Adobe - Creative Cloud Update

[BernardLanguillier]

I think because a much larger percentage of non-photographer users are using the software in a corporate environment where buying software by subscription is far less of an issue.

I am not sure about that. There are countless independant graphic designer and they all use Illustrator and Photoshop.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Rhossydd]

I am not sure about that. There are countless independant graphic designer and they all use Illustrator and Photoshop.

They're not 'countless' Adobe know how many licences are out there.

I've been surprised at how many professional photographers I've spoken to are using corporate PS licences their regular clients have passed on to them. It may well be similar for smaller graphic artists too. It's these big corporations and agencies that are buying an awful lot of seat licences and might make savings from subscription deals.

[PhotoEcosse]

Interested that they bastardise the English language to such an extent that they use the verb "to ship" in reference to something that has no physical presence.

Are they going to send it over the Atlantic in a virtual container aboard a virtual freighter?

[Simon J.A. Simpson]

Question - can i open PSD files from CC in CS6?
It will be a matter of time before it will be not possible- for sure...
Maybe Lightroom will be also subscription-only in a few years...
What to expect from Adobe? after this switch?
In that case Adobe has the key to your catalogue etc...

The general view, backed from Jeff Schewe (who knows more than we do about this stuff) is to go over to using TIFFs.  TIFF files can be opened by lots of applications including older versions of PS (than CS6).  But in order to ensure compatibility of various kinds the advice is to use ZIP compression (not LZW) and ZIP layer compression.  In my experience this produces slightly smaller files than PSD.

Do a search of this forum (Digital Image Processing) to get the most recent posting on this (found in similar threads about CC).  Sorry, I  
don't' have time to do this.

[Rhossydd]

The general view,

See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78931.0

But in order to ensure compatibility of various kinds the advice is to use ZIP compression (not LZW) and ZIP layer compression.  In my experience this produces slightly smaller files than PSD.

Ctien suggests no compression at all for best compatibility.

[Simon J.A. Simpson]

Interested that they bastardise the English language to such an extent that the use the verb "to ship" in reference to something that has no physical presence.

Are they going to send it over the Atlantic in a virtual container aboard a virtual freighter?

Yeah.  But this is how these folk talk.  It's a way of distancing themselves from reality by using language that does not accurately describe what a thing is or does.  That gives a lot of wriggle room when you get challenged.  Believe me, I know this from personal experience.  It is also delusional (sorry I seem to be repeating myself!).

[Simon J.A. Simpson]

See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78931.0Ctien suggests no compression at all for best compatibility.

True.  But the files are massive, especially if you've got a lot of layers.  OK, if you've got lots of storage though.

[Rhossydd]

especially if you've got a lot of layers. 

If you read the article it suggests flattening the image, so no layers.

I just sometimes wonder why so many people can't be decisive and feel the need to never commit themselves to an edit.

[Simon J.A. Simpson]

I just sometimes wonder why so many people can't be decisive and feel the need to never commit themselves to an edit.

Well, thanks.  That was helpful.  Maybe people like to be able to reflect, over a period of time, on the edits they've done and go back and tweak them (especially if you are fine tuning an image).  You can't do that if you've rushed in and 'committed' yourself !  :–)))

[john beardsworth]

If you read the article it suggests flattening the image, so no layers.

I just sometimes wonder why so many people can't be decisive and feel the need to never commit themselves to an edit.

The other side of the coin is that they keep an open mind and anticipate reviewing their decision. Or you can spin it as fine tuning.

[Simon J.A. Simpson]

Or you can spin it as fine tuning.

"Spin" it ?  I hadn't thought of that.  Perhaps I'll give it a try 

[laughingbear]

Jeff,

perhaps Adobe find it a useful information albeit from a specific market segment that the majority would not like the subscription based model. A friend of mine and well known photoshop Guru, Doc Baumann in Germany, had posted the results of a survey conducted on behalf of COREL by INNOFACT AG.

In a nutshell (I have no time to translate the entire article now): 1.000 people were asked and just 1% would be happy to use a subscription cloud model.

35% prefer to order a box product over the Internet. 33% prefer a software download. 25% prefer to purchase a box in a retail shop. 1% would use a cloud based subscription.

fwiw here the german link:

http://www.docma.info/news-stories/artikel/detail/software-abos-unbeliebt.html

Best
Georg

[Mark D Segal]

I am not sure about that. There are countless independant graphic designer and they all use Illustrator and Photoshop.

Cheers,
Bernard

Jeff, Bernard, et.al., I don't think it matters a bit what percentage of the user base are of what profession. The key things that matter are (i) the overall acceptability of the model to the global client base, (ii) whether the number who stop paying money to Adobe is large enough to affect the company's net profit position and the share value, and (iii) reputational risk. The first two are empirical issues that only Adobe is best positioned to understand, and the third may be the factor motivating them to consider amending the model in some deference to the fraction of the clientele that is truly annoyed, content of change remaining to be seen.

[Simon J.A. Simpson]

Jeff, Bernard, et.al., I don't think it matters a bit what percentage of the user base are of what profession. The key things that matter are (i) the overall acceptability of the model to the global client base, (ii) whether the number who stop paying money to Adobe is large enough to affect the company's net profit position and the share value, and (iii) reputational risk. The first two are empirical issues that only Adobe is best positioned to understand, and the third may be the factor motivating them to consider amending the model in some deference to the fraction of the clientele that is truly annoyed, content of change remaining to be seen.

Also how good their data is, whether they know how good it is, and whether they believe it (despite of how good it may be).

[Mark D Segal]

Also how good their data is, whether they know how good it is, and whether they believe it (despite of how good it may be).

Whatever it is, it will be much better than any one elses' including us.

[Simon J.A. Simpson]

Whatever it is, it will be much better than any one elses' including us.

Forgive me Mark, I hate to quibble, but it does not matter if their data is "better" than anyone else's.  What matters is whether the data is good enough to make rational decisions, and whether they want to believe the data they've got.

Judging by the recent statements coming out of Adobe one has to doubt whether the correlation between their perception of what the data is telling them (or at least the version they convey to the greater general public) and reality actually exists.  Or, to put it another way, do they really think we're going believe some of what they're saying ?  I remain sceptical since much of it seems 'spin' to back-up what they believe, or what they want us to believe.  Let us just hope that the reality of what is going on behind closed doors bears little or no relation to their public pronouncements.

[Mark D Segal]

Simon, let me put it this way: if their data is not good enough to make rational decisions they will pay the price for that. While large corporations have been known to exercise huge delusional behaviours (viz the 2008 US financial crisis), Adobe probably have very sharp data gathering functions and market analysts who at least for the empirical stuff probably perform well. Executive management use of such information of course, whether for making decisions or producing public statements is another matter, and it is likely in these latter respects that we are seeing the shortcomings.

[Simon J.A. Simpson]

We'll see over the coming months !

[jrsforums]

No, I mean that historically, photographers (pro and am) make up less than 10% of the overall Photoshop user base. Sorry...but that number is from Adobe's own internal calculations...Photoshop was not designed for nor mainly sold to photographers (even if "photo" is in the product name).

Yes, there are a lot of photographers (pro and am) that use Photoshop, but we are severely in the minority of all Photoshop users. Photoshop's largest user bases are graphic arts, scientific, industrial, corporate, web, design, web. All of those markets make up the majority of the Photoshop installed users base.

Yeah, I know...photographers tend to think they are the center of the universe...but we're not.

That's not to say that Adobe wants to alienate us...they don't. But we need to understand where we actually stand instead of where we think we stand.

We have all filled out the little "surveys".  How many of the "non-photographer" users you point to also use PS for their personal photographic use....and have the same concerns?

[s4e]

If Adobe first had made a version specific for photographer as an option to the cloud version we will not have this mess. Even if we are only 10% the number should be more than high enough to earn money.
You can perhaps as an investor accept that a company dump 10% of its customers but you can not accept this as one of the 10% customer.