Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions

[Alan Klein]

They don't know where they are going to wind up.  So their promises about anything is suspect.  The final plan won't look like  what we think they are doing until they do it. 

[Chris Pollock]

As has been implied again and again, fear is a major factor. Count the number of people in this thread who have noted that should they abandon PS, they will lose access to their files. In the end, Adobe is very confident that most will pay their toll.

Yes, fear is a major factor - it's a major factor in my decision to never rent software under any circumstances.

If I stick with CS6, for which I own a perpetual licence, I can be confident that I will be able to open my files for the foreseeable future. If I start renting Photoshop, it probably won't be long before my files become incompatible with CS6. At this point I will have no choice but to pay whatever price Adobe think is reasonable (and they've shown that they're greedy, especially if the customer is not American) or lose access to my work. I simply cannot, and will not, voluntarily grant a corporation the legal right to deny me access to my own work.

I get the impression that most other people have also understood this simple point. Hopefully Adobe will lose a huge part of their customer base, and it will serve as a warning to other companies. Quite frankly the best outcome at this stage would be for Adobe to go broke (unlikely at this point, but even the mighty can fall) and for another, less arrogant company to buy up their intellectual property and take over development.

[stamper]

Quote Alan Klein Reply 479

They don't know where they are going to wind up.  So their promises about anything is suspect.  The final plan won't look like  what we think they are doing until they do it.

Unquote


Correct! Too much huff and puff in the above posts. It is like an approaching storm that changes as it approaches you and veers away at the last moment and fizzles out.

[David Luery]

If you want new functionality you want new functionality and expecting to be able to re-edit the data in a older version of software that doesn't support new functionality is kind of par for the course.

I approach this from the point of view of an amateur or hobbyist photographer, so from Adobe's point I'm probably in the minority of the minority.  And a hobbyist who will soon be retiring and will at some point have less to spend on this wonderful hobby than I have had in the past.  Nonetheless, my intention is to subscribe for as long as I can afford to do so precisely because I do want the new functionality.  But I think your analogy about re-editing in an older version is not appropriate.  For instance, if I did not subscribe, I would continue to be able to use CS6 and I could continue to edit and re-edit any images I had edited in it.  I have lost no functionality.  But if I subscribe to CC and use its new functionality in my editing, then at some point drop my subscription, as I understand things, I would no longer be able to use CC and so I would no longer be able to re-edit any images that incorporated CC functionality that was not in CS6.  So the two situations are not at all analogous.

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.

Best regards,

David

[john beardsworth]

To me it sounds like internal divisions fighting over territory and the future of their products.

Only if that's what you want to hear?

What's happening is that they are listening to how their words are being (mis)understood and tightening up the phrasing.

[Mark D Segal]

I approach this from the point of view of an amateur or hobbyist photographer, so from Adobe's point I'm probably in the minority of the minority.  And a hobbyist who will soon be retiring and will at some point have less to spend on this wonderful hobby than I have had in the past.  Nonetheless, my intention is to subscribe for as long as I can afford to do so precisely because I do want the new functionality.  But I think your analogy about re-editing in an older version is not appropriate.  For instance, if I did not subscribe, I would continue to be able to use CS6 and I could continue to edit and re-edit any images I had edited in it.  I have lost no functionality.  But if I subscribe to CC and use its new functionality in my editing, then at some point drop my subscription, as I understand things, I would no longer be able to use CC and so I would no longer be able to re-edit any images that incorporated CC functionality that was not in CS6.  So the two situations are not at all analogous.

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.

Best regards,

David

Pretty much what I suggested in post 435, and it would solve many peoples' problems with this change of the business model. I also believe a focused discussion of the Agreement, as begun by Lloyd Chambers, is very important, and here is where we could use some legal help from counsel experienced with IP law and "Terms of Service" Agreements. At first glance there does appear to be cause for concern, but it needs in depth analysis, especially to address the question of whether it tilts the playing field further than what we sign-up to already for *perpetual* licenses.

[papa v2.0]

I notice that CC is  $49 Dollars  (£31 pounds) via adobe.com

yet it is £46 pounds via adobe.co.uk

How does this work as it is now a download? Why do Uk pay more for same product?

[RFPhotography]

This is posted in another thread in the Coffee Corner but it's too funny not to include here.  Hitler's take on the CC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Iw9q2X9cU

[richarddd]

Do you understand the implications of revenue recognition relating to generally accepted accounting practices here in the USA? Google it...it starts with Enron...it means that based on the way Adobe had previously set up it's accounting for R&D for Photoshop (and other apps), once a product version was shipped, after the end of the quarter that the product shipped, Adobe was specifically precluded from adding any new features, only bug and maintenance fixes.

With the perpetual license model, Adobe was precluded (meaning that they literally could not) add any new features to the perpetual version.

Please site specific rules that support your statement. 

Accounting principles do not force operational decisions. At worst, you don't get to record revenue when you want to based on accounting rules.

I've seen many claims that GAAP rules on revenue recognition or Sarbanes Oxley (the law based in response to the Enron mess) forced companies to do or not do things. I've never seen anyone able to site specific GAAP principles or SOX sections that support these claims, beyond that some actions may accelerate or defer recognition of revenue. 

For the terminally curious, here's a link to Adobe's 10-K. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/796343/000079634313000008/adbe10kfy12.htm  There's a fair amount of information on the subscription model as well as on revenue recognition.

[digitaldog]

Did you not read my entire post?
Why selective responses just to poke holes, but not have a complete dialog.
Please respond and give your views on what you conveniently left out

What did I leave out? The bit about you wanting to build Smart Objects, use NEW functionality in CC, then go back to CS6 and find features it doesn't have will not work? I thought I was clear when I said you can't do that.

IF that's what you're asking for, it's as far as I know unprecedented in any software package.

IF memory serves me, Photoshop 3 introduced Layers. You're saying you want to work with layers in Photoshop 3, say for a year, then take all those layered files back to the last version that didn't support Layers (version 2.5) and you expect them to appear and for you to be able to edit them? Seriously? Can you name one software product that after introducing a NEW feature in that build, allowed a user to take said functionality back to an older version that didn't support it, and that functionality worked?

IF you pull the trigger on a new version that produces new processing functionality like re-editing a smart object using Shake Reduction and go back to an older version that doesn't have Shake Reduction, you're upset you can't re-edit the SO? Simple: don't go back a version or don't use that processing. Before going back a version, flatten to overcome the limitation you inflicted on yourself, by moving back a version, to access that data.

As I told you, today it is possible to use many of the new features in CC, apply them to a layer (the functionality is now applied and done, applied on a layer), then GO BACK to CS5 and that data is still there for you. That's not enough, you want to go back to the old version AND reapply Shake Reduction. Is that really your stance here? 

[digitaldog]

For painting oneself to a corner, are there much options?

Yes there are, but you may not like them in total.

Stick with CS6 as long as you can. You lose out on any new functionality coming but maybe it's not useful or necessary.
Move to another product. Kiss all your layers good-by. And any other proprietary image processing developed by Adobe you've used on your images.
Move to CC and be happy with some things, unhappy with others (it ain't a perfect world, Adobe isn't a prefect company that pleases everyone).
Recognize we're talking about a tool here. I have no idea if you make any money with the tool or the tool is used in a hobby that sucks money out of your pocket. Either way, the upgrade to CC is either a sound proposition or it isn't.

The idea:let's buy into CC, love some of the new features, then decide screw it, I'm leaving the party is fine. But to expect you can move back to an older version that doesn't support new functionality and be upset that you can't is as silly as deciding you'll go back to Photoshop 2.5 and complain it can't open any of your layered files. This back and forth version jumping scenario is as silly today as it was in the mid 90's when all of us using PS back then moved from 2.5 to 3.0+ and the product now supported layers. The only difference is there's a new subscription model and people are thinking of silly toughts like, how can I use new features and go back to an older build and use features that didn't exist. That's not going to work. This is nothing new.

Draw a line in the sand NOW. Move forward to CC or don't. This 'I want my cake and eat it' idea of using CC for awhile, then deciding not to will work if you do diligence and only use the features of CS6 in CC, assuming you wanted to move back to that version (not CS5, or CS3). That seems like a dumb move.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I notice that CC is  $49 Dollars  (£31 pounds) via adobe.com

yet it is £46 pounds via adobe.co.uk

How does this work as it is now a download? Why do Uk pay more for same product?

It's not only the UK, also the conversion from USD to the Euro inflates the already too high monthly price by an additional 61%, making it completely ludicrous.

Why? Because they think they can ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Mark D Segal]

But to expect you can move back to an older version that doesn't support new functionality and be upset that you can't is as silly as deciding you'll go back to Photoshop 2.5 and complain it can't open any of your layered files.

Andrew, you're right on the money. but that's not the point. I don't think that's what people are after - or at least I hope not! What I sense people want is the ability to retain "in perpetuity" the most recent version of CC they used once their contract expires and they wish to jump off the train. That way they retain access to all the features they were using. I think this would be completely reasonable, solve most of the issues and something Adobe should consider making possible on some terms or other.

[digitaldog]

What I sense people want is the ability to retain "in perpetuity" the most recent version of CC they used once their contract expires and they wish to jump off the train. That way they retain access to all the features they were using. I think this would be completely reasonable, solve most of the issues and something Adobe should consider making possible on some terms or other.

Not going to happen. The entire model of subscriptions is the anti-mater of "in perpetuity" software model. You stay on the train, jump off and you're done or you start with a new train and leave the old baggage on the old train. Look, I'm not happy about this either. I'm not happy my money tree only yields fruit although I'm not unhappy with the fruit itself <g>.

I outlined some alternatives and I'm sure there are a few I didn't think of (Flatten all your layered files, then kiss Adobe goodby and move them into GIMP?).

For 23 years, some of us have used Photoshop to produce documents. I no more expect to take a CC SO back to CS6 as I expect to open layered files in Photoshop 2. I may want to but I can't. I can open my TIFF's from 1.0.7 in CC, which says a lot about maintaining data over the years but no matter how you slice it, Photoshop isn't going to open an MS word doc, MS word isn't going to open a layered PSD with a SO and let me edit it. And CS6 isn't going to process functionality that only exists in CC.

What Adobe is doing is really smart FOR Adobe. I doubt any business person here wouldn't like the same power if you will, over their customer base. It's good business and no, I don't like some of it. But Photoshop is a tool I have to use. So the options are pretty clear to me.

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.

[Mark D Segal]

I suggested in a previous post one could flatten into the background those things that wouldn't be compliant with the latest *perpetual* version one *owns* - a workable compromise of course but less than ideal.

[Mark D Segal]

Added to which Andrew, I guess I'm not wedded to the idea of seeing the issue in B&W - it's either this or that. The world is full of grayscale, and depending upon how all this eventually shakes-out for Adobe, there may well be scope for a mixed solution.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

What I sense people want is the ability to retain "in perpetuity" the most recent version of CC they used once their contract expires and they wish to jump off the train.

Of course that is what everybody has been suggesting all the time. I do not understand why that is not understood by some. And the jumping off the train, may also be the result of inflated pricing after a while (as if it has not already become much more expensive than it was).

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

[jrsforums]

Add another member to the club. I just remembered that we have an ignore function here, so enter "J.........." and at least this is resolved almost immediately   



Interesting for anybody?    http://corelblogs.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/corel-is-all-about-giving-users-choice/

Thank you for this post.

Now here is a company (Corel) who has spent the time to come up with a solution that will work for all parties.  I am sure they are under the same accounting rules as Adobe.

Seems all that is needed is a little caring for ALL of your customers.

[digitaldog]

I suggested in a previous post one could flatten into the background those things that wouldn't be compliant with the latest *perpetual* version one *owns* - a workable compromise of course but less than ideal.

Absolutely! If you're going to have to go back, because you refuse to go forward (and that's your choice), then this will work and further, you could send those flattened TIFFs to a big pile of other pixel editors. With the proprietary PS layers, not a chance.

[Mark D Segal]

And by doing that of course, one loses the non-destructive, reversible workflow features we have grown to depend on so much. Life ain't being made easy!