Adobe moving to the web

[JonathanRimmel]

Absolutely and positively NOT interested in "cloud" computing at all.  The operative word in the phrase "personal computer" is "personal" and the whole impetus behind the PC revolution was to replace the centralized, controlled "data processing" infrastructure with computer power that was under the direct and sole control of the user of those resources.  Empowering the individual user and freeing him from centralized control was the driving force.  The Cloud marks a return to the bad old days.  Yes it has some advantages but the costs in privacy and surrender of the immediate personal control of one's assets far outweighs them in my opinion.

Consider the consequences of an unexpected communication failure 15 minutes before your Big Presentation is due to begin if your slide desk resides in the Cloud.  Consider the consequences of an administrative screw-up causing your subscription payment this month to get lost.  Consider the consequences of the sudden bankruptcy of the company that operates your data storage service whose servers house all your archive files causing the servers to go dark.

I 100% agree. It seems as time goes on people no longer have the same understanding of or patience for computers. With this lack of understanding comes rather foolish behavior. Now everyone is all about streaming this and that and all this cloud nonsense. In a time when we are so concerned about our personal security, so many do everything and anything that adds risk to that security, whether realizing it or not.

[feppe]

Absolutely and positively NOT interested in "cloud" computing at all.  The operative word in the phrase "personal computer" is "personal" and the whole impetus behind the PC revolution was to replace the centralized, controlled "data processing" infrastructure with computer power that was under the direct and sole control of the user of those resources.  Empowering the individual user and freeing him from centralized control was the driving force.  The Cloud marks a return to the bad old days.  Yes it has some advantages but the costs in privacy and surrender of the immediate personal control of one's assets far outweighs them in my opinion.

Consider the consequences of an unexpected communication failure 15 minutes before your Big Presentation is due to begin if your slide desk resides in the Cloud.  Consider the consequences of an administrative screwup causing your subscription payment this month to get lost.  Consider the consequences of the sudden bankruptcy of the company that operates your data storage service whose servers house all your archive files causing the servers to go dark.

Once again to combat the constant FUD: Adobe's implementation of the subscription model has the program files and assets residing on your computer. There is a need to phone home once a month for verification of an active subscription and presumably updates (which are optional), at other times the computer can be fully offline AFAICT.

Communication problems 15 mins before the presentation are not an issue, unless you have the presentation on the last day of the activation deadline. The subscription service is not a cloud storage service, ie. you don't save your data on Adobe's servers, and have only yourself to blame if your data is inaccessible. Administrative screwups on your and Adobe's part in billing, or software glitches barring you access to the program are a legitimate concern, though.

I would be really surprised if there is any loss of privacy, other than what you already give when you register a (non-SaaS) product, and some limited information identifying your computer (IP, MAC, some hashes). There's no way in hell Adobe will claim any ownership of your assets, and you won't be sending them to Adobe anyway.

There's a lot not to like about the recent announcement, but let's get the facts straight.

[daws]

Four words, Adobe: I don't rent software.

[Schewe]

Four words, Adobe: I don't rent software.

That's five words with the semicolon...

And in fact, you already do in a way. You don't "buy" software, you license it. What rights you have are in the End User License Agreement (EULA). When you install the software, you agree to the EULA. The operative terms of the current PS EULSA don't give a time limit...once activated it will run for as long as you have an OS that can run the software. A subscription service would only change the period of limited time you could run the software. It ain't a "rental" situation...you don't pick up a piece of tangible personal property, use it and return it. You download and install the software and determine the period of time you want to use it. Want to use it forever? Adobe will still (as of CS6) give you that chance...want to use it for a limited period of time? You already have that model in CS5.5.

The only big change in terms of most users is the 1 version back upgrade policy. I understand it...I don't disagree with it because I use PS professionally and will automatically upgrade at the earliest availability to maximize my ROI (note, I keep the previous version also installed in the event a new upgrade barfs–which is permitted in the EULA). I'm much more careful when it comes to OS's though...

It was either CS or CS2 where Adobe changed the previous upgrade policy....before then ANY previous version of Photoshop–even a 1.0 serial number–could be upgraded. There wasn't really a strong protest at that time. While the 1 version back policy will bite recreational users, it really doesn't impact pro users and make no mistake, Photoshop is designed and intended to be a pro application. Yes, Adobe gets a side benny for selling Photoshop to a lot of non-pros...but that is not the core market nor driving force.

And for amateurs, is about $199 every 18-24 months really a burden? To some in this economy, perhaps...and it's to those folks I have the greatest sympathy. But there are alternatives...

[greyscale]

FWIW, I just found this:
http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2011/archives/22903

greyscale

[feppe]

FWIW, I just found this:
http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2011/archives/22903

Wow, that's some heavy words from a gentleman who has a lot of sway in the business as far as I can tell. For those who don't know, he's the editor and publisher of Photoshop User Magazine, CEO of a veritable photography training empire in Kelby Training, and a prolific #1 photography book author, probably in the world, who currently has no less than 10 books on Amazon's top 100 Photography book best seller list.

Perhaps most notably, he signed the open letter in his role as the President of The National Association of Photoshop Professionals, so it's not only us amateurs/photographers and poor people who are up at arms about this as is claimed in some responses above. There are currently 415 comments, most seem to be supporting the letter strongly, many being surprised to learn about the policy change first time on Mr Kelby's blog.

This is hard for Adobe to ignore.

[Steve House]

IMHO the sole beneficiary to the twin concepts of cloud computing and software subscriptions will be the service providers and software vendors.  When software is licensed under a perpetual license, as has been the common practice with "purchased" software, end users aren't compelled to upgrade to each new release of the software unless they see a benefit in so doing.  For some users it makes sense to upgrade with each new release but for others it may not.  Software vendors have seen that their cash flow depends on both attracting new users and selling upgrades to existing users and each user who elects not to upgrade represents lost revenue to them.  With a mature, widely accepted, industry standard product such as Photoshop the virgin user market purchasing their very first copy is bound to be constantly shrinking - most everyone who is a potential user of Photoshop is already using it and only some of the those users - perhaps a significant portion but still, not 100% - can be counted on to upgrade to the next version when it's released.  Ending the practice of perpetual licensing and replacing it with a rental scheme is the software vendor's strategy for insuring a constant cash flow from all users, compelling ongoing payments even from those who would otherwise choose not to purchase upgrades.  I see little benefit whatsoever to consumers themselves except in that the initial cash outlay necessary for the (increasingly rare) new user to begin using the product may be somewhat less.  About the only users that would actually benefit from a rental scheme are those who have a very limited short-term need - ie, needing Photoshop for, say, a special project over the next two months but then having no use for it beyond that point.  For most os us who have an ongoing need extending indefinitely into the foreseeable future rental offers no advantages at all.

[Photo Op]

Wow, that's some heavy words from a gentleman who has a lot of sway in the business as far as I can tell. For those who don't know, he's the editor and publisher of Photoshop User Magazine, CEO of a veritable photography training empire in Kelby Training, ...

Perhaps most notably, he signed the open letter in his role as the President of The National Association of Photoshop Professionals, .....

If I'm not mistaken, it's an Association that he owns. So he elected himself. I grant he lists many of the concerns most of the Photoshop owners have. But, I sense his major concern is for the financial impact on his business empire, not for the average, poor owner. Just saying.

[ProDesignTools]

NB, we're also running a new poll where you can vote and express your view on Adobe's changes to the model (positive or negative), and will be sharing the results with the company.

Adobe’s New Upgrade Policy for CS6: What Does It Mean for You? [Poll]


On the other questions discussed above, our understanding of Adobe's plan is there will be some cloud-based apps and services, as well it will require monthly charges/revalidations of product licensing over the Internet, as well as provide online cloud storage for your digital assets.
   

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

As of when I just checked the poll, Adobe had a 3% approval rating, which is even slightly below that of the U.S. Congress. I hope Adobe is paying attention.

[feppe]

As of when I just checked the poll, Adobe had a 3% approval rating, which is even slightly below that of the U.S. Congress. I hope Adobe is paying attention.

It's a poll from a self-selecting sample, ie. results are utterly invalid.

[JBerardi]

It's a poll from a self-selecting sample, ie. results are utterly invalid.

I'm sure that people at Adobe are telling themselves the same thing right now.

[feppe]

I'm sure that people at Adobe are telling themselves the same thing right now.

I didn't say anything about the popularity of Adobe's announcement, only about the validity of the poll results.

[BernardLanguillier]

The only big change in terms of most users is the 1 version back upgrade policy. I understand it...I don't disagree with it because I use PS professionally and will automatically upgrade at the earliest availability to maximize my ROI (note, I keep the previous version also installed in the event a new upgrade barfs–which is permitted in the EULA). I'm much more careful when it comes to OS's though...

It was either CS or CS2 where Adobe changed the previous upgrade policy....before then ANY previous version of Photoshop–even a 1.0 serial number–could be upgraded. There wasn't really a strong protest at that time. While the 1 version back policy will bite recreational users, it really doesn't impact pro users and make no mistake, Photoshop is designed and intended to be a pro application. Yes, Adobe gets a side benny for selling Photoshop to a lot of non-pros...but that is not the core market nor driving force.

Jeff,

Many pro users hardly use any new capability.

Their decision to upgrade PS is mostly not about supposed additional value, it is about being able to keep using a piece of software they bought a perpetual license for (the EULA you mentioned).

Indeed, the truth is that most pro users are forced to upgrade because their hardware dies, leading them to buy a new machine with a new OS installed, which typically forces them to upgrade PS as well (which is mostly Apple and MS's fault).

There are many cases where this newest version of PS is more than one version newer than the one you already own. There are much fewer cases where it is more than 2 versions newer.

With the new policy this means that you will have to buy from scratch. Or you could also decided to upgrade every version, mostly with no value, just to be able to cope with such cases.

That is PRO users I am talking about here. They are the ones who need to work on a maintained software stack.

Make no mistake, this modification of the upgrade policy is nothing but an increase of the actual price of the software that will impact pro users most.

The fact that is a Pro tool changes nothing here, we did buy the software based on a set of reasonnable expactations about the ROI, and Adobe is changing the equation here.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Schewe]

JMany pro users hardly use any new capability.

Uh huh...then what are the doing?

Each and every version of Photoshop (and ACR) has added useful and perhaps mission critical functionality. Really, this isn't an argument based on pros but more based on recreational users. If pros are debating the relative value of upgrading to the most recent version, then they really aren't pros...are they? Professionally speaking, if you aren't up to date then you are behind the times...and that's not really professional...skipping a version isn't really viable professionally.

[BernardLanguillier]

Uh huh...then what are the doing?

Each and every version of Photoshop (and ACR) has added useful and perhaps mission critical functionality. Really, this isn't an argument based on pros but more based on recreational users. If pros are debating the relative value of upgrading to the most recent version, then they really aren't pros...are they? Professionally speaking, if you aren't up to date then you are behind the times...and that's not really professional...skipping a version isn't really viable professionally.

Sorry to say Jeff, but it really looks like you are getting confused between pro Photoshop user and pro photographer. You are the only pro photoshop user in the Western Part of the galaxy, all the other guys use PS to achieve a photographic purpose (or other purpose).

To that end, PS was perfectly able to meet the needs of Professional photographers in CS2.

The only really valuable addition since then has been 64 bits support on OSX. Add decent multi-CPU support and PS will be the platform it should be.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Not all 'pros' are the same. Some pros shoot cars, some shoot fashion and some shoot food. Some pros need to stay on the top, all the time, and some struggle to have both ends meet.

I'm not a pro, I'm shooting for pleasure. But I have been told about the real world. For many people even a couple of hundred $ is real money. But even poor people need curves and layers.

In my view it's OK that Adobe earns money. Photoshop is in my view one of the better products around, but I'm using it less and less because I love the parametric workflow in Lightroom. So I love Photoshop but it is for me of limited value. There are other programs that may actually do the job. For instance, there is a program from Germany called PhotoLine ( http://www.pl32.com/ ) that has many of the features of Photoshop at very low price. We also have GIMP, the Gnu Image Manipulation Program, that also can do the job.

Another point is that I guess that many use pirated versions of Photoshop. I'd suggest that would Adobe sell a serious version of for modest money, many user would opt to go 'legit'.

Best regards
Erik

Sorry to say Jeff, but it really looks like you are getting confused between pro Photoshop user and pro photographer. You are the only pro photoshop user in the Western Part of the galaxy, all the other guys use PS to achieve a photographic purpose (or other purpose).

To that end, PS was perfectly able to meet the needs of Professional photographers in CS2.

The only really valuable addition since then has been 64 bits support on OSX. Add decent multi-CPU support and PS will be the platform it should be.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Farmer]

To that end, PS was perfectly able to meet the needs of Professional photographers in CS2.

If you bought the Windows version, you'd still be able to run it under Windows 7 (even Windows 7 64 bit).

So who forced you to update?

[Farmer]

Another point is that I guess that many use pirated versions of Photoshop. I'd suggest that would Adobe sell a serious version of for modest money, many user would opt to go 'legit'.

I'm quite sure they've done the calculations of what happens at what given price.  The price of Photoshop *is* modest.

[Steve House]

I'm quite sure they've done the calculations of what happens at what given price.  The price of Photoshop *is* modest.

  I would consider the price of Lightroom to be on the high side modest while the price of Photoshop is ridiculous, especially compared to the cost of hardware.  Software isn't purchased in a vacuum and a given program is often only one of dozens that the user needs to purchase in order to get the various day to day tasks accomplished.  $699 (or $999) for Photoshop may be "modest" if that's the only program one has to purchase but who uses ONLY Photoshop?  Keeping current with all your image processing software AND all your general office software AND your bookkeeping software AND the software that does whatever else you use the computer for can quickly get out of hand.