Well ... the thread was relatively dormant back about page 16 ... then somebody came in and stirred things up ... can't quite recall who it was at this point ... ;)
That you? Because I made a post on the very first page. Perhaps you can't read that far back!
-
Seems like time to shut the entire thread down, we've beat this dead horse a dozen times over. Nothing further served.
In your opinion. Others like say Manoli, still need information.
-
In your opinion. Others like say Manoli, still need information.
Yes in my opinion simply due to the huge signal to noise ratio loss in the last day or two. IF Manoli has questions, best to start a new thead with exactly the question and hopefully the high T members here will allow an answer!
-
Well it may be considered by some that the barking dog is a cause of a lot of the noise. :P
-
That you? Because I made a post on the very first page. Perhaps you can't read that far back!
I've read each and every comment in this thread over it's existence ... Though I have never requested that the moderator silence the opinions of those with whom I disagree.
You may fee there is a bit too much noise ... though, the easiest method to avoid that annoying situation is not to read what you don't care for ... let alone continue participating in the thread.
If I find a discussion on the internet that I don't care for ... I simply avoid reading it or participating in it. Quite simple, really.
-
Well it may be considered by some that the barking dog is a cause of a lot of the noise. :P
Pot calling the kettle black. Pot continuing to post no new information but hoping to keep the pie fight going. And I'm usually a big fan of Pot! Let's agree to disagree, this horse is dead, he ceases to exist, he is no more! Don't upgrade to CC. Start a blog and complain till the cows come home. There are two camps here, neither side is going to move positions. Some of us will continue to use the tools we pay for and get work done. Others can find another tool (please do let us know how that all works out for you if you can do so honestly).
-
If I find a discussion on the internet that I don't care for ... I simply avoid reading it or participating in it. Quite simple, really.
Indeed.
Same goes for film/TV shows/books/art etc that people do not like. Don't like something, look away or do something else.
-
Before you do that, I would't mind a reply (if Mike Chambers is still following ..)
I too would like his answer. I've asked the same of Adobe Live Chat, but my experience with them is they don't know but tell you what you want to hear. Waiting on Mike...
-
Pot calling the kettle black. Pot continuing to post no new information but hoping to keep the pie fight going. And I'm usually a big fan of Pot! Let's agree to disagree, this horse is dead, he ceases to exist, he is no more! Don't upgrade to CC. Start a blog and complain till the cows come home. There are two camps here, neither side is going to move positions. Some of us will continue to use the tools we pay for and get work done. Others can find another tool (please do let us know how that all works out for you if you can do so honestly).
Yet again you persist with inaccurate facts and like chez, you are too lazy to actually read other people's posts before replying. I never said I wasn't going to buy or am not using CC, you foolishly assumed that. I have in fact said that the PS/LR CC deal is good value. There not being any sensible option between that deal and the full CC option is something I think Adobe should address however.
Anyway you consistently seem to contribute nothing of value, so on the ignore list you go.
-
IF Manoli has questions, best to start a new thead with exactly the question ...
There was no IF about it , I even re-quoted the question ..
Do you really think that any of your recent interventions could reasonably be considered a contribution ?
-
Do you really think that any of your recent interventions could reasonably be considered a contribution ?
Absolutely. One of the reasons Mike got here. That's been illustrated within the now 19 pages of text here scattered with the same high T-level comments as those who disagree with me.
-
That's been illustrated within the now 19 pages of text here scattered with the same high T-level comments as those who disagree with me.
Andrew, the best way to deal with Trolls is just to ignore them - they can't keep posting 'against' themselves. I don't think you need a Ph.D to detect them, at least not in this thread ...
-
Andrew, the best way to deal with Trolls is just to ignore them - they can't keep posting 'against' themselves. I don't think you need a Ph.D to detect them, at least not in this thread ...
You're right.
-
I have in fact said that the PS/LR CC deal is good value. There not being any sensible option between that deal and the full CC option is something I think Adobe should address however.
The "deal" for full suite upgraders was that even with the first year discount, over a 6 year period the monthly subscriptions would amount to double what I would have paid had I continued upgrading every version. Run that past me again, Adobe.....
-
Manoli until we hear from Mike, this is about all I can find in terms of EULA and student/educator pruchase. The EEA program is what you're looking for I believe:
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.edu.html:
How can I purchase Creative Cloud applications for my educational institution?
Adobe has launched a new program for education called the Education Enterprise Agreement (EEA). This program will allow term access to the Creative Cloud desktop applications that are essential for faculty, staff and students and is available through authorized channel resellers.
What is the Adobe EEA?
The EEA is a one-year or two-year term-based licensing program that helps primary and secondary schools and higher education institutions minimize the cost and complexity of providing Adobe Creative Cloud desktop applications and other software to their licensed faculty, staff, and students on institutionally owned and leased computers.*
What Creative Cloud desktop apps are available through the EEA?
A subset of CC applications are available via Design & Web HED Collection, Design & Web K12 Collection, and the Adobe Video Collection, plus additional add-ons are available (sold separately). For more information, click here.
For more details about the EEA program, contact your Adobe account executive or your Adobe Authorized Education Reseller.
How do I purchase Creative Cloud apps through EEA?
For more details about the EEA program, contact your Adobe account executive or your Adobe Authorized Education Reseller.
And: http://www.adobe.com/education/students/student-eligibility-guide.edu.html
-
Is JJJ your real name? The problem is that even if someone posts their real name how do the members know it is their real name? ;)
Interesting and good point.
With a name like Englebert Humperdinck, one would have thought it must be real - and yet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbert_Humperdinck_%28singer%29
-
Someone a short while back in another thread, did a breakdown of the costs of moving from the perpetual licence to CC for his small design studio. And it was phenomenally more expensive.
This doesn't surprise me at all - that's what for-profit corporations do to keep generating increasing profits.
(it seems to me) the whole point of their subscription model was to achieve this - not to satisfy everyone.
Only time will tell whether it was a good gamble or not.
Glenn
-
The "deal" for full suite upgraders was that even with the first year discount, over a 6 year period the monthly subscriptions would amount to double what I would have paid had I continued upgrading every version. Run that past me again, Adobe.....
This is where I think Adobe have made an error. By making subscription the only way [one many do not feel comfortable with] and then effectively charging more for using the Master suite this has prevented a much greater uptake than may otherwise has happened. No to mention that many CS users would not even have even been using the master suite as web or production versions would have suited their needs, so an even bigger hike for them.
-
Interesting and good point.
Anonymous posting is the issue, not what name you use and yes there is a distinction. :)
As this has been addressed above.
-
Manoli until we hear from Mike, this is about all I can find in terms of EULA and student/educator pruchase. The EEA program is what you're looking for I believe:
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.edu.html:
And: http://www.adobe.com/education/students/student-eligibility-guide.edu.html
Many thanks, Andrew - MUCH APPRECIATED !
-
Regarding my earlier queries, the first one (a) was answered - yes. The second, (b) - not sure. I've found the the following availability matrix
http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/creativecloud/cc/pdfs/cc-availability-matrix.pdf
It's not clear that if, for example, one was to have a Student (USA) edition licence and was in say, Malta or South Africa - where there is no 'student' edition - would the activation check still work ? **
Out of curiosity, what do the people in Israel, Oman, UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia etc do for Photoshop ? There is no availability for any CC subscription other than CC for teams !
-
Edit:
** .. but you can use the apps in offline mode with a valid software license. The desktop apps will attempt to validate your software licenses every 30 days. For annual members, you can use the apps for up to 99 days in offline mode. Month-to-month members can use the software for up to 30 days in offline mode.
-
This doesn't surprise me at all - that's what for-profit corporations do to keep generating increasing profits.
(it seems to me) the whole point of their subscription model was to achieve this - not to satisfy everyone.
Only time will tell whether it was a good gamble or not.
Nothing wrong with making profits, all in favour of it myself. I certainly do not want Adobe to go bust. :)
But if you are selling software online, you can sell vast amounts more with very little additional cost compared to manufacturing physical products and all the associated costs. So if price was reduced so that many, many more people would buy it then they actually may make more money. The danger for Adobe if they play the long game where people are eventually forced to upgrade to CC as new computers and OSs make them ditch older perpetual versions, then in that time competitors could have moved in and stolen market share. For example FCX may have improved to the point where Premiere defectors may go back to Apple's product and gain new FCP users with Apple's increasing popularity.
If Adobe were to reduce price of CC substantially and get rid of the then less relevant Educational discount, they may get 10-20 million people signing up maybe even more, rather than the current 1.25 million, some of whom have a single or a dual PS/LR licence. A percentage of those who pirate will pay instead. Obviously some will never pay as they are not serious users and only have the software because it is free, so are not potential customers.
-
Regarding my earlier queries, the first one (a) was answered - yes.
fao Mike Chambers
Mike,
I can't find the EULA for the Student/Teacher edition of CC. Could you please confirm whether or not
(a) the licence is the same as the full version, i.e. 2 installations, activated but not used concurrently, computers owned by the licencee.
Sorry, I missed this. Where is the answer? Please cite the link and relevant passage regarding simultaneous use or not, if you would.
-
Sorry, I missed this. Where is the answer? Please cite the link and relevant passage regarding simultaneous use or not, if you would.
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.edu.html#cc-edu
http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/
" Yes, you can install and activate Creative Cloud desktop applications on two computers, regardless of operating system, for the individual associated with the Creative Cloud membership. See the product license agreements page for more information."
not for SIMULTANEOUS use though,
p114 2.1.3/2.1.4 as in CS6 licence
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/legal/licenses-terms/pdf/CS6.pdf
-
Sorry, I missed this. Where is the answer? Please cite the link and relevant passage regarding simultaneous use or not, if you would.
"You can install the software on up to two computers, and if for some reason you change your mind after buying, you can easily return the product within 30 days of purchase to Adobe."
According to this page (http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-cs5-5-student-teacher-editions-education.html) anyway.
-
Does anonymity or notoriety really matter? If you don't like what they say, ignore them.
If you were to click my link stuff, you'd find what is clearly an outdated, "vanity" (because I'm not a pro photog) website that in fact was done mostly as a technical exercise. I've made a few other websites unrelated to photography and one day I'll go back to that one and do something with it. Does it prove who I am or what I am? You can certainly decide to reduce my credibility on the basis that you can't conduct a forensic examination of my portfolio and I would agree with that. It's a factor in credibility, but it's not the entire equation.
A few people here know me well enough to know what I do with my time, but I'm not here to discuss my personal life in detail :-) I think I offer some useful thoughts now and then and I know I've been able to help out some folks, which is great. I've also learned a lot!
Should I be forced to provide a photographic resume in order to participate?
And then there are people who would like to participate but need to keep a low profile for one reason or another - should they be excluded?
Really, I think it's far easier to make a judgement based on what the person says. If they claim specific expertise, then by all means ask for validation or qualification, but otherwise just interact or not as it suits you and don't waste too much time worrying :-)
-
And then there are people who would like to participate but need to keep a low profile for one reason or another - should they be excluded?
Why on Earth would someone need to be anonymous on here?
Really, I think it's far easier to make a judgement based on what the person says. If they claim specific expertise, then by all means ask for validation or qualification, but otherwise just interact or not as it suits you and don't waste too much time worrying :-)
There are people who partake/wind people up and who refuse to even show a single image to prove that they do photography, let alone back up any of their assertions.
It's like people in masks attending a camera club [which fundamentally is what LuLa is in effect] and never showing a single photograph to other members. All whilst being quite vocal and/or controversial at the same time. It's slightly odd behaviour.
This issue came up again due to some comments from anonymous posters that were considered troll like.
-
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.edu.html#cc-edu
http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/
" Yes, you can install and activate Creative Cloud desktop applications on two computers, regardless of operating system, for the individual associated with the Creative Cloud membership. See the product license agreements page for more information."
not for SIMULTANEOUS use though,
p114 2.1.3/2.1.4 as in CS6 licence
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/legal/licenses-terms/pdf/CS6.pdf
Thanks,
I had seen that, but the confusion is that A) the wording is not specific to the Edu version, B) the guy at Live Chat promised me from here to Mars that the Edu version allowed simultaneous use (but couldn't document it), and C) it's silly for a teacher/student license wherein I would like my son and I to be able to use the same software on side-by-side machines (IOW, simultaneously) as teacher and student.
But ultimately, and I'm the first to admit I get lost easily in legalease, it appears these annual and edu offers differ almost solely in price and not by usage.
Hoping Mike Chambers can confirm one way or another...
-
Anonymity just encourages some people to make trolilsh posts, as "Isaac" and "Chez" demonstrate here. Occasionally there's a good reason why someone needs it, but not in general, and it usually produces mistrust.
It's not good enough to ignore someone when it's you they are addressing, Phil, though I agree to some extent. You might not ignore them totally but it's natural to take less care reading their posts and to word your own responses more abruptly. It's like I put it earlier - when someone in a mask comes up to you in a pub, they need to take off the silly mask if they really want a proper conversation.
-
I don't disagree with that concept, John, but I think you can get a good enough look based on what they say. In the online world, it's less common to have personal or business websites to back up a poster. Photography lends itself to such things these days, but by and large you get nothing more than a real name (or what appears to be a real name).
-
Why on Earth would someone need to be anonymous on here?
There are many reasons I can think of. General need to avoid publicity because they have a high public profile and don't want that to get in the way? Imagine if a rockstar or movie star or a President or Prime Minister wanted to participate? Lower levels of the same thing, also apply and are more likely.
Perhaps they are in the industry or related industry in a capacity that would also distract from their personal involvement (i.e. they don't want to have a professional or corporate involvement).
Maybe they have some general issues with being identified - court orders, people they're trying to avoid (for legitimate reasons - family disputes, for example).
That's just the first ones off the top of my head.
If someone's a troll or abusive, report them to the moderators. They're very quick to take action in genuine cases and I think very reasonable in how they take action (gentle warnings, firm warnings, thread locks, bans, etc, all when appropriate and never with an overly harsh approach that I've seen).
So the reasons exist and I don't think we should exclude people just for wanting a little anonymity. Afterall, as I said my site is more a technical exercise - it could easily have just been a mockup - someone could fake a profile with literally minutes of work if that was needed to gain access and they were that keen.
Also, I've seen plenty of "verifiable" folks who really shouldn't be allowed to post anything publically, ever. I'm sure we've all encountered such people!
-
Well, based on what they say, if it appears silly and they also are also wearing a silly mask, I don't think it's unreasonable to give less benefit of the doubt. Sure, Phil, fake real names may be used, but we'd at least have moved in the right direction - the perfect can't be the enemy of the good.
John
-
There are people who partake/wind people up and who refuse to even show a single image to prove that they do photography, let alone back up any of their assertions.
It's like people in masks attending a camera club [which fundamentally is what LuLa is in effect] and never showing a single photograph to other members. All whilst being quite vocal and/or controversial at the same time. It's slightly odd behaviour.
This is a regularly expressed sentiment, and IMO a mistaken one, although understandable. LuLa is, both expressly and in practice, a site and a forum for people who are interested in photography. There are lots of different ways of being interested in photography (as there are of being interested in the other arts) in addition to practising it and posting the results. Some forum members post photographs, others not. For all I know some take photographs, others not. It would be interesting to know the proportions. All of these categories include people who enjoy, or maybe who can't help, delivering wind ups. LuLa isn't a camera club, "fundamentally" or "in effect" or in any other way except in the dreams of a few people who have been on the receiving end of a wind up from someone who doesn't post photographs and can't think of a better response or have lost interest in the game. But in the end we should surely be taking both posts and photographs on their intrinsic merits rather than judging either on the basis of other information we may have about their authors. This is a basic requirement for productive discussion in this or any other forum.
-
Conclusion to the horror story about my friend's PS CC update problems first reported here two weeks ago.
Summary:
Photoshop stopped functioning after the installation of the last PS CC (14.2) update
Numerous attempts to uninstall, reinstall PS CC, graphics card firmware, software drivers
Chatted for hours with Adobe support, researched Adobe forums, contacted Mike Chambers, finally the problem was escalated to a technician in India who remotely took control of the computer for troubleshooting. Then the ticket was re-escalated to a higher level. No help and no progress after all that.
More attempts:
re-installed PS CC with firewall disabled
re-linked to Creative Cloud
uninstalled all traces of third party plugins (including Nik, Topaz, OnOne)
ran DriverRestore
ran Nvidia software (checks update status)
ran AVG thorough scan
ran CCleaner advanced scan
ran Malwarebytes
ran Hitman Pro
FixCleaner did a report
Still no luck. Same behaviour on that one program.
"Finally, after two weeks of living without the Photoshop, re-installed PS CS6 and it runs fine, so I'll live with that until Adobe finds a way to fix my PS CC 14.2."
I assume that most PS CC users haven't experienced these problems. However, judging by the wait time for Adobe support, I doubt that he is the only one with similar problems.
-
Nothing wrong with making profits, all in favour of it myself. I certainly do not want Adobe to go bust. :)
But if you are selling software online, you can sell vast amounts more with very little additional cost compared to manufacturing physical products and all the associated costs. So if price was reduced so that many, many more people would buy it then they actually may make more money. The danger for Adobe if they play the long game where people are eventually forced to upgrade to CC as new computers and OSs make them ditch older perpetual versions, then in that time competitors could have moved in and stolen market share. For example FCX may have improved to the point where Premiere defectors may go back to Apple's product and gain new FCP users with Apple's increasing popularity.
If Adobe were to reduce price of CC substantially and get rid of the then less relevant Educational discount, they may get 10-20 million people signing up maybe even more, rather than the current 1.25 million, some of whom have a single or a dual PS/LR licence. A percentage of those who pirate will pay instead. Obviously some will never pay as they are not serious users and only have the software because it is free, so are not potential customers.
I'm quite sure that the bean-counters have been through this many times, and large corporations are managed/run by bean-counters. Sadly that's the way it is. We simply cannot know the inner financial details nor can we know what effect lowering the cost of the subscription model would have on profits - it's conjecture to suggest that would improve profitability.
The of directors of publicly owned/controlled corporations have a legal obligation to maximize profits to the shareholders. There are numerous companies in which directors and/or the CEO have been turfed out at stockholder meetings.
OTOH, companies that are privately owned/controlled can be very different - some even have a conscience and act as though their primary goal is to provide service, maximizing profit being secondary!!
For ten years I worked for a large (and excellent) engineering company that was employee owned. When it went public, the attitude and focus changed from one of providing good professional engineering services to that of making more and more profit. Might I add that the reputation and ability of the company has been slowly sinking since it went public?
I now work on my own for my own clients.
Glenn
-
I assume that most PS CC users haven't experienced these problems. However, judging by the wait time for Adobe support, I doubt that he is the only one with similar problems.
Maybe, but maybe not. Sometimes delayed responses for support and technical issues is actually because they can't replicate it and don't have many other examples to draw on to look for clues.
-
Start to edit, realises new tools in CC that you had planned to use for shoot don't exist and then have to do things the old way and start to run out of time.
Meanwhile client is on phone trying to find a photographer who actually has some working software on his laptop unlike the one swearing at computer in front of him.
What tools would that be? I have looked at the upgrade.
http://prodesigntools.com/compare-versions-differences-adobe-cs6-vs-cc.html
I don't see much difference. The new New Camera Shake Reduction isn't recommended because it has some way to go and I wouldn't expect a Pro to have need of it. Smart Sharpen can be replicated with other methods.
Meant to reply to this earlier Stamper, but completely forget until I came across something that reminded me of this post.
Every version of PS I have ever used has been better and faster to work with than the previous version and it's not usually for the headline features. The JDIs [just do it tweaks] are where little details get fixed and sometimes they are enormous timesavers if they fixed something germane to yourself. Unfortunately I tend to forget when new tools and tweaks appear as I may be running two versions of PS so it all kind of merges after a while.
But there was a CC update to smart objects in January which gives one the option of embedding or linking the SO you are placing. This is very useful as both options are incredibly handy and you can now choose the most suitable one to use. And if you do not use Smart Objects [or smart filters] in PS, then you really should. They were introduced a fair while back and are the backbone of how I now use PS because SOs can save incredible amounts of time. But many people still haven't discovered them it seems. There was an update to the Colour Select Tool last Sept which gives you sliders for adjusting the highlight selection, which allows one to quickly and easily select highlights. A little tweak but one that can save loads of time.
All these little details [and there can be an awful lot of them] are things you may well use without noticing and which can markedly speed up your workflow. It is only when you go back to your old version that you really notice the difference they make.
Oh and a big tweak to CC is the ability to use ACR inside PS as a filter very , very useful stuff.
-
Thanks,
I had seen that, but the confusion is that A) the wording is not specific to the Edu version, B) the guy at Live Chat promised me from here to Mars that the Edu version allowed simultaneous use (but couldn't document it), and C) it's silly for a teacher/student license wherein I would like my son and I to be able to use the same software on side-by-side machines (IOW, simultaneously) as teacher and student.
But ultimately, and I'm the first to admit I get lost easily in legalease, it appears these annual and edu offers differ almost solely in price and not by usage.
Hoping Mike Chambers can confirm one way or another...
Is there somewhere to get a definitive answer to to whether two machines can use the student/teacher license simultaneously? Live Chat says yes, the individual or general EULA says no, and Mike Chambers hasn't responded to the several requests.
-
I just asked a colleague who uses Education version at his school and he can use each licence on two machines.
BUT, he has the group version of CC which has more cloud storage, not sure if that affects dual [laptop/desktop] install.
-
Is there somewhere to get a definitive answer to to whether two machines can use the student/teacher license simultaneously? Live Chat says yes, the individual or general EULA says no, and Mike Chambers hasn't responded to the several requests.
There is a 30 day money back guarantee. It might be quicker to just try it and find out on your own and request a refund if you aren't satisfied.
http://www.adobe.com/store/en_us/popup/offer/na_edu_join_risk_free.html?promoid=KHNCC
-
I appreciate your suggestion, tuthill. But with the silly, nontransparent monthly authorization/data mining process, even on prepaid annual accounts, wherein you don't know when it will activate, and can't force it to when you want to, I can envision a scenario where it takes past the 30 day trial period before it tries to activate precisely when it's in simultaneous use, and that's when we discover it's not allowed.
I'm fine with CS6 for my own use. I'm interested in the CC suite for my kid to give his interest in video graphics a boost, but between Apple's reasonable prices and Cinema 4D, which has a free program for students, I'll give him those to work with this year, and give Adobe another year or more to make better sense of this stuff.
-
The "two machine" licence, as I have understood it, has always been to allow ONE user to install it on two machines, typically a desktop and a laptop, and not to enable multiple users to have access. This is typical across many industries and software packages.
-
The "two machine" licence, as I have understood it, has always been to allow ONE user to install it on two machines, typically a desktop and a laptop, and not to enable multiple users to have access. This is typical across many industries and software packages.
I consistently use PSCC on two computers simultaneously. And when I use it on a third computer, I simply logout from CC on one computer (disabling any Adobe product on it) and login to CC on the third and I'm good to go. And yes, all machines need to have active internet connections.
-
I do the same as Chris,
works fine
Henrik
I consistently use PSCC on two computers simultaneously. And when I use it on a third computer, I simply logout from CC on one computer (disabling any Adobe product on it) and login to CC on the third and I'm good to go. And yes, all machines need to have active internet connections.
-
Indeed, but the purpose and the licence is for one user to be doing that, not two different users, as I understand it.
-
The Adobe forums have dozens of posts by users with responses by Adobe staff. Here's an example (http://forums.adobe.com/message/5343415#5343415).
-
Yes, you can use Creative Cloud desktop applications on two computers at once, regardless of operating system, for the individual associated with the Creative Cloud membership.
From Chris' link.
-
Note people are asking about the educational version of CC, not the usual version that everyone knows will run on 2 machines.
There seems to be a lack of clarity on this particular option.
-
So much conflicting info, nothing authoritative.
Not complaining about everyone's efforts to help; I appreciate it immensely. I'm complaining about the difficulty in getting something definitive from Adobe.
My sense is you're not supposed to do it, but you can until they tell you you can't. But who wants to pay and feel like they're hacking? If I'm allowed to I will, if I'm not then it's not for me.
-
What's not authoritative? We're not talking about volume licensing or CC for educational institutions, right? Just the discount for teachers and students? Same product, big discount. There's nothing to suggest it has a different licence - it's just the pricing that has qualifiers.
-
What's not authoritative? We're not talking about volume licensing or CC for educational institutions, right? Just the discount for teachers and students? Same product, big discount. There's nothing to suggest it has a different licence - it's just the pricing that has qualifiers.
You posted this, presumably from an Adobe rep:
Yes, you can use Creative Cloud desktop applications on two computers at once, regardless of operating system, for the individual associated with the Creative Cloud membership.
And the EULA says this:
2.1.3 Portable or Home Computer Use. Subject to the restrictions set forth in Section 2.1.4, the primary user of the Computer on which the Software is installed under Section 2.1 (“Primary User”) may install a second copy of the Software for his or her exclusive use on either a portable Computer or a Computer located at his or her home, provided that the Software on the portable or home Computer is not used at the same time as the Software on the primary Computer.
So please tell me, what is authoritative?
-
They're practically (and by that I don't mean "nearly") the same. You can only effectively use one computer at a time, even if in theory one of them might be processing something while you use the other.
-
That doesn't sound like what you quoted: two computers using it "at once", and "I consistently use PSCC on two computers simultaneously". It sounds like you are now trying to authoritatively change your position on what's authoritative. ;)
Which is understandable considering the conflicting information out there. (I'll remind that Adobe Chat has told me in no uncertain terms (not "practically" or "nearly") that simultaneous usage IS allowed.)
-
Not at all. The Licence is clear. Adobe also obviously don't care if you somehow physical use both at precisely the same time, so long as it's just ONE PERSON doing it. They don't want your second installation being used by someone else.
-
Adobe also obviously don't care if you somehow physical use both at precisely the same time, so long as it's just ONE PERSON doing it. They don't want your second installation being used by someone else.
I agree with this, and is how I use the software. And if an assistant is working in Adobe software on one workstation (owned by me) while I putter on another (owned by me), the EULA benchmark has not been breached. Especially if the results from the software use are produced under the auspices of my business.
I have talked with many people who want to skirt the EULA and install copies on their wive's computer, or a friend's computer, for any number of reasons. The most common being "he helps me with retouching sometimes, and if he wants to use it for his own work, fine with me". To me, this is no different than someone appropriating an image—without paying—for their own use. It's wrong. Is it done? Yes, but that don't make it right.
-
I'm confused, so tell me, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? :-\
-
Incidentally:
LuLa is, both expressly and in practice, a site and a forum for people who are interested in photography. There are lots of different ways of being interested in photography (as there are of being interested in the other arts) in addition to practising it and posting the results. Some forum members post photographs, others not. For all I know some take photographs, others not. It would be interesting to know the proportions. All of these categories include people who enjoy, or maybe who can't help, delivering wind ups. LuLa isn't a camera club, "fundamentally" or "in effect" or in any other way except in the dreams of a few people who have been on the receiving end of a wind up from someone who doesn't post photographs and can't think of a better response or have lost interest in the game. But in the end we should surely be taking both posts and photographs on their intrinsic merits rather than judging either on the basis of other information we may have about their authors. This is a basic requirement for productive discussion in this or any other forum.
: reason is unlikely to persuade someone to change an opinion they did not arrive at through the use of reason. (With apologies to whichever of the Huxleys made that observation. I can't find the quote.)
-
Not at all. The Licence is clear. Adobe also obviously don't care if you somehow physical use both at precisely the same time, so long as it's just ONE PERSON doing it. They don't want your second installation being used by someone else.
Listen, I love your interpretation. Unfortunately it's inconsistent with what the EULA expressly states:
"2.1.3 Portable or Home Computer Use. Subject to the restrictions set forth in Section 2.1.4, the primary user of the Computer on which the Software is installed under Section 2.1 (“Primary User”) may install a second copy of the Software for his or her exclusive use on either a portable Computer or a Computer located at his or her home, provided that the Software on the portable or home Computer is not used at the same time as the Software on the primary Computer."
It clearly states the primary user can have it on two computers, they simply can't use it on the two computers at the same time. One user, one computer at a time.
Personally I think that makes a lot of sense for an individual user. I just don't think it makes as much sense for a student/teacher user.
But I get that I could probably get away with it, in defiance of the EULA.
-
This is a regularly expressed sentiment, and IMO a mistaken one, although understandable. LuLa is, both expressly and in practice, a site and a forum for people who are interested in photography. There are lots of different ways of being interested in photography (as there are of being interested in the other arts) in addition to practising it and posting the results. Some forum members post photographs, others not. For all I know some take photographs, others not. It would be interesting to know the proportions. All of these categories include people who enjoy, or maybe who can't help, delivering wind ups. LuLa isn't a camera club, "fundamentally" or "in effect" or in any other way except in the dreams of a few people who have been on the receiving end of a wind up from someone who doesn't post photographs and can't think of a better response or have lost interest in the game.
Utter nonsense, LuLa reminds me very, very much of the camera clubs I attended whilst at school and more recently when giving talks. And thinking that has nada to with trolling posters. The fact that LuLa is online doesn't get away from the fact that it's simply a way for a bunch of people to gather together to chat about their passion for photography/cameras, show photos and read some interesting essays rather than listen to talks. Heck LuLa even organises photography trips just like camera clubs do. :)
Are you going to argue that digital image capture is not photography next?
-
Incidentally:
: reason is unlikely to persuade someone to change an opinion they did not arrive at through the use of reason. (With apologies to whichever of the Huxleys made that observation. I can't find the quote.)
More trolling nonsense Isaac and your tedious quoting of others simply shows how little you have to say for yourself.
Insinuating that opinions you do not agree with, must have to come to existence without reasoning is a frankly a bit dumb and almost the quintessential troll comment.
I have said why I think LuLa is like a camera club. Can you offer anything rational to counter that?
-
Utter nonsense, LuLa reminds me very, very much of the camera clubs I attended whilst at school and more recently when giving talks. And thinking that has nada to with trolling posters. The fact that LuLa is online doesn't get away from the fact that it's simply a way for a bunch of people to gather together to chat about their passion for photography/cameras, show photos and read some interesting essays rather than listen to talks. Heck LuLa even organises photography trips just like camera clubs do. :)
Are you going to argue that digital image capture is not photography next?
Not so, that is simply how you use the site, and that is fine, but the site is not only what you make of it and wasn't made only for you. Other people use it differently - ie, don't do the "show photos" bit which is surely the essence of camera clubs - and that is also fine.
Nice point about the photography trips, though. There probably is a camera club somewhere that that goes to the Antarctic for $15000.
I am not sure why you would imagine that I would think that digital image capture is not photography. Certainly nothing in my post warrants that supposition (Just worked that one out :)). To expand my core point, I would argue that "show us your photographs" is in logic a weak answer to any Lula post other than one maintaining that the poster is a master photographer - and since such posts are rare, it is almost always a weak answer.
-
Not so, that is simply how you use the site, and that is fine, but the site is not only what you make of it and wasn't made only for you. Other people use it differently - ie, don't do the "show photos" bit which is surely the essence of camera clubs - and that is also fine.
A camera club is simply a forum for people who have an interest in photography to get together and discuss their shared interest. Which is the same as an online forum where people who have an interest in photography get together and discuss their shared interest. The location for the congress is not at all important and exactly how they discuss their shared interest is not really relevant either. Some people do not as you rightly say show photos here and that's only because they can be anonymous and carry on regardless. That somewhat odd behaviour would be regarded as a bit suspicious in real world, so why is it OK here.
The difference that I'm objecting to, anonymous people hanging around who may not be photographers as no photographs are ever displayed, are now the reason you claim this is somehow not like a camera club. Which is somewhat absurd logic really.
Nice point about the photography trips, though. There probably is a camera club somewhere that that goes to the Antarctic for $15000.
You seem to be a very literal person. If something is not exactly the same, then it must therefore be completely different.
The price of the trip and the location are not relevant. The fact that a bunch of photographers are going somewhere to take photos as arranged by folks from their forum is.
I would argue that "show us your photographs" is in logic a weak answer to any Lula post other than one maintaining that the poster is a master photographer - and since such posts are rare, it is almost always a weak answer.
Again with being very literal and missing the point. It's not about being a master photographer, it's about being a photographer at all if pontificating about photographic matters and particularly if engaging in trolling behaviour.
I have zero issue with people having a different opinion or anything, I welcome it. But unsubstantiated rubbish is, well rubbish.
Plus as John correctly pointed out above, those who tend to come out with the most rubbish are usually hiding themselves away behind their keyboards with their masks on.
-
A camera club is simply a forum for people who have an interest in photography to get together and discuss their shared interest.
But it depends if they are photographing dust in slot canyons, grizzlies, or pretty women.
-
A camera club is simply a forum for people who have an interest in photography to get together and discuss their shared interest.
But it depends if they are photographing dust in slot canyons, grizzlies, or pretty women.
Except it does not.
-
Seems to be thread locking time.
-
Seems to be thread locking time.
Lock this thread and they'll just start over in a different thread.
Apparently some still find enjoyment in calling other people names -- apart from photographer ;-)
-
Some people do not as you rightly say show photos here and that's only because they can be anonymous and carry on regardless.
There we disagree. People may have all sorts of reasons for not showing photos. They may not take any, or they may be modest about the merits of their work, but may still have an informed interest in photography (say as an art form or a historical or social phenomenon) and hence have something to contribute to the forum, which I take to be for people who are interested in photography rather than just for people who take photographs.
Compare, for example, a forum for people who love music - whether or not posters could hold a tune would be relevant only in a narrow set of circumstances.
The difference that I'm objecting to, anonymous people hanging around who may not be photographers as no photographs are ever displayed, are now the reason you claim this is somehow not like a camera club. Which is somewhat absurd logic really.
Same point as above. You have an argument with a particular person, but there are plenty of other people who don't post photographs (some of them anonymous, others not). What I am saying that Lula differs from a camera club in a way which makes not posting photographs acceptable behaviour rather than odd or suspicious, as you seem to think. Anonymity is a separate question. I prefer to use my own name (and I post the occasional image) but I accept that others may have good reasons for not doing either and still have something interesting to say.
You seem to be a very literal person. If something is not exactly the same, then it must therefore be completely different.
The price of the trip and the location are not relevant. The fact that a bunch of photographers are going somewhere to take photos as arranged by folks from their forum is.
I took your observation about trips to be humorous - it certainly made me smile - and I was attempting, unsuccessfully it seems, to reply in the same vein - so I accept full responsibility for the fact that you completely misunderstood what I was saying :). I was agreeing that one of the points in common between Lula and camera clubs is that both arrange trips, smiling at the idea of a camera club arranging a $15,000 trip to Antarctica, but then reflecting that it probably has happened, or will happen. Why not, after all? I am sure there are travel agents who could organise it all for the club.
Again with being very literal and missing the point. It's not about being a master photographer, it's about being a photographer at all if pontificating about photographic matters and particularly if engaging in trolling behaviour.
Pontificating and trolling don't strike me as any less objectionable because the poster takes and shows photographs or more objectionable because he or she does not. Pontificating is pontificating, trolling is trolling. Posts should be judged on their own merits. Asking to see a person's photographs (in a combative rather than a friendly way) is a relevant comment only if the person has made some claim about the merits of those photographs. It is certainly irrelevant if the subject of the discussion is how Adobe's subscription service is working out, and, IMO, equally irrelevant in most of the other circumstances in which it is made on the forum.
... those who tend to come out with the most rubbish are usually hiding themselves away behind their keyboards with their masks on.
Again, I think you are generalising illegitimately from your negative view of a particular individual. Or have you done a survey of Lula members who don't post photographs and/or don't use their own name? If you have, the results would be genuinely interesting - or maybe someone else has some information, eg on what proportion of people who post also show their images.
As for the subscription service, I have come round to it. $10 a month strikes me as a good deal, and I seem to have been fortunate in having no software problems. But I take nothing for granted and won't be throwing away my old "perpetual licences".
-
Pontificating and trolling don't strike me as any less objectionable because the poster takes and shows photographs or more objectionable because he or she does not. Pontificating is pontificating, trolling is trolling. Posts should be judged on their own merits. Asking to see a person's photographs (in a combative rather than a friendly way) is a relevant comment only if the person has made some claim about the merits of those photographs. It is certainly irrelevant if the subject of the discussion is how Adobe's subscription service is working out, and, IMO, equally irrelevant in most of the other circumstances in which it is made on the forum.
Bang on Ken.
The problem here is not anonymity or failure to show photographs, it's what people post.
No one cares if a new id arrives and is helpful and constructive in what they write. A problem only arises when someone is antagonistic, troublesome and has nothing to offer.
-
The problem here is not anonymity or failure to show photographs, it's what people post... A problem only arises when someone is antagonistic, troublesome and has nothing to offer.
Anonymity facilitates and encourages antagonistic posts - as evidenced by two individuals in this thread. If people hide behind a mask, they can't be surprised if their opinions count for less or if they get sharp-tongued responses.
-
If people hide behind a mask
Any id can be a mask, there's never any verification of identities on internet forums.
An anonymous person can be hugely helpful. While some credible identifiable ids can be spiteful and offensive.
It's just about the quality of posts.
-
Anonymity facilitates and encourages antagonistic posts - as evidenced by two individuals in this thread. If people hide behind a mask, they can't be surprised if their opinions count for less or if they get sharp-tongued responses.
John I recently noticed that you changed your LULA identity from John Beardy to John Beardsworth. Which is your correct identity? Does the fact that you used Beardy give the members the right to.
If people hide behind a mask, they can't be surprised if their opinions count for less or if they get sharp-tongued responses.
dismiss your previous comments? :-\
-
Any id can be a mask, there's never any verification of identities on internet forums.
Things can't be perfect, but that shouldn't prevent progress.
An anonymous person can be hugely helpful. While some credible identifiable ids can be spiteful and offensive.
It's just about the quality of posts.
Exactly, it's the quality of posts. I've no big problem with people who do genuinely need to hide their identity, but those who hide behind pseudonyms are more likely to make trollish posts, as shown here and elsewhere. If someone comes into a pub wearing a face mask, they can't be surprised if others treat them with suspicion and less respectfully.
-
If someone comes into a pub wearing a face mask, they can't be surprised if others treat them with suspicion and less respectfully.
This isn't a pub, it's the internet. Different rules and standards apply.
-
John I recently noticed that you changed your LULA identity from John Beardy to John Beardsworth. Which is your correct identity? Does the fact that you used Beardy give the members the right to.
If people hide behind a mask, they can't be surprised if their opinions count for less or if they get sharp-tongued responses.
dismiss your previous comments? :-\
Do you really not understand the difference between a pseudonym and anonymity? Do you not grasp that the phrases "hiding behind a mask" or "hiding behind a pseudonym" include the word "hiding"?
Was I hiding my identity when I used the pseudonym? Er, no. Was anyone in doubt about my correct identity? Doh, no.
You've made the same inane point before. May I recommend investing in a dictionary and working harder at your reading comprehension skills?
John
-
John your analogy isn't very useful? You will be aware of the phrase...barefaced liars? No reference to you. :) I have four email addresses with different names. Depending on which one I use to register to a forum then it will mean a different name is being used. There is no way of finding out - unless you are an IT expert - which is the real me. ;)
-
This isn't a pub, it's the internet. Different rules and standards apply.
Sure, it's not a pub. But the analogy is true here. When someone hides their identity, they can't be surprised if others treat them with suspicion and less respectfully.
-
With respect, there is nothing anonymous about John Beardsworth.
He is active on several forums using his full name.
The fact that he has recently decided to change his handle to his full name is to be commended.
He also has a website and blog and is the author of a book or two.
It is very easy to verify who he is and the consistency of his posting.
Maybe this comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek but there is no doubt that anonymity on any forum does encourage bad behaviour.
I really value the fact, that despite the option of staying anonymous, I have got to know at least some members of this forum and them me.
I have had one or two sharp disagreements on this forum but have always, with one possible exception, settled any issues amicably, and probably made a friend or two in the bargain (the limits of communicating on a forum such as this accepted).
Tony Jay
-
Do you really not understand the difference between a pseudonym and anonymity? Do you not grasp that the phrases "hiding behind a mask" or "hiding behind a pseudonym" include the word "hiding"?
Was I hiding my identity when I used the pseudonym? Er, no. Was anyone in doubt about my correct identity? Doh, no.
You've made the same inane point before. May I recommend investing in a dictionary and working harder at your reading comprehension skills?
John
John your bluster doesn't work. If you weren't hiding your identity why did you use the pseudonym Beardy and why did you change it to your "real" name? Please answer the question if you want your posts to be taken seriously.
-
John your analogy isn't very useful? You will be aware of the phrase...barefaced liars? No reference to you. :) I have four email addresses with different names. Depending on which one I use to register to a forum then it will mean a different name is being used. There is no way of finding out - unless you are an IT expert - which is the real me. ;)
I genuinely don't get what you mean about barefaced liars, but there's a phrase about hiding in plain sight (I'm thinking of Savile and Stuart Hall). Sure, someone who doesn't appear to hide their identity may have bad intentions, but someone who does hide their identity attracts much more suspicion and disrespect - eg women in burkas.
-
With respect, there is nothing anonymous about John Beardsworth.
He is active on several forums using his full name.
The fact that he has recently decided to change his handle to his full name is to be commended.
He also has a website and blog and is the author of a book or two.
It is very easy to verify who he is and the consistency of his posting.
Maybe this comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek but there is no doubt that anonymity on any forum does encourage bad behaviour.
I really value the fact, that despite the option of staying anonymous, I have got to know at least some members of this forum and them me.
I have had one or two sharp disagreements on this forum but have always, with one possible exception, settled any issues amicably, and probably made a friend or two in the bargain (the limits of communicating on a forum such as this accepted).
Tony Jay
Tony the fact that he uses the name extensively doesn't prove he is John Beardsworth any more than you are Tony Jay. None of this is personal. I am merely pointing out that finding out someone's real name on an internet forum is very difficult - or impossible - and futile. I feel that John was being disingenuous in attacking others whilst using two different names, one of which has been changed. :)
-
I genuinely don't get what you mean about barefaced liars, but there's a phrase about hiding in plain sight (I'm thinking of Savile and Stuart Hall). Sure, someone who doesn't appear to hide their identity may have bad intentions, but someone who does hide their identity attracts much more suspicion and disrespect - eg women in burkas.
Again I ask the question how does someone "prove " their identity online. BTW the authors of books routinely use different names from their real ones. This issue about identities isn't going anywhere and people banging on about it are wasting their time. :(
-
How forensic do you want to get?
With the information available from the net I could get on a plane to the UK and knock on the door to John's office in a couple of days.
Is this not getting a little silly now?
Ellis made the point earlier - time to shut this thread down.
Tony Jay
-
John your bluster doesn't work. If you weren't hiding your identity why did you use the pseudonym Beardy and why did you change it to your "real" name? Please answer the question if you want your posts to be taken seriously.
I was simply bored of it. But it's irrelevant as I never hid (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hide) behind it - there has always been a signature and profile.
So now it's your turn - convince everyone you're not allergic to dictionaries (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dictionaries).
-
How forensic do you want to get?
With the information available from the net I could get on a plane to the UK and knock on the door to John's office in a couple of days.
Unquote
And you might find he is really Mrs Beardsworth...a transvestite? ;) ;D ;D ;D
-
I was simply bored of it. But it's irrelevant as I never hid (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hide) behind it - there has always been a signature and profile.
So now it's your turn - convince everyone you're not allergic to dictionaries (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dictionaries).
What is in a dictionary? ;)
-
I feel that John was being disingenuous in attacking others whilst using two different names, one of which has been changed. :)
BS. I attacked others for hiding their identity behind pseudonyms, which I never did. Have you any O levels?
-
John your Reply #534
Anonymity facilitates and encourages antagonistic posts - as evidenced by two individuals in this thread. If people hide behind a mask, they can't be surprised if their opinions count for less or if they get sharp-tongued responses.
I think you memory is failing you?
-
Please explain your question. Note I used the h-word again.
-
Anonymity facilitates and encourages antagonistic posts...
That may be true, although I would want more evidence than two examples on a thread. But anonymous posters, and posters not using their real name, aren't necessarily antagonistic or, IMO, in fact significantly more antagonistic than posters using their real names. I just don't see the problem as significant enough to warrant the administrative nightmare of trying to enforce real names. And as to taking people seriously, what I take seriously (or not) are posts, on their merits. I may have positive or negative expectations based on what I know of the poster, but only up until the point where I start reading - then all bets are off.
-
There are plenty of examples, Ken, and I only need whisper "dpreview" or our "deejaaa" who now hides behind another pseudonym. And yes, obviously, one begins by reading what's said, but when you see the same trollish contributions and from the same anonymous poster, it's a matter of it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck....
I used to moderate one forum (Peter Krogh's DAM Book) where we allowed anonymity only by exception and insisted on posters addressing each other by name. The latter was at Peter's insistence, not mine, but I came to think it worked well. Would it be a bad thing here?
John
-
Bang on Ken.
The problem here is not anonymity or failure to show photographs, it's what people post.
No one cares if a new id arrives and is helpful and constructive in what they write. A problem only arises when someone is antagonistic, troublesome and has nothing to offer.
Again, I think you are generalising illegitimately from your negative view of a particular individual. Or have you done a survey of Lula members who don't post photographs and/or don't use their own name? If you have, the results would be genuinely interesting - or maybe someone else has some information, eg on what proportion of people who post also show their images.
No not generalising from an individual. It's an observation based on nearly twenty years of being online and living in the real world. People who hide behind masks are more likely to be shit stirrers.
It's basic human behaviour. Not counting people who hide their ID because of persecution, that's self defence.
People who hide their identity are usually the crazy ones or come out with unsubstantiated rubbish in posts.
On a similar note, people's real nature can be revealed when they drive as they feel invisible/invulnerable with a big steel cage around them. And they will behave in ways they never would in normal company.
-
Some people seem to be struggling with the difference between nicknames/alternative versions of their names and anonymity.
They are two very different things.
I use a nickname, but am anything but anonymous as I link to my work and contact details in my signature and profile.
In the real world I am called by variations of my name or nicknames, all depending on where we met/context etc. I am no more or less anonymous if someone calls me jjj in the real world as online.
-
Sure, it's not a pub. But the analogy is true here. When someone hides their identity, they can't be surprised if others treat them with suspicion and less respectfully.
I agree with this, and add that, unfortunately, rude persons, using grog anonymity as an excuse for their boorish behavior, cannot be tossed out on their ear.
-
That may be true, although I would want more evidence than two examples on a thread.
Try all of the internet. Chock full of examples there.
But anonymous posters, and posters not using their real name, aren't necessarily antagonistic or, IMO, in fact significantly more antagonistic than posters using their real names.
Except that is so not the case. People whose identities are known tend to be more civil. LuLa generally speaking is one of the more civilised parts on the online world, but if people are trolling it's usually under cover.
I just don't see the problem as significant enough to warrant the administrative nightmare of trying to enforce real names.
It's not about real names. It's about not being anonymous. An online portfolio of your work can be your identity. It gives context to your posts, for example….
There was an argument about something technical in another thread a few days back and someone posted that he had proof of his assertion as he had photos. But why not simply post them? Particularly as he was calling someone's else's bluff at the time about ever having used said camera.
-
I used to moderate one forum (Peter Krogh's DAM Book) where we allowed anonymity only by exception and insisted on posters addressing each other by name. The latter was at Peter's insistence, not mine, but I came to think it worked well. Would it be a bad thing here?
John
Mmmm, maybe not. Oh dear. I find myself in danger of being persuaded, by reasoned argument, to change my mind. That must be what you get by going on the internet this early in the morning.
-
Here's my rule of thumb, developed over the 25 years I've been using public network message boards (BBS for those who remember them) and the 23 years I've been using the internet (before the web).
Just read what someone says. Don't worry about who they say they are or who they actually are. If it's worth reading, great, if it's not, that's a shame. If it's constantly not worth reading, then stop reading them.
In the universe as a whole, compound interest is the most powerful force but in cyberspace /ignore is the most powerful force available to you - it's usually even more powerful than /ban (although that has its place). The problem is, most of us find it extremely difficult to invoke because the opposing force of /lastword is nearly as strong :-)
-
I have several people hidden because of their constant stupidity/inability to read posts. But it would be nice if we did not have to do that.
-
In real life we tend to avoid certain people, and we interact with relatively few compared to the internet. It's bound to happen.
"Do not be excessively annoying. Do not be too easily excessively annoyed". Fidonet. eRules to eLive by.
-
The thing I really like about Facebook [in comparison to forums] is that it's basically a nice place to be, because only people I think are worth befriending get added. Nearly all are people I have met in meat space, plus a very few others who I've interacted with in a positive way via other FB friends. I spent a lot less time on forums with numpties posting nonsense as a result.
I also never understood people's moaning about stupid posts on FB, as they are only a reflection of the people you choose to hang out with.
-
Sorry for not addressing any of the issues on the last 3 pages.
Just wanted to announce that my friend who had problems with the latest PS CC update, finally got his problem resolved with the assistance of a friendly and knowledgeable Adobe troubleshooter from India. According to this PS CC subscriber, the final troubleshooting session took 3 hours and a radical system surgery. That's not counting over 100 hours of prior attempts to get it going and suffering withdrawal symptoms of living for 3 weeks without PS.
-
Just wanted to announce that my friend who had problems with the latest PS CC update, finally got his problem resolved with the assistance of a friendly and knowledgeable Adobe troubleshooter from India. According to this PS CC subscriber, the final troubleshooting session took 3 hours and a radical system surgery. That's not counting over 100 hours of prior attempts to get it going and suffering withdrawal symptoms of living for 3 weeks without PS.
Yikes that is not good. Having the problem, not solving it that is.
But did you friend/Adobe determine the actual cause of the problem?
-
In real life we tend to avoid certain people, and we interact with relatively few compared to the internet. It's bound to happen.
"Do not be excessively annoying. Do not be too easily excessively annoyed". Fidonet. eRules to eLive by.
To return to this point, sadly of late LuLa seems to have more people than ever who are too lazy to read posts/post gibberish. I hope it doesn't get like other places where the numpties chase everyone else out with their wilful ignorance. :(
-
Yikes that is not good. Having the problem, not solving it that is.
But did you friend/Adobe determine the actual cause of the problem?
I don't know what was the actual rescue trick, and I have a such a feeling that maybe even he doesn't know. It's conceivable that even the Adobe troubleshooter doesn't know which lucky operation solved the problem.
In my previous posts I showed a long list of standard recovery procedures they attempted before without any success.
I suspect that this time, they just kept on deleting programs, drivers, registry entries, and other files until they struck the corrupted file that was missed by the Adobe uninstall program.
-
I don't know what was the actual rescue trick, and I have a such a feeling that maybe even he doesn't know.
Upgrading any complex software can lead to problems, whether it be the OS or a huge application like Photoshop and friends. What compounds the problem with the CC model is the need to re-download the installers every time. I wish there was a way to archive the installer locally for use at a later date.
-
Upgrading any complex software can lead to problems, whether it be the OS or a huge application like Photoshop and friends. What compounds the problem with the CC model is the need to re-download the installers every time. I wish there was a way to archive the installer locally for use at a later date.
You can right here.
http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-cc-direct-download-links.html
-
You can right here.
http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-cc-direct-download-links.html
Tried it and all it did was open the Creative Cloud app with no option to actually download as Photoshop CC is already installed:-( Am I missing something?
-
The problem is, most of us find it extremely difficult to invoke because the opposing force of /lastword is nearly as strong :-)
Point well taken. It reminds me of a cartoon where the guy's wife says, "honey, come to bed", and he replies, "I can't - someone on the internet is wrong".
Yours anonymously,
Glenn NK
-
Tried it and all it did was open the Creative Cloud app with no option to actually download as Photoshop CC is already installed:-( Am I missing something?
All Creative Cloud Updates for Windows
http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-cc-updates-direct-links-windows.html
All Creative Cloud Updates for Mac OS
http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-cc-updates-direct-links-mac.html
-
All Creative Cloud Updates for Windows
http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-cc-updates-direct-links-windows.html
All Creative Cloud Updates for Mac OS
http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-cc-updates-direct-links-mac.html
Okay, got it figured out. Thanks for the link Doyle.
-
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/03/05/philadelphia-judge-issues-ruling-that-could-give-anonymous-online-commenters-second-thoughts/
Thought that might interest some folks here :-)
-
Good ruling. People should be willing to take responsibility for what they say or do.
-
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/03/05/philadelphia-judge-issues-ruling-that-could-give-anonymous-online-commenters-second-thoughts/
Thought that might interest some folks here :-)
What's really interesting is how fast that ruling will be overturned. American courts have repeatedly ruled that public opinions published in any medium -- letters-to-the-editor in printed publications, handbills pasted on walls; online blogs, tweets and forum posts -- are the opinions of the writers, and that as opinions they do not fall under the definitions of libel or slander.
From conspiracy theorists to religious zealots, from political wackos to people who proclaim "Justin Beiber is a nose-picking poo-poo," public opinions expressed in public venues is protected speech under the First Amendment (privately owned venues and proscribed hate speech excepted). Attempts to quash, control or in any manner inhibit the free expression of such opinions voiced by anyone, anonymous or famous, have been, and will continue to be, shot down by the courts.
-
In some contexts (many) that's true, but since by definition libel would have to be public in some way to cause damage, it's not always the case that such commentary is protected.
-
Libel and slander don't have to be public to cause harm or damage. What they have to be is created with the deliberate intent to cause harm or damage.
Not created with the intent to voice contrary opinions, rant, piss, moan, whine, vent, mock, deride, or call names, but specifically and solely with the intent to cause harm or damage.
The legal bar for proving such intent is very high, precisely for the reason that individuals and institutions historically try to use the law to inhibit criticism of themselves. The more powerful the individuals and institutions, and the more antagonistic those who speak against them, the more varied and subtle the attempts to inhibit the speakers -- as the writers of the First Amendment and framers of libel law knew all too well.
The Philly case is a blatant attempt to inhibit critical speech. Had anonymous writers been praising the panty-bunched peeps, there would have been no demand for them to identify themselves, much less legal action.
-
There needs to be some public aspect because a private message wouldn't cause damage in the wider scope.
This particular case isn't trying to inhibit anything, it's saying that there's a fundamental right to identify someone in a civil case as there is in a criminal case (i.e. with court order) to enable an action to be taken. That action may or may not succeed, but it shouldn't be prevented by virtue of anonymity - it should fail only if the law doesn't support it.
-
Isn't it time to shut down this topic, and if people want, to let them start new topics that have something to do with the babble that is going back and forth?????
-
Looks like it was self shut down until you replied :-)
-
Looks like it was self shut down until you replied :-)
;)
-
FYI, here is the quick summary for Adobe's Negative Guidance for the 1st Qtr 2014 and FY 2014:
Adobe Systems, Inc. (ADBE) said it expects first quarter non-GAAP earnings of $0.22 to $0.28 per share on revenue of $950.0 million to $1.0 billion and expects fiscal 2014 non-GAAP earnings of approximately $1.10 per share on revenue of approximately $4.06 billion. The current consensus earnings estimate is $0.33 per share on revenue of $1.01 billion for the quarter ending February 28, 2014 and earnings of $1.60 per share on revenue of $4.36 billion for the year ending November 30, 2014.
So Adobe is going to miss 1st qtr earnings per share by about 25% (33% to 15%) and FY 2014 EPS by about 30%. It is worth commenting that Adobe had already lowered their 2014 Fiscal Year (FY) estimates as a result of the transition to a subscription formula and had anticipated that they would be back on track in FY 2015. However, with this guidance, I think it will be hard to make 2015 estimates. I would not want to own Adobe stock right now.
fyi Adobe Q1 FY2014 earnings press release (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/news-room/pdfs/201403/Q114Earnings.pdf) pdf
"Adobe exited Q1 with 1 million 844 thousand paid Creative Cloud subscriptions, an increase of 405 thousand when compared to the number of subscriptions as of the end of Q4 fiscal year 2013."
-
Good April 1 story. That would explain why:
•Four insiders sold Adobe stock within one month.
•The stock was not purchased by any insiders in the month of intensive selling.
•Two of these four insiders decreased their holdings by more than 10%.
(Released by Adobe on March 31)
-
"buy the rumor, sell the news"
-
Hum, Adobe is selling at about $65/share today which is down a bit from it's 52 week high of $71 back in Feb, 2014 but is considerably higher than the price of $41.91 last year on 4/1/13. So, what does this mean? (hint, Adobe's stock has performed very well since they announced Creative Cloud). Trying to read tea leaves based on insider trading is for fools...
-
to May 31 for those who still haven't bitten.
-
Adobe's stock has performed very well since they announced Creative Cloud
But as you point out so often, there's much more to Adobe than digital imaging products.
-
But as you point out so often, there's much more to Adobe than digital imaging products.
That don't affect it's stock and isn't part of the Creative Cloud?
-
The point Andrew is that if other parts of Adobe are doing spectacularly well the stock price will rise even if CC is a complete failure.
-
The point Andrew is that if other parts of Adobe are doing spectacularly well the stock price will rise even if CC is a complete failure.
Again what parts would account for this? Lightroom? A few mobile apps? It's kind of like suggesting GM's profits were from selling car accessories instead of cars.
-
Again what parts would account for this?
The marketing cloud
-
The marketing cloud
What's that?
On Adobes site I see I can buy san's CC, Lightroom and Elements. There are upgrades available for older software. So what else would I buy to aid the bottom line (stock)? Books? I see one. I see free mobile app's. Must be fonts that are making up the profits.
-
What's that?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Adobe+Marketing+Cloud
Maybe you don't really know that much about Adobe ?
-
Maybe you don't really know that much about Adobe ?
What I know is, I don't know WTF you're talking about. ;D
-
What I know is, I don't know WTF you're talking about. ;D
If you can't be bothered to Google 'Adobe Marketing Cloud' and understand what it's all about, no you won't know what I'm talking about.
AMC is probably the biggest potential for future revenue growth for Adobe now. If that becomes a storming success CC will just be a minor utility to AMC. That's the sort of innovation that making stock prices rise.
-
AMC is probably the biggest potential for future revenue growth for Adobe now.
Oh, so something that may happen in the future is affecting the stock price today, not the sales of CC. Perhaps, the market does reflect what may happen in the future. That said, where would one go to find out that this future potential and not the sales of CC are the direct result of the rise Jeff reports?
-
Oh, so something that may happen in the future
Well I haven't seen the latest figures for AMC yet, but it's growth in the last two years has exceeded Adobe's expectations. Stock prices also follow what might happen, it's how money is made.
-
Well I haven't seen the latest figures for AMC yet, but it's growth in the last two years has exceeded Adobe's expectations.
As have CC sales if we are to accept the stat's provided today. But in the end, what Jeff wrote was best: Trying to read tea leaves based on insider trading is for fools...
Those that predicted CC would hurt Adobe were thus far off the mark. So to answer that age old question So how is that Subscription Service working out for Adobe? seems at this point it's working out. So let's see what happens with the next release of financial's.
-
Again what parts would account for this? Lightroom? A few mobile apps? It's kind of like suggesting GM's profits were from selling car accessories instead of cars.
Did it not even occur to you to look at Adobe's rather extensive product page (http://www.adobe.com/uk/products/catalog.edu.html) before posting that daft statement?
Stock prices also follow what might happen, it's how money is made.
But in the end, what Jeff wrote was best: Trying to read tea leaves based on insider trading is for fools...
Rhossydd wasn't talking about insider trading [a completely different issue, raised by another poster which Jeff was addressing], but generally how stocks work. It's always speculation about what may happen when you buy shares. This is commonly referred to as gambling, unless stocks/shares are involved where they don't like to call it that. ;D
-
To go back more specifically to the thread topic - there's the problem some foolishly claim is never a problem, online verification. A couple of weeks back CC asked me to confirm my details to allow me to continue using my software. This was about 10 days after the previous verification. No idea why, but until I reconnected I couldn't use my tools. >:(
This is potentially a huge problem because I may be spending some time this year, where I'll have no internet access. I'll be mighty pissed off if I can't use my software because CC phones homes before it should.
-
To go back more specifically to the thread topic - there's the problem some foolishly claim is never a problem, online verification.
A couple of weeks back CC asked me to confirm my details to allow me to continue using my software. This was about 10 days after the previous verification. No idea why, but until I reconnected I couldn't use my tools. >:(
This is potentially a huge problem because I may be spending some time this year, where I'll have no internet access. I'll be mighty pissed off if I can't use my software because CC phones homes before it should.
This is indeed a huge problem, and a totally needless, manufactured one.
Prime example of a pursuit for corporate greed trumping the customer service and satisfaction. Unsustainable in the long run.
-
Who really cares about the stock price or insider trading. I care about the product and I continue to enjoy using PS and Lightroom. This is a photo forum is it not?
-
You must be talking about those April 1 stories. Don't take them seriously!
BTW, I enjoy also using LR and PS tremendously, but my copies work without any interference and hiccups. No silly online verifications, frustrations and outages.
It looks like they will work for a long time. Great products!
-
Those that predicted CC would hurt Adobe were thus far off the mark.
Hi Andrew,
Frankly, since we do not know how Adobe's financials would have worked out had there been only perpetual licenses, or both continuing perpetual licenses and subscription licenses, it is impossible to say ... Meeting or exceeding expectations may say more about the expectations rather than product penetration in certain markets.
Besides, this first year (without alternatives) obviously should show growth (which would otherwise have been regular upgrade/sales of suites) since they initially started with zero subscriptions. I also notice that Adobe have again extended their introduction pricing (it's now called 'temporary pricing which will end soon', but no end of period is mentioned). Having to lower one's prices is not a sign of success, in general.
I also received a warning from one of my suppliers that CS-6 perpetual licenses will only be available until May 31st 2014, so soon there will be also no revenue from those sales (for many as a final insurance as a contingency plan B) anymore.
Time will tell ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
To go back more specifically to the thread topic - there's the problem some foolishly claim is never a problem, online verification. A couple of weeks back CC asked me to confirm my details to allow me to continue using my software. T
I think that should read .....THEIR software?
-
I think that should read .....THEIR software?
I wondered if anyone would pick up on that.
-
BTW, the PS/LR deal which 'ended' two days ago is still available.
-
I wondered if anyone would pick up on that.
Was it a keyboard slip or were you trolling when you made the post? ;) ;D
-
The only time I even know the subscription service is active is when it tells me a new update is available and it e-mails me once a month with a statement indicating the $9.99 monthly payment. Other than that, I never know when it verifies my subscription. Totally non intrusive.
-
Was it a keyboard slip or were you trolling when you made the post? ;) ;D
I wrote 'my software' and then realised it's not technically mine, but it would have been clunkier to have written it otherwise. So left it, as it wasn't really the point of that post.
-
I also received a warning from one of my suppliers that CS-6 perpetual licenses will only be available until May 31st 2014..
Bart, if this is indeed correct, then for how long after that cut off date, do you think Adobe are obliged to support PS CS6 and ACR running under PS CS6 for new camera models RAW files etc?
I would think it must be for at least another year to May 2015.
Dave
-
Adobe do not directly support updates to superceded software with regard to new cameras. They provide the DNG convertor (http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5695), so you can use any new camera with any older versions of ACR/LR.
-
Bart, if this is indeed correct, then for how long after that cut off date, do you think Adobe are obliged to support PS CS6 and ACR running under PS CS6 for new camera models RAW files etc?
Hi Dave,
I assume no more ACR updates for CS6 are to be expected after that date.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. I just got a warning from another one of my dealers, no more perpetual CS6 licenses after May 30th, only subscriptions.
-
BTW, I enjoy also using LR and PS tremendously, but my copies work without any interference and hiccups. No silly online verifications, frustrations and outages.
It looks like they will work for a long time. Great products!
Same on this end. NEVER once have I experienced any online verification. But perhaps unlike some here, I actually use the product a couple times a week (if not more).
-
To go back more specifically to the thread topic - there's the problem some foolishly claim is never a problem, online verification. A couple of weeks back CC asked me to confirm my details to allow me to continue using my software. This was about 10 days after the previous verification. No idea why, but until I reconnected I couldn't use my tools. >:(
This is potentially a huge problem because I may be spending some time this year, where I'll have no internet access. I'll be mighty pissed off if I can't use my software because CC phones homes before it should.
Jeremy,
Out of curiosity, are you running CC on a Windows x64 machine? It seems that Mac users are less affected by this problem (or may not experience it at all). On this thread, both Michael Ezra and I have reported these repeated requests for verification and we're both running 64 bit Windows machines. Despite the snarky comment above, it doesn't seem to matter how much you use the software. I used it pretty heavily with my machine connected to the internet, and it didn't seem to matter. And even if I didn't, Adobe makes much of their policy that verification can wait as long 99 days.
Mike Chambers put me in touch with an Adobe rep who said that the team was working on a solution He suggested that I set the program to run as administrator (I did). He also suggested that I disable UAC (User Account Control). If I could set just the Adobe software to bypass UAC I would, but it seems that this would be a global setting, so I'm very reluctant to do that. This machine has to be connected to the internet because of the verification requirements (plus it's the only way to get the software now), so I don't want to remove that level of protection.
At any rate it's now been about a month since it last stopped working and made me sign in to my account. Setting CC to run as administrator might have helped, or it might be that a fix was in one of the recent updates. Or it may be that it's just waiting to happen again. But based on my experience I won't put a CC app on my laptop to travel. Others may find this system "non-intrusive", but I'd like Adobe to be more up front about the software's status. Right now, I don't know when CC will need it's next verification. Even if I've used the program while connected to the internet I don't know if the verification process took place -- there's no way to tell. And even if I force a verification by signing out of my Adobe account and signing back in, I have no faith that it will last for 99 days, or a month, or two weeks --based on my experience so far.
-
Hi Dave,
I assume no more ACR updates for CS6 are to be expected after that date.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. I just got a warning from another one of my dealers, no more perpetual CS6 licenses after May 30th, only subscriptions.
Thanks Bart - I knew Adobe would eventually need to create a cut off date for CS PS and ACR, but I just wondered if you thought they would then continue to support new camera RAW's for the following twelve months after that cut off date, because of those people buying the last perpetual licenses.
Dave
-
Out of curiosity, are you running CC on a Windows x64 machine? It seems that Mac users are less affected by this problem (or may not experience it at all). On this thread, both Michael Ezra and I have reported these repeated requests for verification and we're both running 64 bit Windows machines. Despite the snarky comment above, it doesn't seem to matter how much you use the software. I used it pretty heavily with my machine connected to the internet, and it didn't seem to matter. And even if I didn't, Adobe makes much of their policy that verification can wait as long 99 days.
Deputy Dawg doesn't know anywhere near as much as he thinks he does, as the silly comment about how often you use CC shows.
I'm on a Mac, not Win. I've only had the issue once and it's not something one can replicate easily as there's no obvious cause.
And even if I force a verification by signing out of my Adobe account and signing back in, I have no faith that it will last for 99 days, or a month, or two weeks --based on my experience so far.
That's the worrying part.
-
by LesPalenik
BTW, I enjoy also using LR and PS tremendously, but my copies work without any interference and hiccups. No silly online verifications, frustrations and outages.
It looks like they will work for a long time. Great products!
Same on this end. NEVER once have I experienced any online verification. But perhaps unlike some here, I actually use the product a couple times a week (if not more).
Good! I was already worried that you are using the CC version.
-
Same on this end. NEVER once have I experienced any online verification. But perhaps unlike some here, I actually use the product a couple times a week (if not more).
Is there no hoop you won't jump through with regard to denying this issue that others have experienced? How frequently you use CC should be of no relevance and you know that.
Not to mention that I use my software almost every day and still had a verification glitch.
I've never had a heart attack either, so I don't believe they happen - seems to be your manner of response to bugs/problems you've not personally had.
BTW you claim to be a PS/LR etc professional and yet only use the software a couple of times a week!?! ???
-
Is there no hoop you won't jump through with regard to denying this issue that others have experienced?d
I don't deny a tiny group experience this, just as I don't deny that a small group of Photoshop users report: Photoshop crashed because I (fill in the blank).
The web doesn't appear to be filled with people reporting this issue any more than other glitches that they report about (fill in the blank software product on fill in the blank OS with fill in the blank hardware). But it is a convenient way to suggest the subscription is the worst thing since the black plague.
BTW you claim to be a PS/LR etc professional and yet only use the software a couple of times a week!
And yes, I use Lightroom far, far more than Photoshop these days. What a bad dog I must be. And as usual, you conveniently ignore my writings: (if not more).
-
I don't deny a tiny group experience this, just as I don't deny that a small group of Photoshop users report: Photoshop crashed because I (fill in the blank).
The web doesn't appear to be filled with people reporting this issue any more than other glitches that they report about (fill in the blank software product on fill in the blank OS with fill in the blank hardware). But it is a convenient way to suggest the subscription is the worst thing since the black plague.
And yes, I use Lightroom far, far more than Photoshop these days. What a bad dog I must be. And as usual, you conveniently ignore my writings: (if not more).
Andrew, totally agree with your assessment. The internet has a way to echo a few voices to make it sound like a major issue...yet if you analyze the few same people making noise, you quickly realize its only a very small minority of people with the problems.
I'm not denying there are problems...just not a big mountain that some people consistently want to make it out to be.
-
I don't deny a tiny group experience this, just as I don't deny that a small group of Photoshop users report: Photoshop crashed because I (fill in the blank).
The web doesn't appear to be filled with people reporting this issue any more than other glitches that they report about (fill in the blank software product on fill in the blank OS with fill in the blank hardware). But it is a convenient way to suggest the subscription is the worst thing since the black plague.
You've actually been arguing it wasn't a problem as you could avoid verification problems by planning or now by your dumbest suggestion yet, using CC more often.
And yes, I use Lightroom far, far more than Photoshop these days. What a bad dog I must be. And as usual, you conveniently ignore my writings: (if not more).
So are you now claiming that LR is not part of your CC subscription? Because nobody was talking about using PS exclusively. In fact seeing as I specifically mentioned using both PS + LR in this my reply this is to regarding CC usage, you are being a complete numpty with regard to comments about reading.
-
So are you now claiming that LR is not part of your CC subscription?
Correct.
Because nobody was talking about using PS exclusively.
Speaking for everyone again? Tiring.
In fact seeing as I specifically mentioned using both PS + LR in this my reply this is to regarding CC usage
And again, that it happened to you (talk about karma) doesn't apply to the vast majority of others, at least the vast majority isn't complaining as often as you and as I pointed out, the web is filled with people having various issues with all kinds of software and hardware that affect a tiny number of people (compared to the user base).
But it's convenient to ignore this if your goal is to troll about Adobe or (fill in the blank: person, company, political party, country, planet).
-
Since the point was raised, I'm using CC (the whole suite) on Win 7 x64 with UAC fully functional and as a standard user (I have an admin account on my machine, but it's good security to not be logged in with more priveleges than you need) and no problems at all.
I know, I'll get hounded about how people are having problems. I get it. It's got to be hugely frustrating to those being affected, but it's not a case of "corporate greed" or "evil corporations" or any of the other nonesense being bandied about.
Configurations of computers are almost endless and from time to time there are problems. The more people tinker or customise or install weird and wonderful apps and other things, the more likely there are problems. If Adobe didn't care, you wouldn't see people like Mike here braving the slings and arrows of the forums to try to communicate. It's little wonder other vendors stay away. Mike's a champion and very brave.
And, of course, you all have the option of not using it and not purchasing it. That doesn't mean you should be silent, but if you have such a strong philosophical objection to the process, then don't do it.
-
Well said Phil Brown.
-
If Adobe didn't care, you wouldn't see people like Mike here braving the slings and arrows of the forums to try to communicate.
Caring ? not really. It's just corporate damage limitation policy.
Better than nothing, but don't think the corporation 'care' in any real sense of the word.
-
Care:-
Noun:
1. the provision of what is necessary for the health, welfare, maintenance, and protection of someone or something.
2. serious attention or consideration applied to doing something correctly or to avoid damage or risk.
Verb:
1. feel concern or interest; attach importance to something.
2. look after and provide for the needs of.
How does "care" not fit? Particularly when you see people like Mike going the extra mile (or 10) and coming here regularly to speak about it. What you're suggesting is that the people who work there are careless, mindless, uncaring, unthinking - basically corporate machines. They're not. They're like you and me - regularly people (OK, some of them are insanely clever and I'm not, so in that sense they are unlike me!) trying their best to do the best job they can and to help their customers and get a good result for everyone. Yes, that includes Adobe, but if Adobe doesn't get a good result then this whole discussion is moot - you won't have to worry about CC vs Perpetual licencing because it will cease to exist.
So let's stop with the "corporations only care about themselves" and the implication that they're bad and all that. They are made of people, just like us. They have a defined goal, which in various places may or may not align with our goals. That doesn't make them bad. If they are not breaking laws then they are following the morality set down by society - let's not paint them otherwise just because we disagree with them or don't like something they've done. Let's not tar their staff as if we are somehow superior and altruistic compared to them. Let's treat them as people. In my experience, if you do that, you get treated like people in return. In fact, in most cases, even if you don't treat them as people they try to treat you that way, which suggests the idea of who has the moral highground might be somewhat skewed...
-
So let's stop with the "corporations only care about themselves" and the implication that they're bad and all that. They are made of people, just like us. They have a defined goal, which in various places may or may not align with our goals. That doesn't make them bad. If they are not breaking laws then they are following the morality set down by society - let's not paint them otherwise just because we disagree with them or don't like something they've done. Let's not tar their staff as if we are somehow superior and altruistic compared to them. Let's treat them as people. In my experience, if you do that, you get treated like people in return. In fact, in most cases, even if you don't treat them as people they try to treat you that way, which suggests the idea of who has the moral highground might be somewhat skewed...
Sure ... the folks in the trenches are "just like us" ... however, the folks who make the decisions that all those who work in the trenches must abide by, only care about their bottom line. Just look how carefully crafted Mike's contributions are shared here ... the term "prepared script" comes to mind. While those posts are shared in a friendly manner ... they are not spontaneous, unscripted discussion that normally come from folks ... "just like us" ... You'll have to excuse me if I don't find those in charge of the corporation as down to earth as you would like to portray them. In this regard ... there is no moral high ground to be found anywhere.
-
Have you read how quickly people threaten law suits or other action against companies? Of course the responses are crafted. That's professional.
-
Caring ? not really. It's just corporate damage limitation policy.
Better than nothing, but don't think the corporation 'care' in any real sense of the word.
Actually it could be either option. Minimising damage is sensible and to be expected, however this does not mean the person responding does not actually care about giving good service.
John Nack was a very good representative for Adobe, you felt he did care about helping the customer despite that at times he got abused he got for being the face of Photoshop. His moving to Google was a big loss to Adobe.
-
Correct.
You have been going on and on about the fact you have no issues with CC and then now admit the Adobe programme you use the majority of the time is not in fact not part of CC. *shakes head*.
And again, that it happened to you (talk about karma)
You are a bit of a dick aren't you. You are now saying I deserve my CC subscription to have problems simply because I don't agree with your rather myopic and as it turns out incorrect world view. CC needed to check I was still subscribed only a week or so after a new install on an OS, not 30 days but 7-9 days. Now if I had been working on location with no internet access, something that I do on occasions, then I would have been without my software.
doesn't apply to the vast majority of others, at least the vast majority isn't complaining as often as you and as I pointed out, the web is filled with people having various issues with all kinds of software and hardware that affect a tiny number of people (compared to the user base).
But it's convenient to ignore this if your goal is to troll about Adobe or (fill in the blank: person, company, political party, country, planet).
Not agreeing with you is not trolling. I'm just pointed out that contrary to your assertions, I have recently had a problem with CC [as have others] that you incorrectly claimed in this thread was entirely avoidable. Well it isn't.
The thing you really do not get is that nothing is foolproof. The fact you have to regularly check in remotely to keep your programmes functional means that at times for some people, this will go pear-shaped for reasons out of one's control. So these people will then be unable to access the software that they have paid for and it may mean they will be unable to work.
As I have mentioned before, when Adobe introduced activation many years back, people would buy the software but then installed a cracked version. The reason - so that they could be sure they didn't have to wait for Adobe offices to reopen after a weekend to get their software up and running again in case of activation issues. And there were issues.
I'm thinking of having a fresh OS boot disk so I can install a trial version of CC in another name that gets set up just before I go somewhere remote, so if the paid subscription has any issues, then I have the second OS I could run instead as backup and hope that also doesn't have the same problem.
-
You have been going on and on about the fact you have no issues with CC and then now admit the Adobe programme you use the majority of the time is not in fact not part of CC. *shakes head*.
You can't read! Photoshop CC is subscription! My copy of Lightroom is NOT. No issue with either.
-
I was late to the dance, and waited till just this month to sign up. So far no problems, love the fact I can now have Mac/Win solutions without having to purchase 2 pieces of code. My LR is still on the old plan but the Adobe manger sees it and offers upgrades just like CC (just upgraded to 5.4)
If Adobe can keep the credit card info from getting out to the hacked world, I have to say "good job overall"
Paul
-
So Andrew after all you inane wittering about how only an incompetent and unprofessional person would get caught without functioning software if they use CC, how do you explain to those currently unable to use CC why it their fault? As it happens I have 2 different CC subscriptions. One is fine, the other however needs to phone home tomorrow or day after [depending on time zones], so won't work after that if Adobe doesn't get back online.
And if you use web fonts in your designs, you're also stuffed it would appear, even if your software is currently working.
CC is down (http://petapixel.com/2014/05/15/adobe-creative-cloud-is-down-rendering-apps-unusable/)
-
Just launched CC, runs fine. Same with Acrobat and InDesign. BFD.
So Andrew after all you inane wittering about how only an incompetent and unprofessional person would get caught without functioning software if they use CC, how do you explain to those currently unable to use CC why it their fault? As it happens I have 2 different CC subscriptions. One is fine, the other however needs to phone home tomorrow or day after [depending on time zones], so won't work after that if Adobe doesn't get back online.
And if you use web fonts in your designs, you're also stuffed it would appear, even if your software is currently working.
CC is down (http://petapixel.com/2014/05/15/adobe-creative-cloud-is-down-rendering-apps-unusable/)
-
One is fine, the other however needs to phone home tomorrow or day after [depending on time zones], so won't work after that if Adobe doesn't get back online.
Adobe have always said that if CC apps need to phone home, you get a week or two before they stop working. Let us know if it stops working for you tomorrow, I'd love to know how much slack they actually give.
PS - how do you know it needs to phone home today or day after? I've no idea when mine needs to phone home.
-
Just launched CC, runs fine. Same with Acrobat and InDesign. BFD.
Typical ignorant and self centred response I expect from you Andrew. I'm sure those who cannot use their software/have urgent deadlines (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Adobe-Creative-Cloud-Is-Down-Worldwide-442237.shtml) will be thrilled by your childish response.
Of course your copy works if it hasn't had to phone since the issue started, but if today had been the day it needed to phone home......
-
Adobe have always said that if CC apps need to phone home, you get a week or two before they stop working. Let us know if it stops working for you tomorrow, I'd love to know how much slack they actually give.
PS - how do you know it needs to phone home today or day after? I've no idea when mine needs to phone home.
It just so happens that one version is due for renewal so it gives a countdown and tells me it cannot actually be renewed due to the servers.
This version is for teaching purposes and as I have my own business subscription, I rarely open it.
-
It just so happens that one version is due for renewal so it gives a countdown and tells me it cannot actually be renewed due to the servers.
This version is for teaching purposes and as I have my own business subscription, I rarely open it.
Ah, thanks.
Looking at Adobe's messages on http://status.adobedps.com/ (http://status.adobedps.com/), they keep putting back the estimated time to fix. Currently (3pm PDT) it's says "Current indicators have been revised to suggest service availability no earlier than 6 pm PDT." Note: no earlier than 6pm. It's always 2-3 hours in the future. That sounds to me to be either "we haven't a clue what's happening", or maybe even "it's going to take a very long time, but we'll keep saying 2-3 hours in the future".
If only Adobe were a software company, they could get someone to fix their online systems.
-
A professional with a deadline describes his dilemma with CC going down (http://www.slrlounge.com/first-major-issue-adobe-creative-cloud).
As suggested a grace period in case of outages or if CC needs to check in whilst away from internet would be a sensible thing to implement.
-
Looking at Adobe's messages on http://status.adobedps.com/ (http://status.adobedps.com/), they keep putting back the estimated time to fix.
CC appears to be back online now (https://status.creativecloud.com/) Simon, though still problems on the digital publishing suite status page.
-
Adobe have always said that if CC apps need to phone home, you get a week or two before they stop working. Let us know if it stops working for you tomorrow, I'd love to know how much slack they actually give.
PS - how do you know it needs to phone home today or day after? I've no idea when mine needs to phone home.
Update on this.
Now my apps can connect again, they have validated payment made on that subscription since they were last opened and now no warnings.
-
Hmmm. I was able to switch activation between several computers today without a hitch.
-
Typical ignorant and self centred response I expect from you Andrew.
Good, that means I've done my job!
I'm sure those who cannot use their software/have urgent deadlines (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Adobe-Creative-Cloud-Is-Down-Worldwide-442237.shtml) will be thrilled by your childish response.
Such as?
Oh, and it looks like CC is up and running so again BFD.
-
This short article (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/outage-of-adobe-creative-cloud-more-than-a-day-old-locks-out-app-users/) touches on the event. The comments reveal the tip of the iceberg.
-
It is a big deal to anyone that got caught not being to get work done. I had a while ago in this thread a calculated hard response to people who blindly worked at Adobe and did not protest the switch. Now I see Andrew telling karma they got caught wow.
-
Andrew has wound a lot of people up about this in various threads, mainly about how it must be their fault if they have issues with CC and now people can't get work done because Adobe have an outage and his only response is 'big f***ing deal'.
Shows what sort of charming and selfless fellow he is.
[Moderator's Note: removed the middle part of freaking]
-
'big f***ing deal'
Since when has expletives been accepted here? Not sure Andrew ever typed that phrase...pretty sure he didn't but you sure did–and putting quotes around it doesn't alter the fact you typed it...
So, you looking to get another thread closed dooode?
(and yes, I did report your post to the moderators).
-
It's obvious what BFD means and I've seen swear words used in the forum on numerous occasions.
In forums where no swearing is permitted, disguised swearing such as Andrew's is also verboten.
Anyway behaviour is offensive, not language.
-
Anyway behaviour is offensive, not language.
You can wiggle all you want...but you crossed the line by typing the word.
I use a lot of colorful language...but I'm careful not to type the actual words.
I suspect an apology is in order for crossing the line cause if you don't it will act as an encouragement for more people to use foul language–which will pollute the LuLa forums...is that your intent? Andrew didn't type that word, you did...
Truth be told, you've been out of control for a while now...maybe it's time to reassess your involvement here (before you get banned).
-
do really think typing the word or initials is any different? I do not. Because someone is not agreeing makes him out of control? An artist is never supposed to go along with the norm in life. David
-
do really think typing the word or initials is any different? I do not.
So, there are no lines in the sand? Anything goes? Acronyms and alternative words are just that...expressing the thought without typing the specific words.
Do you want any sense of decorum or are you fine with LuLa polluted by words that offend?
Unchecked, it'll only get worse, not better...there must be lines drawn (and Mike or Kev will draw those lines)
You don't like it, pack your bags...
-
Just pretend you're reading different words. I think we all need to understand that Andrew's "I'm all right Jack" can't be an acceptable response to this outage. A few people couldn't activate locally-installed programs like PS or ID, even with the "bonus days", but all users were denied the associated Cloud services like fonts, iPad publishing (DPS) and storage which are supposed to oil the mechanism. The more they want us to pay for our dependence, the more faultless the systems need to be.
-
The more they want us to pay for our dependence, the more faultless the systems need to be.
Yep, I agree...Adobe dropped the ball once again (they have a long history of dropping balls). But, that doesn't mean we need to tolerate bullshyte (notice the spelling) here on LuLa...
JJJ is baiting Andrew (it's pretty easy to do) with no good reason or agenda for doing so. Fine...they don't like each other. Take it outside and quit polluting LuLa with their crap.
-
It takes two to tango, and Andrew's been more argumentative recently. But sure, I'd agree the words should be edited .
-
Andrew has wound a lot of people up about this in various threads, mainly about how it must be their fault if they have issues with CC and now people can't get work done because Adobe have an outage and his only response is 'big fucking deal'.
Speaking for others again, typical. Yes, BFD, put this entire nonsense into some perspective. You maybe, couldn't use a piece of software for a day to crop you little photo's. You know what a BFD is? You're undergoing brain surgery and as the surgeon is cutting into your brain, the power goes out. You're flying at 32 thousand feet and two engines go out. The rail train that passes your home derails with tanks of Bakken oil. Those are BFDs! Wound? So tired of your drama queen rants aimed at getting out the pitchfork and axes towards Adobe because maybe, something goes down and you can't launch Photoshop to retouch a zit on one of your little pictures. Get a grip, it's just a piece of software and if you can't backup it's use for a day, then yes BFD! I can't get cell services in my hotel room this week: Oh the horrors, the horrors!
-
So, there are no lines in the sand? Anything goes? Acronyms and alternative words are just that...expressing the thought without typing the specific words.
Except that in this case it's not an acronym, it's an initialism. There's a difference.
You can wiggle all you want...but you crossed the line by typing the word.
I use a lot of colorful language...but I'm careful not to type the actual words.
And do you really think that using the Olde English spelling of the word ‘bullshyte’ is in some way less offensive than typing the modern version ? The gist and connotation are clear, the modern day version no different, and the tenor is the same. There’s zero ambiguity. If, by your reasoning, BFD is acceptable, then typing the initialism 'ef-u' would be equally acceptable. It isn't. None of them are.
Short answer: ban all offensive terminology, whether it be the written word or a thinly disguised provocation - spare me the 'euphemistic deformation' bit, and let's leave out both the lexical semantics and the sanctimonious babble.
(*)
The origins of the f-word are in Anglo Saxon Old German and it was commonly used in Chaucerian times, and by Chaucer himself, but it later became so offensive than even though Shakespeare hinted at it he never used the word explicitly. ‘BS' is a very modern term, probably less than 100 years old. It’s related to ‘bull’, which was used as slang for ‘nonsense', in the 17th century. The ‘shit’ was added later, probably during World War I.
In any event, the meaning of both words are unambiguous no matter what ‘trompe-l’oeil’ facade you try to disguise them with.
-
OK guys, enough.
Gratuitous profanity is inappropriate here, just as it would be at someones dining room table.
Also, let's stop the pissing contests.
Michael
-
And do you really think that using the Olde English spelling of the word ‘bullshyte’ is in some way less offensive than typing the modern version ? The gist and connotation are clear, the modern day version no different, and the tenor is the same. There’s zero ambiguity. If, by your reasoning, BFD is acceptable, then typing the initialism 'ef-u' would be equally acceptable. It isn't. None of them are.
Short answer: ban all offensive terminology, whether it be the written word or a thinly disguised provocation - spare me the 'euphemistic deformation' bit, and let's leave out both lexical semantics and the sanctimonious babble.
Exactly. And you can be more offensive with attitude than by using 'naughty' words.
I usually tend to save 'bad' language for the hitting one's thumb with a hammer type scenario, then I find it very useful and cathartic indeed. Use it all the time and it simply gets boring. But I find it utterly baffling that people even get offended by a word. It's just a sound, it cannot harm you in any way. Even dafter is when a word [or sound] which is fine when say describing a male bird is somehow then rude if taking about part of a man. Bonkers. Particularly that an arbitrary part of your anatomy can be offensive and other bits are just fine and dandy. But obviously not dangly! ;)
As I mentioned above on the local city forum for my area, swearing or masked swearing such as BFD is treated the same. The reason, there is no difference, because the meaning is exactly the same.
-
Gratuitous profanity is inappropriate here, ......, let's stop the pissing contests.
Own goal eh?
-
Speaking for others again, typical. Yes, BFD, put this entire nonsense into some perspective. You maybe, couldn't use a piece of software for a day to crop you little photo's. You know what a BFD is? You're undergoing brain surgery and as the surgeon is cutting into your brain, the power goes out. You're flying at 32 thousand feet and two engines go out. The rail train that passes your home derails with tanks of Bakken oil. Those are BFDs! Wound? So tired of your drama queen rants aimed at getting out the pitchfork and axes towards Adobe because maybe, something goes down and you can't launch Photoshop to retouch a zit on one of your little pictures. Get a grip, it's just a piece of software and if you can't backup it's use for a day, then yes BFD! I can't get cell services in my hotel room this week: Oh the horrors, the horrors!
It not 'just a piece of software' it's an essential tool for running one's business. And to some people this indeed very important, even if you don't care.
"This is ruining my business. Adobe did not send out one email to notify me about this being down. I found out from my clients....Call For Entry was closing and I have lost potentially thousands of dollars. So angry and after this will not be using Adobe products again. I just want to get my data and then I am switching to stack which is way better then Adobe Form Central"
"How bad is this for your business and mine? The site has been down all day! My clients cannot open the forms I am sending. Seriously? What about people working with a deadline today that are relying on their online subscription with Adobe? Total business fiasco! We should be informed as to the reason for this complete lock-out from their website and the use of any of their software services subscribed to. I am grateful that today is not my deadline. I work with regulated deadlines and if this happened on one of those days I would be fined thousands of dollars with no recourse."
"'I'm having the same issue now (15 May 2015).
The solutions i found online were not effective. I used Adobe's Tech chat, and was told it's a "login outage." Nothing i can do. I have work to do, and deadlines TODAY, but the ridiculous 'customer service' person gave me the same rhetoric as the dry cleaner and parking lot attendant in Seinfeld: "we ask that you please bear with us."
Bear with them. For "TWENTY FOUR HOURS," while they work on the problem. I mentioned that i would miss professional deadlines and would likely lose a $40k/year client, and the response was that they would credit me for FIVE DAYS of my subscription. That's like $8..... Comforting"
"I have two design projects tied to data from Formscentral that are scheduled to close Tomorrow. My users are all freaking out that the online form is offline. Really crappy timing Adobe."
BTW, I could open and use my CC programmes as it happens and because I have 2 CC subs that are on different cycles, it's unlikely that I'll be ever be caught by a couple of days outage. And I do not have it in for Adobe as you seem to think. Though I do think CC's implementation could have been managed much better.
-
Own goal eh?
Ah yes, that would considering as swearing here in the UK Michael.
-
Get a life kids...
Perhaps those who need to hyperventilate about Adobe's CC subscription service could now do so in the Coffee Corner
Yesterday's 'outage' speaks for itself IMO
Topic locked