Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions

[jrsforums]

Hi,

Always a recommendation for when emotions get to a high, What the Duck:

Cheers,
Bart

Wonderful....

[Colorwave]

A lot of the outrage can be summed up in one word:  "equity".

Adobe also had equity:  the slowly acquired capital of user trust and good will.  I believe they decided that the company and it's users could live without some of their built up equity.

[Janne Aavasalo]

fwiw "Myth #4: I lose access to my files in the Creative Cloud as soon as I unsubscribe"

While you won’t have access to your Creative Cloud applications anymore, you’ll be able to open your files on any previous version of the software on your computer. This is provided that you’ve saved your files to compatible formats with your older applications or other 3rd party Applications.

So you can open your files in say PS CS6 (if you've purchased and kept it installed) on your computer IF the file has been saved in a "compatible" file format. At the moment there is not necessarily any issues doing this since CS6 and CC6 software are pretty much equal, but how about three years down the line (assuming CC8 or equivalent)? How much of the new features are rendered differently or at all when you fall back to CS6? This is probably already an issue if you try to open a CS6 file with CS3. This can of course be avoided by using only "old school" techniques, but then again, what's the point of upgraded software in the CC?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Wonderful....

Sometimes an image/cartoon says more than a few hundred posts ...

Cheers,
Bart

[yaredna]

A reminder to several members of this thread – refrain from personal attacks and negative insinuations.

Only warning.

Michael

Is criticizing Adobe's ill-designed commercial decision that is undercutting many of us, considered a "personal attack" ?

Byt he way, when the toothpaste is out, it is difficult to get it in. We just learned yesterday that Adobe doesn't care about the thousands of photographers who put their trust in Adobe's tools (PSD files, Lightroom libraries, ...). That toothpaste is not getting back in, the trust is broken.

I don't think the blinded Adobe executive are seeing it this way. Good luck!

[johnvr]

No one's listening. 500,000 Adobe product users are over on the Cloud. Wonder if they allow petitioning on the Cloud.

Those 500,000 generate $300m out of a $4+ bln revenue stream. And they made a free choice, with the option of going back to the licensed version.

Now Adobe has angered its loyal user base and put the rest of its revenue stream at risk.

[Alan Smallbone]

It's a brave new world of centrally-controlled cloud computing out there, but it remains to be seen if Adobe will get to bend it to its will with Creative Cloud. By strong arming people into a pay-as-you go software rental scheme they are pissing off the majority of their customer base who before now saw no reason to buy every new CS version in lockstep with Adobe's absurdly brief 14-month product cycle. I predict this will eventually bite Adobe in the ass, big time.

Actually photographers are a small fraction of their userbase, and they have stated that, read the response on Dpreview. They are even stating the they consider Lightroom for photographers and Photoshop for designers and graphic artists, essentially. So all the moaning and outrage in the forum is pretty much what they expected and it looks like they don't give a crap about it. Their customer base is mostly large clients and more business oriented. And in a L.A. Times article they state that they give larger corporate entities very favorable pricing and substantial discounts. So there you have it. Either jump on their bandwagon or get off, they are not listening and it most likely does not make a difference. I wish it would and wish they would listen but I don't see it happening. Basically time to move on.

Alan

[jrsforums]

. When has Thomas Knoll ever been motivated by anything other than doing the right thing...or our own Eric Chan?

No one is doubting Thomas' or Eric's intentions.

Unfortunately, they are but a cog in what now is a much larger corporation.  This corporation is showing that the concerns of photographers is not the major market they are focusing on.

No matter what Thomas and Eric wish to do, they will be constrained by their bosses and the budgets that Adobe gives them. Only time will tell what that will be....but at this point it does not look good.

[Rob Reiter]

As one of those subscribers, I have no problem with my decision now, since I use several Adobe products professionally. But when I retire in a few years, my need will only be for Photoshop for personal use and my plan had been to purchase whatever the latest version was and use it until I felt the need to upgrade, which might not have been for years. Now it's $240 (or whatever amount Adobe will raise it to) every year, on a fixed income.

No one's listening. 500,000 Adobe product users are over on the Cloud. Wonder if they allow petitioning on the Cloud.

[rick_boden]

I for one, like the the subscription plan.  I have enough unusable (for various reasons) software laying around that I "bought".

What I don't understand is the price increase.  I think everyone agrees that at least the single Photoshop subscription will end up costing an existing user more than they would pay for 18 month upgrades.

Why is it more in a day and age where most business software is going down in price?

Why is it  more when Adobe is streamlining their services (and costs, one would assume) by eliminating the purchase versions?

Why is it more when it eliminates piracy, therefore creating a new customer base?

[wolfnowl]

My thoughts on this: The Challenges with Photoshop CC

Mike.

[nemo295]

Actually photographers are a small fraction of their userbase, and they have stated that, read the response on Dpreview. They are even stating the they consider Lightroom for photographers and Photoshop for designers and graphic artists, essentially. So all the moaning and outrage in the forum is pretty much what they expected and it looks like they don't give a crap about it. Their customer base is mostly large clients and more business oriented. And in a L.A. Times article they state that they give larger corporate entities very favorable pricing and substantial discounts. So there you have it. Either jump on their bandwagon or get off, they are not listening and it most likely does not make a difference. I wish it would and wish they would listen but I don't see it happening. Basically time to move on.

Alan

I wasn't referring to only photographers. I'm talking primarily about their customer base that uses Creative Suite. I work in advertising and I don't know any shop or client that always purchased every version of CS that Adobe released. Most companies preferred to skip a generation or two. Many clients skip even more. People were already annoyed at Adobe for releasing versions after only 14 months and skewing their upgrade pricing to punish those who skipped generations. Creative Cloud will only piss them off more.

And I've read Adobe's official response on DPreview. It's a joke. It's marketing propaganda. Let's not kid ourselves here. Adobe is not our friend. They know they have a near monopoly in professional graphics applications and now they've decided to leverage that advantage and go for the jugular. Pity the poor customer who thought he could simply buy a software license and then sit back and wait a few years until Adobe released a new version worth buying. Adobe wants their captive customers and they don't care who they piss off to get them.

[Janne Aavasalo]

I for one, like the the subscription plan.  I have enough unusable (for various reasons) software laying around that I "bought".

What I don't understand is the price increase.  I think everyone agrees that at least the single Photoshop subscription will end up costing an existing user more than they would pay for 18 month upgrades.

Why is it more in a day and age where most business software is going down in price?

Why is it  more when Adobe is streamlining their services (and costs, one would assume) by eliminating the purchase versions?

Why is it more when it eliminates piracy, therefore creating a new customer base?

You could ask the same questions from pretty much any company at any line of business and at any time.

More money and greed would be the answer here no matter what the company representatives say.

And if you think about it, Adobes way of making money is in fact quite harmless compared to a company which is profitable and still lays off people by the hundreds. Although Adobe might still do that on top of added revenue from the new business model...

[jrsforums]

When Creative Cloud came out, I thought is was a great idea.  While primarily a Lightroom, Photoshop, and Acrobat user, the $30/mo (later to be $50) gave me a chance to try out, learn, and occasionally use some of the other products.  So, even though I had licenses for LR4, PS-CS6, And Acrobat-9, I signed up.

The removal of the ability to get an "enduring" licenses has caused me to reconsider that....and prepare an Adobe exit strategy.

I have uninstalled Acrobat XI, and reinstalled Acrobat 9...and it is probably all I will ever need.

At the end f my current CC term, I may get a single CC license for PS-CC.  While annoying that I could lose the "work product" without an enduring license of the future PS-CC versions, I could survive with the (non-proprietary) RAW files and the TIFFs.

The day Lightroom is no longer offered with an enduring license I will plan my total exit from Adobe.

This will be difficult as I really like the product.  However, I cannot be reliant on a product that could be gone in an instant....and only leave me with the unprocessed RAWs, with no availability of my develop or organizational effort.

[Alan Goldhammer]

On the one hand, this may be a good time to invest in Adobe stock. I predict they have several internal estimates on what this change will do to their revenue over the next couple of years, especially around the end of year 1, when their rental rates will double. They probably expect that the results will bring in another mountain of cash and they will do everything they can to make this added revenue image shine. We can’t credibly expect them to be anything but dazzlingly narcissistic about their projections.

Actually no, the company is probably overvalued right now by about 20% based on current financials.  My analysis indicates that this will likely have only a 5% impact on cash flow if that.  In addition they are not sitting on a mountain of cash as are Microsoft and Apple.  There are better places to deploy your money.

[rick_boden]

You could ask the same questions from pretty much any company at any line of business and at any time.

More money and greed would be the answer here no matter what the company representatives say.

And if you think about it, Adobes way of making money is in fact quite harmless compared to a company which is profitable and still lays off people by the hundreds. Although Adobe might still do that on top of added revenue from the new business model...

Actually imaging software from other companies seems to be going down in price through the years so my questions are pretty much targeted towards Adobe.

[jrp]

What sticks in the gullet is that we seem to be being invited to enter into an open ended commitment on our part, with what can only be described as vague promises on Adobe's part.

• They can change the price at any time (and the product expensive as it is, more so outside the US, for a company that probably pays little corporation tax -- is it actually based in Bermuda?)
  
• We don't know what we're buying, other than for the current version -- they made add some periodic tweaks
  
• We are locked in.  They talk a good talk about open standards (DNG, etc) but we will have to work very carefully to ensure that files generated with Photoshop are usable with any alternative products that emerge, not to mention all the investment in time that we have made in learning the product and would have to spend learning a new one.
  

It is interesting that the market https://www.google.com/finance?cid=4112 does not seem to have greeted the change with much enthusiasm compared to the NASDAQ.

[Morris Taub]

Did you gain more than you paid, for using those products in the past?

If so, you're good; if not, why did you keep paying?

I kept paying because it was/is an excellent tool that helped me achieve the work I needed to do. Photoshop is also an industry standard so compatibility with numerous clients made it a necessity. The big changes in how I can continue to use this tool is what the complaint is about, not about gain or loss. The changes to higher prices and perpetual payments and what I'm left with, in hand, suck. Nothing like the original tool I bought and supported via upgrades. You make this whole situation sound very black and white, while I'm feeling it isn't.

[digitaldog]

You can't stop there. Here is the full statement (once again): You are not forced to upgrade. You can continue to run which ever versions of the software that you want until YOU are ready to upgrade. This is crucial for workflows that involve working with clients or vendors that may not be on the latest versions of the software. You can continue using your current version of the product for one full year after the subsequent version is released.

Confusing and conflicting? Yes indeed.

I was told by Jeffrey Tranberry at Adobe that's an old URL and incorrect and hopefully it will be removed. There is no such restriction on updating a CC build. Download and install the first release, run it as long as you pay the subscription.

[Morris Taub]

Actually photographers are a small fraction of their userbase, and they have stated that, read the response on Dpreview. They are even stating the they consider Lightroom for photographers and Photoshop for designers and graphic artists, essentially. So all the moaning and outrage in the forum is pretty much what they expected and it looks like they don't give a crap about it. Their customer base is mostly large clients and more business oriented. And in a L.A. Times article they state that they give larger corporate entities very favorable pricing and substantial discounts. So there you have it. Either jump on their bandwagon or get off, they are not listening and it most likely does not make a difference. I wish it would and wish they would listen but I don't see it happening. Basically time to move on.

Alan

This is exactly how and why I started using photoshop in the early 90's. I was an art director and designer for several publishing houses. We used it for graphic design, not photography. It's only since around 2002, when I started using digital cameras that I started using it for photo work. But even today, I like how I can combine layers, create collage, and add text in photoshop. It isn't only for digital photography in my case. I rarely use ACR, preferring to do my raw conversions in Lightroom.