Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions

[32BT]

What the great minds at Adobe also do not seem to understand is that the discretionary income of many people in the next 2 decades is probably going to drop significantly...

Not to mention that we are currently in the middle of a rather significant economic crisis, on top of the photo and publishing crisis.

Great time i suppose for a price increase...

[RFPhotography]

What the great minds at Adobe also do not seem to understand is that the discretionary income of many people in the next 2 decades is probably going to drop significantly, because the baby-boomers have started retiring in greater numbers than the number of people flowing into the workforce population. Or maybe they did understand and thought, let's rip them off while they think they can afford it.

Cheers,
Bart

And this misses a major point of Jeff's arguments.  You're talking about hobbyists.  The fact that a not insignificant number of hobbyists have ponied up for the full monty version of Photoshop when for, probably, 99.999999999....% of them something like Elements would be sufficient isn't, I don't believe, a reasoned argument.  As Jeff has said, Adobe produces professional software geared to professional users.  It also produces 'hobbyist' software in the form of things such as Elements and Premier (vs. Premier Pro).  There is also a not insignificant number of hobbyists who pony up for the full monty Canon 1D Mk XIX Series 3 and 8 or 9 L series lenses when a Rebel and an 18-200 consumer zoom would do all they need.  GAS and SAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome and Software Acquisition Syndrome) on the part of hobbyists really aren't reasons why companies should alter their business decisions.  The CC is geared to professionals.  Just as the Canon 1D Mk XIX Series 3 and L lenses are geared to professionals.  That some well-heeled hobbyists also buy and use these is of secondary consequence.

[Mark D Segal]

Bob, this is too catagoric a way of carving-up the universe. There are all kinds of people in different stages of life, different walks of life, different levels of expertise, proficiency, interest, using a range of the professional products for things they want and can't get otherwise. Doubtless Adobe has studied the characteristics of their user base as carefully as their data permits, but they themselves may be surprised by the range of reactions they are getting to all this. All that said, I agree there is a corporate world out there for whom all this is most likely no big deal, and perhaps at the end of the day advantageous; but that doesn't make things better for a whole many others. How many? Maybe only Adobe knows.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And this misses a major point of Jeff's arguments.  You're talking about hobbyists.

Hi Bob,

No, not exclusively. Look at the greater economic picture of the western world. Bankruptcies and layoffs, a shrinking workforce, and a rapid change in demographics. Adobe seems to want to compensate by raising prices ...

Cheers,
Bart

[RFPhotography]

Oh, I'm not saying this is a walk in the park even for many professionals, Mark.  As I noted in another thread, this move will hurt some professionals as well.  Those small shops that work on thin margins and can't pass on price increases for whatever reason will be impacted.  No question about that.  And sure, I understand people use different tools for different reasons.  I just think Bart's argument, as it seems to pertain to hobbyists primarily, isn't that compelling.

Where I do have a concern, and maybe it's a drop in the bucket as well, is for those current resellers of Adobe products that will lose that revenue stream.  If Adobe is the only source for the CC, then computer stores and outlets like B&H lose that part of their product mix and the revenue/profit potential.  Again, maybe this is a drop in the proverbial bucket but I have more sympathy for those resellers than some ticked off users.

To be clear, I'm not overly thrilled about this either.  But I'll likely sign on for the full suite.  I'll replace Sony Vegas for video editing with Premier/After Effects.  While I'm not thrilled with the UI of those applications I'll adapt.  I've got MS Expression Web 4 that I use for website work.  I've used Dreamweaver in the past so can go back to it and learn the newer version.  There will be benefits to being able to use Bridge for everything and the more seamless integration of software applications.  So I'm not pleased, but I'll adapt.  And yes, as a small operation with thin margins, it will have an impact.

[ianmac]

On the other hand, if Adobe were to 'freeze' your version of CC at the point at which you stopped subscribing, then I could continue to re-edit images previously edited in CC.  That would be entirely analogous to the current situation with perpetually licensed software.  While not entirely happy with the subscription idea, I can live with it (until I can no longer afford it) if Adobe would allow subscribers to freeze their version of PS CC at the point in time the choose to stop subscribing.

David

I totally agree.  This seems the most logical answer.

If a user wanted to stop monthly payments (say after a minimum 12 month period, for example), "freezing" the product at that point but still allowing full functionality would be fair whereas if a another user always wanted the latest updates and features, they would continue with their monthly subscription and that is fair too.  Adobe would be giving choice to its customers.

Both different types of users are happy.  Surely it can't be that difficult for Adobe to implement the necessary code to allow this?

One other point - I would argue that Photoshop is used by a far higher percentage of non-professional as well as professional users than the very specialised Illustrator, InDesign & Premiere Pro which I am confident have a much higher percentage of pro users to non-pro.  Therefore Photoshop should also be offered in a perpetual license form in my opinion - just like Lightroom - as it affects many more users.  It has even sneaked into our language, "photoshopped.....!"

It is not fair to put the argument that non-pro photographers should now move to Photoshop Elements/Lightroom/whatever to avoid the subscription model - they have worked in Photoshop for years, they should be able to continue to do so.

Regards, Ian (UK)

[Mark D Segal]

Hi Bob,

No, not exclusively. Look at the greater economic picture of the western world. Bankruptcies and layoffs, a shrinking workforce, and a rapid change in demographics. Adobe seems to want to compensate by raising prices ...

Cheers,
Bart

Bart, to be reasonable, Adobe isn't in the business of solving the world's economic problems, which dwarf this CC issue a thousand-fold if not a quantum more, nor are they conceived as a massive international income redistribution scheme. It's simply a corporation with employees, managers and shareholders doing the things such entities do.

[jrsforums]

What did I leave out?

I am not sure what more I can do to get you to focus on the problem....other than to repeat my post...

Please respond and give your views on what you conveniently left out

It is not that I want to do this (use old version of CS6).  I really have no problem with the CC rental strategy.  I just want to protect myself.

Adobe could go out of business....or change their strategy and find photography products not profitable enough, so they stop investing or discontinue PS. (basically a Kodak scenario).  The price could go out of sight or circumstances could change where I could no longer afford to pay the monthly fee.  Lots of possibilities we cannot imagine right now.

Don't you think we have the right....in fact the need and the responsibility to protect our image work efforts?

ANdrew, you were all over me on the need for DNG to protect our assests, yet you fail to recognise the very potential loss of Adobe's actions.  

You made a major issue about not being able to get at your PhotoCD and early Koday RAW images...even though it IS possible, but requires effort.  You got upset when I said that with 20/20 hindsight this could have been avoided.

Do you not think that this Adobe action is a problem?  Should we bury our collective heads in the sand....and years from now bemoan that we cannot get at or adjust the images that we thought were safe?

The Corel actions show that a caring company can find a solution
http://corelblogs.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/corel-is-all-about-giving-users-choice/

[MrIconoclast]

Right now some creative young folks who know how to write good computer code are looking at Adobe's decision and saying "This is my opportunity to become rich!" 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart, to be reasonable, Adobe isn't in the business of solving the world's economic problems, which dwarf this CC issue a thousand-fold if not a quantum more, nor are they conceived as a massive international income redistribution scheme. It's simply a corporation with employees, managers and shareholders doing the things such entities do.

Hi Mark,

I absolutely agree. I'm just making an observation that the change of direction will speed up the process of people dropping out (either voluntary or forced by circumstances beyond their control) of their potential customer base, large corporations last. They can either compensate by growing their customer base, or by raising prices for the remaining customers.

Cheers,
Bart

[Mark D Segal]

Hi Mark,

I absolutely agree. I'm just making an observation that the change of direction will speed up the process of people dropping out (either voluntary or forced by circumstances beyond their control) of their potential customer base, large corporations last. They can either compensate by growing their customer base, or by raising prices for the remaining customers.

Cheers,
Bart

It will be interesting to see how all that plays out.

[digitaldog]

ANdrew, you were all over me on the need for DNG to protect our assests, yet you fail to recognise the very potential loss of Adobe's actions.

Not at all. I've told you how to handle this issue: Upgrade and move on, don't upgrade and move on.

Do you not think that this Adobe action is a problem?

For those like myself that will move forward no. For those that stay with CS6, no. For those that want to go both ways, yes. Because it's a stupid move to consider.

But let's take your argument over mine with proprietary DNGs. The CC image can be flattened at any time, or the non accessible data built in CC can be handled such I could open that CC data in Photoshop CS6 and if done correctly, Photoshop 2!

The proprietary raw I can't open isn't even a rendered image, it's a raw neg. In one scenario, I have my image, I can edit it such I could use hundreds of applications to see and print that data. In the other scenario I can't. In the first scenario yes I am no longer able to edit that data using the new tools. In the other scenario there's no tool to even access the data. One is far worse than the other.

Should we bury our collective heads in the sand....and years from now bemoan that we cannot get at or adjust the images that we thought were safe?

Yes, if there is no software to access that data. But there probably will be, meaning you'll have to pay for that accessibly, buying into CC. And by being smart how we store our rendered data (as a TIFF with a flattened version inside).

[RFPhotography]

The Corel actions show that a caring company can find a solution
http://corelblogs.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/corel-is-all-about-giving-users-choice/

Corel is a company that has been on the brink of failure for years.  It's photo application used to be pretty much akin to Elements but now lags even that.  Corel has no choice because it's not in a position to dictate any terms to its customers.  

[digitaldog]

Corel is a company that has been on the brink of failure for years.  It's photo application used to be pretty much akin to Elements but now lags even that.  Corel has no choice because it's not in a position to dictate any terms to its customers.  

Very true and heck, an insult to Elements <g>.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It will be interesting to see how all that plays out.

Absolutely.

Here are some other views from different angles:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/microsoft-office-wont-go-subscription-only-anytime-soon/
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1412811-adobe-jumps-off-a-cliff-leaves-parachute-behind?source=yahoo

Cheers,
Bart

[Janne Aavasalo]

Instead of this silly idea that we can move to future versions of software, then back when we wish and obtain all the same functionally, the same people should just start working on a time machine.  Their efforts might be better served.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been saying this the whole time. It is NOT going to work that way and I don't have any illusions otherwise.

But the thing is that if you now board the Adobe "moneytrain", there really is no turning back if you want to preserve the functionality and editability of your files for the foreseeable future.

So it's either "bend over" and pay a lot more than you're used to and with no mattress to fall on to if for some reason you can't pay anymore. Or to use the old tools, search for better ones and move on to them.

And this seriously disrupts the workflow, because you have to learn the new tools proficiently, so I don't think it's a wonder that people are quite angry with this move. Especially if they've paid a lot for Photoshop training or bought tutorial books and videos.

I really must be happy for you, since I guess you either have sufficient amount of money that you can subscribe or you have to do it, but get the money back as revenue or you get the subscription free from Adobe (again speculation here). But not all of us are as fortunate as you, so why can't you put yourself into other peoples place and think about how much this move from Adobe sucks then instead of making witty remarks about building time machines etc.

[jrsforums]

The proprietary raw I can't open isn't even a rendered image, it's a raw neg. In one scenario, I have my image, I can edit it such I could use hundreds of applications to see and print that data. In the other scenario I can't. In the first scenario yes I am no longer able to edit that data using the new tools. In the other scenario there's no tool to even access the data. One is far worse than the other.

The proprietary RAW has a large embedded JPEG, which many utility software can extract.  It is analogous to your TIFF.

With both of these scenarios you lose the ability to easily adjust the image....you lose work product.  

With the RAW you lose the effort you put in to create it, anticipating the ability to modify/improve it.  

With the flattened TIFF, you lose all of your effort in creating the steps to modify the image....and no means to build on or easily modify that work.

Just like the PhotoCD situation, we are not talking about there not being work arounds.  What we are talking about is the amount of effort the Adobe CC action will potentially cause photographers

[digitaldog]

But the thing is that if you now board the Adobe "moneytrain", there really is no turning back if you want to preserve the functionality and editability of your files for the foreseeable future.

And to be fair, you could remove Adobe and add Intuit, or MS, or any other company that makes software.

So it's either "bend over" and pay a lot more than you're used to and with no mattress to fall on to if for some reason you can't pay anymore. Or to use the old tools, search for better ones and move on to them.

After hundreds of posts here, that sum's it up damn well!

I really must be happy for you, since I guess you either have sufficient amount of money that you can subscribe or you have to do it, but get the money back as revenue or you get the subscription free from Adobe (again speculation here). But not all of us are as fortunate as you, so why can't you put yourself into other peoples place and think about how much this move from Adobe sucks then instead of making witty remarks about building time machines etc.

I don't know if that's directed specifically at me or not. But the yes, I make my living using Photoshop and other such tools and in my case, I have no options even if many parts of this new scheme I don't care for. I don't like it when the price of gas goes up but I still have to do a 170 mile round trip to get to the airport with the laptop running Photoshop I use to make a living.

[jrsforums]

Corel is a company that has been on the brink of failure for years.  It's photo application used to be pretty much akin to Elements but now lags even that.  Corel has no choice because it's not in a position to dictate any terms to its customers.  

I was pointing out that there is a potential solution....not commenting/promoting on Corel as a company or their products.

[digitaldog]

The proprietary RAW has a large embedded JPEG, which many utility software can extract.  It is analogous to your TIFF.

That's absurd. The tiny embedded JPEG built by the camera is the reason not to capture and render as I desire raw data? Heck, just set the camera to JPEG with that mindset.
You're again serious?

With the flattened TIFF, you lose all of your effort in creating the steps to modify the image....and no means to build on or easily modify that work.

It's rendered as I wished from raw, it's high bit, it's in ProPhoto RGB and it's been edited. You really believe that is equivalent to the tiny, incorrectly exposed JPEG (cause I expose properly for raw), camera rendered sRGB, 8-bit per color JPEG? That's absurd!