Adobe - Creative Cloud Update

[Schewe]

Wow. I don't know you, Schewe. But you show all the signs of being a bully.

Hum, new around here bud? (can kinda tell by your post count). You might want to get the lay of the land a bit before ya start calling people names.

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

So, Dave, let me save you the time and effort making any threats towards me. Please do not ever buy another book or video by me ever again. I don't want to count you and your ilk as being a customer of mine. Ok? (not like I would really give a shit mind you).

My goodness, what it is about you "Pro's" recently, that you seem to get off on publicly beating up the little guy to the point of submission or threatening to shut down the thread and remove any form of dissent?

What do you both want me to do? Bare my back and enter into an act of public flagellation while begging for mercy, just because I dared to post a link and admit I did not know if it was relevant or not?

I posted a link on the very first post in this thread without comment and left it to others to make up their own mind and discuss what they thought it meant and that is all I was doing with this last link.

Jeff, I think you are probably a person who likes to appear gruff on the outside, but that you also have a big heart on the inside, so why ever you found it necessary to wade into this nonsense to gang up on me and join in with the bullying, just because I dared to post a link, leaves me speechless. I have no quarrel with you and in fact I would say I prefer to never quarrel with anyone, it is just not my thing - full stop!

People who are associated with Adobe at this time are getting a lot of flack, I get that and people who don't like what is happening with the CC are outraged, I get that too, but as this is a thread that is/was all about the CC and I have been posting links to it from the very first post, about what the rest of the community outside of Lula are saying about the whole CC issue, along with a few jokey cartoons, then I assumed that as this was just another link and part of what I was doing, it would be discussed by those who are interested just the same as all the other links.

If you put yourself in the public eye, then expect people to comment on what you say and do, but don't wade in like ten ton whenever you then read between the lines and make up whatever it is you seem to want to make up and expect people to think you are being rational and not going way over the top, as you insult and threaten people - you have really surprised me here Jeff.

I await further and lengthy abuse and can already feel the blood running down my back.

Dave

[Schewe]

What do you both want me to do? Bare my back and enter into an act of public flagellation while begging for mercy, just because I dared to post a link and admit I did not know if it was relevant or not?

No, but an apology for posting a link to Shantanu insider trading (perfectly legal and reported BTW) and implying that his stock sales had anything to do with the current state of Photoshop CC or Adobe's outlook or prospects. And while you say you you didn't know if it was relevant, you know darn well that you thought it was and was using that as an opportunity for churning the pot.

At this point in time, it does nothing for the industry to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD). And if you don't understand that your post did that, I would be surprised...

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

No, but an apology for posting a link to Shantanu insider trading (perfectly legal and reported BTW) and implying that his stock sales had anything to do with the current state of Photoshop CC or Adobe's outlook or prospects. And while you say you you didn't know if it was relevant, you know darn well that you thought it was and was using that as an opportunity for churning the pot.

At this point in time, it does nothing for the industry to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD). And if you don't understand that your post did that, I would be surprised...

Can't do that Jeff, I posted this in complete innocence and that is how I intend to remain standing, on my innocence.

Not everyone has market trading experience you know, I left school at 15 with no qualifications and no education and went to work 12 hour shifts in the steel works as a welder - OK, I went back into education and then onto University in the eighties and now I have an MSc in computing as well as many other computer related qualifications, as well as teaching qualifications. I would also like to think I am very much towards the front of the crowd with photography and digital imaging and also computing, but as far as it goes for money matters, financial stuff and stock market trading etc, I will freely admit that I am as thick as farmyard muck.

So thank you for your offer Jeff, but I prefer to remain where I stand right now - innocent!!!!

Dave

[jrsforums]

No, but an apology for posting a link to Shantanu insider trading (perfectly legal and reported BTW) and implying that his stock sales had anything to do with the current state of Photoshop CC or Adobe's outlook or prospects. And while you say you you didn't know if it was relevant, you know darn well that you thought it was and was using that as an opportunity for churning the pot.

At this point in time, it does nothing for the industry to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD). And if you don't understand that your post did that, I would be surprised...

Jeff, I thought the post on Shantanu's selling stock was being addressed without any need for a rant.

In my opinion, the announcement of Adobe CC has created it's own FUD (interesting how you have picked this term up after I used it against your DNG arguements).  The "industry" will not be bothered by any possible insider trading scandel...which the SEC will deal with if needed.  It is being bothered by the CC uncertainty.

And if this personal bullshit stuff keeps happening, I suspect that this thread (and others like it) will get closed.

I find it interesting that you end your personal attack with this statement.  Is this a do as I say, not what I do?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

No, but an apology for posting a link to Shantanu insider trading (perfectly legal and reported BTW) and implying that his stock sales had anything to do with the current state of Photoshop CC or Adobe's outlook or prospects.

I'm slightly surprised by this kind of reaction, as if there is no significance to Shantanu's insider tradings, which are perfectly legal. In defense of the publication of such information, people like Milton Friedman, laureate of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, said: "You want more insider trading, not less. You want to give the people most likely to have knowledge about deficiencies of the company an incentive to make the public aware of that."

I might add, it also works the other way around, significant net purchases of stock or other securities can give an early warning to markets about a more positive outlook.

Cheers,
Bart

[john beardsworth]

Can't do that Jeff, I posted this in complete innocence and that is how I intend to remain standing, on my innocence.

Not everyone has market trading experience you know, I left school at 15 with no qualifications and no education and went to work 12 hour shifts in the steel works as a welder - OK, I went back into education and then onto University in the eighties and now I have an MSc in computing as well as many other computer related qualifications, as well as teaching qualifications. I would also like to think I am very much towards the front of the crowd with photography and digital imaging and also computing, but as far as it goes for money matters, financial stuff and stock market trading etc, I will freely admit that I am as thick as farmyard muck.

OK, then let's move on. I find it surprising that you profess such ignorance of what you were saying, Dave, but I'll say sorry anyway. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you shouted bloody idiot at someone getting too close to your welding, and probably meant it - but only for a short while.

John

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

OK, then let's move on. I find it surprising that you profess such ignorance of what you were saying, Dave, but I'll say sorry anyway. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you shouted bloody idiot at someone getting too close to your welding, and probably meant it - but only for a short while.

John

OK John I agree and accept your apology, things were said in the heat of the moment and that I think none of us really meant, so I agree we should move on and let sleeping dogs lie, and OK I will also apologise to you and anyone else I may have inadvertently offended and say that I am sorry that I posted something that appears to have been more explosive than I was ever aware that it could be and without first engaging my brain. But I think you will find if you look at any of my other posts on Lula, that I invariably try to be inoffensive to who so ever it is that I talk to and on the odd occasions that I do become animated, then I am always more than willing to eat my words and admit my mistakes - as I am sure Jeff will agree  

Dave

[Damon Lynch]

if somebody DARES to take umbrage with the way the anti-Adobe crowd seems to paint this whole CC/subscription thing, suddenly they are the enemy.

I can see why you're frustrated Jeff. You're offering reasoned, rational arguments and many of the arguments you're seeing are not rational. And personally I think none of this is in the least part surprising. David Hume famously said "Reason is and ought to be a slave of the passions". We can easily see that people are passionate in their feelings--but what can we do to make sense of it all?

Obviously, some of those who are angered by Adobe's decision perceive two groups: the anti-group (them) and the pro-group (you and others).

In a classic 1956 article (a real humdinger), Experiments in Group Conflict, Muzafer Sherif observed "when two groups have conflicting aims--i.e., when one can achieve its ends only at the expense of the other--their members will become hostile to each other even though the groups are composed of normal well-adjusted individuals."

The anti-group assumes that Adobe's decisions are somehow advantageous to your group. Because they see the decisions as disadvantageous to them, they perceive you to be in competition with them at their expense. Sadly this pretty much automatically makes you their enemy, no matter how rational your arguments.

In the fullness of time I hope that we as a community will all remember our perceptions can at times be utterly wrong, and that we are in fact a community of photographers, engineers, accountants etc. united by our great passion for creating and sharing art.  And that some members of our community have in fact put in many years of honest, hard work to contribute what they have.

[jrsforums]

if somebody DARES to take umbrage with the way the anti-Adobe crowd seems to paint this whole CC/subscription thing, suddenly they are the enemy.

I, for one, take umbrage for being labeled "anti-Adobe"....just because I do not agree with some of the positions and rantings of some self-important people.

I am not "anti-Adobe", but that does not mean I have to agree with everything they do.

Those who are unhappy with Adobe CC have expressed their reasons.  The responses from those who DARES to take umbrage" to that is mostly history lessons about how Photoshop started and self-important rambling of being President of the APA....all of which are interesting, but .none of which are germane to the current discussion.

If we disagree with DNG being a standard, we are not anti-Adobe, we just for multiple reasons just do not agree with it....but   we are slammed and harangued with "if we are not with DNG we are part of the problem".

Forums are going to raise emotions...I am OK with that....and hopefully will be big enough to apologize if I go too far....but we do not need threats and demeaning comments from those we should be looking up to...and should expect to be leaders in the forums.

[digitaldog]

If we disagree with DNG being a standard, we are not anti-Adobe, we just for multiple reasons just do not agree with it....but   we are slammed and harangued with "if we are not with DNG we are part of the problem".

Going back, no one I recall said DNG is a standard nor that not being standard dismisses the issues with proprietary data files that don't need to proprietary and hold up 3rd party support.

I'm pretty Pro-Adobe but there's lots to not like about the new model.

[Peter Le]

Yeah, ya know Dave...the way the Anti-Adobe crowd seems to behaving is a bit shocking...if somebody DARES to take umbrage with the way the anti-Adobe crowd seems to paint this whole CC/subscription thing, suddenly they are the enemy. The anti crowd seems to be perfectly willing to threaten and try to strong-arm anybody who pokes holes in the anti-Adobe proponents arguments. When I pointed out that "buying" a perpetual license vs a subscription license was essentially the same thing with different terms, I got a lot of grief...when I pointed out that Photoshop was never developed for photographers, photographers got pissed off at me for pointing out the truths. When I pointed out that photographers make up a very small % of Adobe's pro users, again, photographers jumped all over me.

Quite honestly having been involved in a trade oranization on behalf of photographers for over a decade (Advertising Photographers of America–APA and having served as National President) and trying to defend photographer's copyrights and improve business practices for photographers, color me just a bit jaded...by and large, photographers tend to come off as a bunch of bitchy little girls. When somebody does something to upset the apple cart, they all squeal like stuck pigs...but try to talk to them and try to organize them into a political group to try to accomplish some industry changes, forget about it.

So, Dave, let me save you the time and effort making any threats towards me. Please do not ever buy another book or video by me ever again. I don't want to count you and your ilk as being a customer of mine. Ok? (not like I would really give a shit mind you).

John nailed your feet to the floor because you tried to imply that Shantanu Narayen was baling out by selling a lot of insider held stock so clearly you thought Shantanu was taking his money and running. You couched it by saying you didn't have a clue what that meant and I'll reinforce what you said, you don't have a friggin' clue what insider trading may or may not mean. Do you have ANY experience in the stock market? I do...the fact that Shantanu sold a bunch of stock means exactly that Shantanu sold a bunch of stock. It seriously means nothing more than that...and if you were trying to predict the direction of Adobe's stock price from that, I suggest that would be really stupid. But hey, if you honestly think Shantanu is bailing out and Adobe is going to hell in a handcart, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and sell a bunch of Adobe stock short...come on, if you got any balls, put your money where your mouth is.

What, you really don't have a clue what insider trading actually means and you don't want to try to predict Adobe future stock price?

John has rather nicely (far nicer than I would have been) tried to explain that what you tried to imply was total bullshit...and now your attack line is you'll never buy another book John writes?

Yeah, ya know, I'm pretty sure John can look at himself in the mirror and have no problem with what he sees. You? I'm not so sure...

I'm pretty much done with the bitchy little girl camp...you all can do what you want to do...stick with CS6 till it molds off your machine, or jump to GIMP of try to use some of the other Photoshop wannabees...I really don't care.

If you want to have a reasonable discussion of issues, fine...otherwise, I think you all have beaten this horse to death. And if this personal bullshit stuff keeps happening, I suspect that this thread (and others like it) will get closed.

      WOW !!!!! And you call your self a professional..... ambassador for the industry....... all I can say is WOW !!

[Schewe]

ambassador for the industry

Those are your words...not mine. That's not what I think I am nor what I want to be. And truth be told, that was directed at Dave, not you. So, if you are thinking it's directed at you, you are wrong. I don't know you from Adam and couldn't care less what you think.

[mistybreeze]

when I pointed out that Photoshop was never developed for photographers, photographers got pissed off at me for pointing out the truths.

One could argue, after years and years (a decade +) of spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars, supporting Adobe, buying books, videos, and attending classes and seminars, given by photographers for photographers, this wasn't exactly the best time to point out such a truth.

Frankly, considering how many times I've read it, I started to question whether this newly revealed "truth" was laced with contempt. And then after reading the recent rant, about the work done for APA, and the "bitchy little girl camp" comments, I'm convinced contempt exists. Contempt is not good for anyone.

Sometimes I wonder if Adobe ever talks to actual photographers who are trying to sustain a photography business in today's economy. Since I live in New York City, and have been a working photographer for almost 30 years, I often wonder if Adobe has any clue what it takes to keep a photography business here in the black. I know three, very talented youngish photographers who shoot editorial for prestigious magazines, and they can't afford to upgrade beyond CS4.

There are just a handful of photographers who are getting the big ad dollars and magazine contracts. And ever since the crash of 2008, those numbers dropped significantly as the ad market plummeted. Everyone else is hustling. I can't remember a time when trying to make a living at photography has been more difficult.

In the meantime, we artists grow older and our health care costs increase. And some people wonder why we creative types get bitchy when one more obstacle, one more price increase slaps us in the face, telling us to stop doing what we love to do.

God bless the clients who are willing to pay for retouching. They are getting harder and harder to find.

[Peter Le]

Those are your words...not mine. That's not what I think I am nor what I want to be. And truth be told, that was directed at Dave, not you. So, if you are thinking it's directed at you, you are wrong. I don't know you from Adam and couldn't care less what you think.

     I know you were not directing that at me..... I have done nothing for it to be directed at me. But I am completely taken back by how you are presenting yourself lately. But you are whether you choose to or not a ambassador for this website, the digital industry and many other people you work with. Your actions are a direct reflection on Michael, John Paul and many others that may not agree with your form of expression. Just thought I might remind you of this........you say you would like a reasonable discussion of the issues. That is also what I would like to read.....the statement I quoted was just pouring gas on the fire...

[Schewe]

Frankly, considering how many times I've read it, I started to question whether this newly revealed "truth" was laced with contempt. And then after reading the recent rant, about the work done for APA, and the "bitchy little girl camp" comments, I'm convinced contempt exists.

I do have contempt for a lot of the pro photographers in the industry today. Absolutely.

Are you a member of APA, ASMP or PP of A? Do you pay dues towards an organization that works on your behalf? Have you ever held an office or served on a committee that was trying to work with the Copyright Office or the 4A's (American Association of Ad Agencies) or trying to work with state legislators trying to change state tax statutes that place an undue burden on photographers? If you have, you have my respect. If you haven't, well, not so much.

How many people here have ever spent any time working for free, on behalf of the photographic community? I'll tell you, very few.

Yes, my view of the industry these days is very jaded...while the overall economy has been devastating to pro photographers over all and to photo journalists in particular (see the recent Sun Times article about elimination of all staff photographers). Most of the problems in the pro photo industry are exacerbated by the fact that photographers as a group refuse to work together to bring about positive change to the industry.

I'm not saying that if photographers were better organized that the whole Photoshop CC subscription would not have happened...but I will say that if photographers were better organized, they would have a stronger voice at Adobe. And, I know that for a fact. The squeaky wheel gets the grease...photographers have not, as a group been very squeaky because of the inability to work together as a group to bring about positive change in the industry.

So yeah, you got me...I tend to have a degree of contempt for a lot of photographers who piss&moan™ about the sorry state of the industry but can't be bothered to do anything about it...

[BernardLanguillier]

One could argue, after years and years (a decade +) of spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars, supporting Adobe, buying books, videos, and attending classes and seminars, given by photographers for photographers, this wasn't exactly the best time to point out such a truth.

Frankly, considering how many times I've read it, I started to question whether this newly revealed "truth" was laced with contempt. And then after reading the recent rant, about the work done for APA, and the "bitchy little girl camp" comments, I'm convinced contempt exists. Contempt is not good for anyone.

Sometimes I wonder if Adobe ever talks to actual photographers who are trying to sustain a photography business in today's economy. Since I live in New York City, and have been a working photographer for almost 30 years, I often wonder if Adobe has any clue what it takes to keep a photography business here in the black. I know three, very talented youngish photographers who shoot editorial for prestigious magazines, and they can't afford to upgrade beyond CS4.

Yep, the proposition that PS was not designed for photographers is:
- irrelevant: we know that independent graphic designers are hurt just as bad as photographers by the CC only policy,
- clearly mistaken if it is supposed to mean that photographers were not even one of the target audiences of PS. Why so? Because PS is loaded with features designed specifically for photographic applications. So at best we could say that photographers were never the main target of PS, but they were a target for sure and the features Adobe delivered for this community clearly contributed to our decision to invest our money, time (learning curve) and IP into PS.

This being said, Adobe legally has the right to decide to adopt a business model only affordable by the richest part of their users base (typically the corporate crowd). Yes, they are going to hurt badly tens of thousands of end users and will probably put the business of some of those at risk, if not their lives.

I personally believe that this is immoral and clearly opposed to the religious values many of the key stakeholders at Adobe are putting forward in their communities, but heck... hypocrisy is nothing new.

It is our decision as users to stop investing into their products. As far as I am concerned, this policy will be extended to LR5 as well.

Cheers,
Bernard

[jrsforums]

I do have contempt for a lot of the pro photographers in the industry today. Absolutely.

Are you a member of APA, ASMP or PP of A? Do you pay dues towards an organization that works on your behalf? Have you ever held an office or served on a committee that was trying to work with the Copyright Office or the 4A's (American Association of Ad Agencies) or trying to work with state legislators trying to change state tax statutes that place an undue burden on photographers? If you have, you have my respect. If you haven't, well, not so much.

How many people here have ever spent any time working for free, on behalf of the photographic community? I'll tell you, very few.

Yes, my view of the industry these days is very jaded...while the overall economy has been devastating to pro photographers over all and to photo journalists in particular (see the recent Sun Times article about elimination of all staff photographers). Most of the problems in the pro photo industry are exacerbated by the fact that photographers as a group refuse to work together to bring about positive change to the industry.

I'm not saying that if photographers were better organized that the whole Photoshop CC subscription would not have happened...but I will say that if photographers were better organized, they would have a stronger voice at Adobe. And, I know that for a fact. The squeaky wheel gets the grease...photographers have not, as a group been very squeaky because of the inability to work together as a group to bring about positive change in the industry.

So yeah, you got me...I tend to have a degree of contempt for a lot of photographers who piss&moan™ about the sorry state of the industry but can't be bothered to do anything about it...

Just saying...

Maybe you should only interact with those few you respect...those at the lofty levels you describe.

You could then leave the rest of us "unwashed" alone.

[Schewe]

But you are whether you choose to or not a ambassador for this website, the digital industry and many other people you work with. Your actions are a direct reflection on Michael, John Paul and many others that may not agree with your form of expression. Just thought I might remind you of this........

That is your perception (or misperception)...I am not an ambassador for anything or anybody. I'm under contract with nobody other than my publisher (who I'm sure would like for me to shut up).

I'm merely a forum member who happens to say what they think regardless of the implications. If I cared what people think of what I say, do you honestly think I would say what I say? My actions are a direct reflection on me alone. You would be making a serious mistake to paint Mike or JP or anybody else as having anything to do with what I think or say.

Yes, I do have a certain sway around here...(I have the email and cell phone numbers of certain people who control LuLa) but thankfully, I'm not in charge of moderating these forums (if I were, there would be a lot less posters on the forums :~) note the smily...that was intended to be funny.

[Schewe]

I personally believe that this is immoral and clearly opposed to the religious values many of the key stakeholders at Adobe are putting forward in their communities, but heck... hypocrisy is nothing new.

Morality and religion? Really Bernard? This whole thing has transcended to this for you? I really don't get that at all. I understand people don't like having the tables changed and costs going up. But to equate that to morality issues and religious values? I really start to question the validity of that sort of visceral response. I mean, is that really what you think? That Adobe has done something immoral and anti-religious? I ask because I'm really trying to understand exactly how out of context all this anti-CC has gotten and the context that some people seem to be reacting to. Sorry bud, but that is way, way over the top.