Adobe - Creative Cloud Update

[ButchM]

Actually, I don't need Adobe to stroke my ego.

You seem to have a propensity for reading into a comment ... I was not implying that I felt the need to have Adobe "stroke my ego" ... only that a transaction in commerce should at least have a remote sense of an equal partnership. For one can not exist without the other, especially if you consider repeat sales are the life's blood to success for any business.

If you, yourself, have ever conducted business on the open market ... as long as you accept a sale from a client, should the client feel they are important to the cause? Or should they merely be treated as a necessary nuisance if they are not your intended market? If they are treated as a less valued customer? ... How many repeat sales do you hope to achieve? How many "photographers" who at one point only owned Ps are now Creative Suite license holders? Would Lr have made such successful inroads to the photographic community without the historical reputation of Photoshop and Adobe in general? While I fully comprehend that a business must do what is in the best interests of the majority of their customers ... one would hope they could find a means to do so without alienating the rest. Because quite frankly, Adobe didn't come to this decision because they had their backs to the wall financially or are in dire straits.

[32BT]

But a user group should understand that it's only a subset of all users in the overall user base. It's also useful for a user group to have a firm grasp on the reality of their importance to the overall user base.

Enough already. I find it hard to understand why you as a creative artist if you will, would so vehemently defend that type of corporate logic. If you really believe that that type of technocrat corporate-centric logic is remotely useful in running a company within the larger context of a (global) community, then god help you when the local electricity and gas company re-evaluates your "significance"…

[Schewe]

Enough already. I find it hard to understand why you as a creative artist if you will, would so vehemently defend that type of corporate logic.

You don't get it...I'm not defending Adobe's logic, I'm trying to explain it. Know your enemy...if you want to fight against Adobe's logic, you have to do so from a position of understanding why Adobe thought it had to do what it did...it's foolish to try to fight something you don't understand. I understand photographers are upset and why they are upset. They don't like Adobe's decision because of the way they think it impacts them as a Photoshop user. But ranting and raving isn't going to have any impact. If you don't like Creative Cloud, vote with your wallet. Just understand that your wallet has not been historically all that important to Adobe...

[Oldfox]

I cannot see a company of Adobe's size and global reach, taking such a gamble without having a good idea of what the outcome will be, so I must be missing something here and these numbers give a representation that is just too simplistic.

This is what I have also been wondering. Also I wonder how can their board accept a decline in sales by 22% in 2013 (the graph #29 in Adobe MAX Financial  Analyst Briefing), I must be missing something here.

Looking at Adobe's Balance Sheet you can see that 40% of their assets is Goodwill. The GAAP rules were changed some 10 yrs ago and it is not required to amortize the goodwill anymore and Adobe has not amortized it. This isnt necessarily a bad thing. But 40% of the assets...

[32BT]

You don't get it...I'm not defending Adobe's logic, I'm trying to explain it.

I understand the difference. So let me rephrase deliberately provocative: how would you explain the logic behind any company being allowed to alienate 10% of its customerbase, in favour of apparently squeezing out more income from the remaining 90%?

[davidh202]

   Seems that many are complaining that they will be "locked out" of their ability to revisit files at a later time and re-edit their PSD files again if their subscription to CC stops, and there are tools that were used up till that point that are now closed to them.  Personally I rarely go back and re-edit old images since there is a flood of new ones to work on all the time and I really wonder whether or not this is a valid 'bone of contention' or people just bellyaching for the sake of argument.

I'm not sure if anyone has suggested this yet...

   As I understand the CC model, the software up to the point you have subscribed, remains on your HD you just can no longer access it after a given point after stopping.
What if Adobe simply implemented a way to re-enter your CC program (pay per use),  and use it on a daily or weekly rental basis if it is really necessary to re-edit a file? You would still have access to all the tools that were used up to the point you stopped and full edit ability of said files!

David  

[Isaac]

...only that a transaction in commerce should at least have a remote sense of an equal partnership. For one can not exist without the other, especially if you consider repeat sales are the life's blood to success for any business.

If I never buy another Adobe product, Adobe certainly won't notice -- but I'll probably find it more difficult to get some things done.

It is not a partnership. It is not an equal partnership (Installed base 8 million?). It is a transaction, which is already over and done with.

No doubt Adobe know their valuable clients -- the clients that make them money.

[Mark D Segal]

I understand the difference. So let me rephrase deliberately provocative: how would you explain the logic behind any company being allowed to alienate 10% of its customerbase, in favour of apparently squeezing out more income from the remaining 90%?

Oscar, if the incremental income from the 90% will be greater than the net loss from the 10% (a portion of whom will subscribe)?

[Schewe]

I understand the difference. So let me rephrase deliberately provocative: how would you explain the logic behind any company being allowed to alienate 10% of its customerbase, in favour of apparently squeezing out more income from the remaining 90%?

That's your characterization...and I'm not at all sure it's accurate. Assuming that a user is using more than one or two point products, CC is a really good deal for pro users. You get all of Adobe's pro apps for a relatively small price (based on the upgrade price for most of the Creative Suites or Master Collection). For non-pro users or users only needing one point product, I agree that a subscription may not be the best deal vs a perpetual license that is only upgraded on occasion. But that's what the reality is now. Get CS6 and hang on to it for a while or go Photoshop CC. Or, find something else to use.

[Mark D Segal]

This is what I have also been wondering. Also I wonder how can their board accept a decline in sales by 22% in 2013 (the graph #29 in Adobe MAX Financial  Analyst Briefing), I must be missing something here.

Looking at Adobe's Balance Sheet you can see that 40% of their assets is Goodwill. The GAAP rules were changed some 10 yrs ago and it is not required to amortize the goodwill anymore and Adobe has not amortized it. This isnt necessarily a bad thing. But 40% of the assets...

Goodwill is the difference between the value of the company and the value of its physical assets. For a software company dealing in intellectual property goodwill would be a very large slice of total value; this is normal. And a decline of sales in one year of transition means little when your corporate time horizon is the next decade or so. Could you explain what any of this contributes to a better understanding of the issues?

[Vladimirovich]

f you don't like Creative Cloud, vote with your wallet. Just understand that your wallet has not been historically all that important to Adobe...

 

rule N1, call things w/ their names... it is not "Creative Cloud", it is "subscription only mode"

rule N2, be vocal and actively post against everywhere... their (Schewes, plular) "goal" is to silence, so do not be silent...

[Vladimirovich]

But a user group should understand that it's only a subset of all users in the overall user base.

oh... tell this to LGBT

[john beardsworth]

  Seems that many are complaining that they will be "locked out" of their ability to revisit files at a later time and re-edit their PSD files again if their subscription to CC stops, and there are tools that were used up till that point that are now closed to them.  Personally I rarely go back and re-edit old images since there is a flood of new ones to work on all the time and I really wonder whether or not this is a valid 'bone of contention' or people just bellyaching for the sake of argument.

You don't re-edit, and there's no reason to disbelieve what you say. If others say they do foresee the need to fine tune their work, then it's fair enough to accept what they say at face value. After all, why should they be accused of concocting this as a way to bellyache, yet your arguments not be similarly discounted for some other psychological failing? Ever heard of the idea of non-destructive editing and thought what it might be for?

[Rhossydd]

What if Adobe simply implemented a way to re-enter your CC program (pay per use),  and use it on a daily or weekly rental basis if it is really necessary to re-edit a file?

That's available now as I understand it. You can subscribe to(rent) the whole suite just for a month.
This aspect of it seems to be over looked by a lot of the complainants.

It's actually one of the few good things about CC; you can get access to things like InDesign for a one off book project or Premiere+AE for a video project just for a month or two to work on and finish a project.

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

I know we are all looking at this from a photographers point of view and how it affects us, but there are also many others out there who are finding that Adobe's Creative Cloud is a bitter pill that is just too hard to swallow, such as Higher Education <- read some of the comments from educational buyers further down the page.

I wonder what percentage of Adobe's customer base this section occupies?

[Update] - and here is how we could all help to change Adobe's mind. Although I don't agree with the statement on the link page that states "adobe cannot go back to perpetual licenses", because I think they definitely could if it meant appeasing their angry shareholders  

Dave

[Vladimirovich]

It's actually one of the few good things about CC; you can get access to things like InDesign for a one off book project or Premiere+AE for a video project just for a month or two to work on and finish a project.

nobody is arguing against "subscription", only about "subscription only"... 

[jrsforums]

You don't get it...I'm not defending Adobe's logic, I'm trying to explain it. Know your enemy...if you want to fight against Adobe's logic, you have to do so from a position of understanding why Adobe thought it had to do what it did...it's foolish to try to fight something you don't understand. I understand photographers are upset and why they are upset. They don't like Adobe's decision because of the way they think it impacts them as a Photoshop user. But ranting and raving isn't going to have any impact. If you don't like Creative Cloud, vote with your wallet. Just understand that your wallet has not been historically all that important to Adobe...

Oh, Jeff....of course you are defending Adobe.

I find it interesting that you think it is important to explain to us Adobe position, as if it will make us feel any better about their action.  How come, when it comes to DNG you don't have any "understanding" of the camera manufacturer's reasons to not use DNG.

Appears that you and Adobe, at least in your mind, are always right....even when you are both often proven wrong.  Sure is a lot a chutzpah

[kirkt]

Another interesting thing to ponder is the recent acquisition of Nik by Google.  Nik made plug-ins for photoshop for photographers.  This apparently unimportant market segment has been subsumed by Google, most likely because there is potential for making money off of such an inconsequential market segment - and most likely with an image processing application of their own.  I would guess that one of the driving factors behind Adobe's new focus is the direct threat from Google and other "cloud"-saavy organizations with lots of programmers and a huge head start in the future direction of processing and delivery.  Google has an extraordinary presence on the net.  It makes mobile devices, and operating systems for them.  It controls the universe of information, analysis and delivery of it.  Perhaps Adobe's extraordinary emphasis on the Cloud is an attempt to let the (potential) competition known that Adobe is now going to be a player in the "future" - maybe a little late to the game.  If Google wants a piece of your turf (the mobile device platform market, syncing desktop to mobile platforms for image processing, etc., syncing and collaborating over the net for data delivery), pissing off loyal customers is not a great way to start defending it.

But, of course, most people who would use a Google product for their images are not "pros."

kirk

[BernardLanguillier]

  Seems that many are complaining that they will be "locked out" of their ability to revisit files at a later time and re-edit their PSD files again if their subscription to CC stops, and there are tools that were used up till that point that are now closed to them.  Personally I rarely go back and re-edit old images since there is a flood of new ones to work on all the time and I really wonder whether or not this is a valid 'bone of contention' or people just bellyaching for the sake of argument.

There are many cases when reworking a file is required together with the ability to do it at any time:
- Mgt of sharpening: I keep sharpening layers in my files and want to be able to remove them/modify them based on the desired output,
- Fine art applications: a client requests a print from an image on a new paper stock, you realize that you need to tune the curves to get the same rendering,
- Compositing: you want to re-use a template on which some picture elements of a web page are based but modify the layers arrangement to tune a text,...
- New improvements in raw processing. I did revisit quite a few images after C1 Pro 7 was released and didn't want to re-start from scratch. So I did re-open some files, replaced the base layer by the new conversion but kept all the layers on top of it,
- Printing of a portfolio: you need a certain degree of coherence among images that typically forces you to tune some of them which requires edition,
- ...

There are just a few examples. obviousy graphic designers build all their IP as layers, so they need to access layers wvery single time they use their files.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Isaac]

There are many cases when reworking a file is required together with the ability to do it at any time...

afaict The situation is simply that you wish to use PS CC without subscription, and Adobe don't wish to provide PS CC without subscription.