Adobe - Creative Cloud Update

[Rob Reiter]

If you're goal is "good enough" work, go ahead and flatten your PSDs. If you've never looked back at older work and thought you could do better now, with better tools or evolved skills, then you'll be happy.

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

[Isaac]

When I look back at older work, with better tools or evolved skills, I can always start fresh.

[Rob Reiter]

Well, that's certainly an efficient way to spend one's spare time! You must have a lot of it.

When I look back at older work, with better tools or evolved skills, I can always start fresh.

[john beardsworth]

Well, that's certainly an efficient way to spend one's spare time! You must have a lot of it.

Equally, it could be that the older work was so crap

[Isaac]

Well, that's certainly an efficient way to spend one's spare time! You must have a lot of it.

Maybe your tools didn't become much better, maybe your skills didn't evolve much.

Enough with the snark.

We can do both -- we can save TIFF to build a non-proprietary image archive that provides some longer-term safeguard of independence and we can save PSD to provide convenience in the medium-term.

[john beardsworth]

Isaac, I did follow up about the 16 bit previews in DNGs. It is indeed in the spec, but Peter doesn't know of anyone taking advantage of it.

[Isaac]

Interesting.

I was going to come back to this for a couple of reasons:

Clearly lossy as they are JPEGs and only 8 bit. Peter Krogh used to do a demo (maybe still does) where he invited his audience to distinguish a print made from the raw data and one from the DNG's preview, and very few pro photographers could tell one from the other.

- I think there's a lesson in there given the fuss we sometimes make about arcane technical details

- I think there might be a lesson about whether we really need 16 bit processing or whether 8 bit PS Elements would be just fine

- I think there might be a lesson for me about whether I'd be better off archiving DNG rather than RAW + TIFF

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Has the Lula forum database become corrupted and the data from two entirely different threads become blended into one?

I thought we were discussing Adobe and the PS licensing/rental issue update and not the merits or otherwise of different methods of file storage.

Or is this a sinister plot by an Adobe spy mole to curtail the discussion by randomly introducing a fake sub-thread  

Dave  

[john beardsworth]

Can't you see that one result of Adobe's changed licensing is greater awareness of the need for exit strategies and that file formats is a key element?

[Isaac]

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.

Just a commonplace analogy.

[BernardLanguillier]

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.

Countless as in "a very large number". But I am sure you had understood, right?

As far as your friends who have "received" a corporate license, well that is going to be more difficult to do with CC as well.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Isaac]

... my main concern which is the ability to keep working on files after the end of a subscription.

That will probably be some form of read only capability. I would be surprised if it addressed the fundamental doubt about creating more IP (layers, masks, vector objects,...) in CS knowing that - even if a result file can be generated/opened - the ability to continue leveraging this IP is the core request not satisfied by the CC subscription approach.

I've been meaning to ask you - is there something about "the ability to keep working on files after the end of a subscription" which you think is different than you would have during the subscription?

Is the only difference you have in mind that during the subscription there'd be updates and after the end of the subscription there wouldn't?

[MHMG]

Countless as in "a very large number". But I am sure you had understood, right?

As far as your friends who have "received" a corporate license, well that is going to be more difficult to do with CC as well.

Cheers,
Bernard

Maybe by now the subject has been beaten to death, but here's the thing as far as I'm concerned. I always owned a legitimate copy of Creativeve Suite. I've never bootlegged or pirated anything Adobe or any other software for that matter. But the cost of Adobe products was always a hefty premium for me as a very small business (i.e., sole proprietor) even as I highly regarded the quality of the Adobe products compared to other options. I didn't skip every other major update, but I didn't always adopt the latest Adobe offering the very minute a new major CS suite number became available. I wasn't Adobe's best customer, but I wasn't Adobe's worst customer.  I controlled my costs for Adobe software by buying into the latest upgrade when I could afford to do so. At all times my business prospects, not Adobe's, dictated that decision. Adobe just told me I must pay every month, and Adobe just doubled my annual cost for the essentially the same upgrade pathway I've been using for many years (let's not quibble about instantaneous minor monthly updates compared to 18 month or thereabouts major updates). I don't know whether I will accept this new licensing fee going forward. What I can say for certain, is that while in the past I thought Adobe's price to be a premium, I now consider it excessive. I'm actively exploring my options whereas I didn't spend much time doing so in the past. Is that a good thing for Adobe? I don't know. It depends on how many people now feel like I do about the new cost of remaining on Adobe provided software, and whether the revenues from that population of endusers outweighs Adobe's clever price increases. If enough endusers are prepared to adopt different software/hardware strategies to accomplish their designated tasks, then Adobe's new revenue model will be just like Coca Cola's marketing model when it tried to switch it's customers to "New Coke". That said, Adobe's most affluent customer base may fall in line in just enough numbers for Adobe management to declare victory. Time will tell.

[ButchM]

There's no doubt if only half of Adobe's traditional customers join in the CC subscription model ... they will succeed because the revenues attained will offset their desired goal ... however, the "trust" ... or at least the perceived trust they once held will be gone forever ... especially once they apply price increases to the CC model for valueless updates/upgrades in years to come ... those who are currently lauding the concept of CC will have a different attitude after they have paid decades of fees ... to own nothing in return at the end of the cycle ... They constantly want to compare CC to Netflix, iTunes, Cable or Dish service, cell phone service ... but ... unless Photoshop comes with a "just push play" button to do all the heavy lifting ... I can't equate CC with those other "services" ...

Simply look no further than the top two "new features" in Photoshop CC ... Camera Shake tool? ... Wouldn't most "professional" designers and creatives rather work with photographers that could actually avoid the camera shake issue at the time of capture? ... Wouldn't it save so much time and effort if we spent our resources in making great captures rather than massaging marginal images into something useful?

Then the improved resampling to enlarge small resolution images for better printing ... Isn't it wonderful that Adobe is now going to offer the gift to anyone on the planet to take our web based portfolios to ANYONE who is willing to pay $20 a month ... and now enlarge those images for printing to reasonable print resolution? ... Classic examples of Adobe looking out for OUR best interests ...

The executives at Adobe are only concerned about their own bottom line ... not ours ... they think they have the only answers to our need and we will eventually succumb to their business model much like Hitler did in the parody video on YouTube ... I, for one, will not.

[lhodaniel]

"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"

Well, since it's Adobe's internal calculations we can certainly all take that to the bank with their credibility of late.

[jeremyrh]

Interesting.

I was going to come back to this for a couple of reasons:

- I think there's a lesson in there given the fuss we sometimes make about arcane technical details

- I think there might be a lesson about whether we really need 16 bit processing or whether 8 bit PS Elements would be just fine

- I think there might be a lesson for me about whether I'd be better off archiving DNG rather than RAW + TIFF

I suspect making a print from an 8 bit file may be fine, but based on my experience from a related field, processing in 8 bit may be inadequate

[LesPalenik]

There's no doubt if only half of Adobe's traditional customers join in the CC subscription model ... they will succeed because the revenues attained will offset their desired goal ..

I'm not sure if those sales projections are realistic.
Surely, in the first year, at $10/month many photographers will take advantage of the offer, but when the time comes to renew it at $20 or $50/month, not too many will continue.

Another miscalculation is the the reliance on the corporate clients. Just take the latest news about Chicago Sun letting 28 photographers go (and rehire some of them as freelancers).
Not only will this one company save payroll and medical insurance costs, but also their Adobe CC rental fees. At $20/month for 28 photographers this amounts to $6720/year. Not so much for this one company, but multiply it by number of companies on a similar path, and soon you are talking about real money and substantial revenue decline for Adobe.

[Morris Taub]

"That said, through discussions with the community, we have heard some concerns around our move to Creative Cloud. Three main themes are coming through:

    File access. Customers want to be sure that, if their membership to Creative Cloud lapses, they will still have access to their files.
    Photographers, particularly photo-enthusiasts, are looking for a more tailored offering that focuses on their particular needs.
    Some customers are not convinced that Creative Cloud is right for them and would rather continue to purchase desktop applications as before."

Personally I wouldn't just want file access. I'd want to be able to continue to work on my files even after my cc subscription lapses. Why would I pay for software, theoretically for a number of years, and not want to be able to use it?

I'm not looking for a 'tailored offering'. I'm wanting something to replace Photoshop because it's no longer an option. Adobe has taken that choice away. It wasn't because I don't like Photoshop anymore.

Creative Cloud, for me, equals more expense, a lot more expense, less choice, and giving Adobe a link to my bank account. I have no desire to support the executives and shareholders at Adobe. Greed is greed. Subscription software just ain't never gonna be part of my monthly expenses.

Any trust or confidence I had in Adobe is just gone. This started last year with their announcements about upgrades ending every two to three versions and becoming every version. Now that's gone too.

They say we still have Photoshop Elements and Lightroom. For how long? And why would I trust them with announcements they make today? I've seen how easily they change their minds. I see how little I matter to Adobe.

Feel like it's time to abandon this ship. Why should I support a company with my money when they are telling me I no longer matter to them? For the meantime I'll continue to use photoshop CS6 and Lightroom, but will look for and experiment with alternatives. I just don't want to give Adobe any more of my money.

I played with Pixelmator for a few weeks and just bought it. 14 euros. Not much money. Sure, it isn't Photoshop, but I like the feeling of supporting a company that may eventually give Adobe some competition. I hope the folks at Pixelmator continue to grow. Hope for others as well. NIK. onOne. Capture 1. Aperture. Topaz. I'm hoping they jump on this opportunity and give Adobe the competition they truly need.

Yes, there's some stress about change. But I'd rather deal with that stress than with a company I no longer trust or have confidence in.

Bad business attitude. Take this or nothing. We don't need 10 percent of our old customers. They just no longer matter. Thanks Adobe. Got the message. Think I'll spend my money elsewhere.

[yaredna]

Some purchase cars, and some lease them.

Now imagine Adobe's arrogant monopolistic approach applied by Toyota, Ford, or any other manufacturer.

Some purchase a new car every 5 years, or so, some lease a car, and some buy second hand car (with little profit to Toyota).

Suddenly, you learn that your favorite manufacturer is using the "cloud" buzzword to force you to upgrade every 3 years, whether there is a new model or not, by :
. Offering the cars only through a "cloud"-based model
. Asking you to pay over the same period of three years, twice the price of a new car.

What would you do?

Upset is a nice word. You feel "violated" by your favorite manufacturer, and start looking for an alternative. If you are a cab driver in London, where this is a monopoly, you don't have a choice. You ask legislators to act on your behalf.

Here, with Adobe, we are left with this lingering feeling of being abandoned, violated, insulted (Adobe think of most of us photographer as pirates or user not worth selling their product to)

And this latest blog just shows how "out of touch" adobe is with their customer base.

When i registered my first photoshop (7.0), the survey inquired about my profession. I had two businesses at the time: healthcare and photography. I put healthcare. Many are like me, or have photography as a serious hobby, and the question is misleading. It did not ask what are we planning to use Photoshop for. Their biased conclusion was that few photographers use photoshop! Wow, what an admission to a company that invested in reducing image motion blur or upsize...

Oh well, we are returning the favor. By adobe. Aperture (80$) and Pixelmator ($15... I bought it for 29$ at the time) has already replaced Adobe. Now do you think i will let any of my employees in my healthcare business to subscribe to Adobe? Good luck getting my signature on that PO!

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

An update on the update

Wadhwani says - ""Customer satisfaction for users using Creative Cloud has been off the charts. It is our single highest customer satisfaction product in the creative space."

But apparently Creative Suite users in a Cnet survey, said they loathe Adobe's subscriptions - as only 8% currently intend to upgrade.

Dave