Moving towards Creative Cloud ??

<p>My personal thoughts on moving to the $9.99/month ($120/year) creative cloud. Comments or other thoughts are welcome.</p>

<p>I've been very resistant to the Adobe Creative Cloud subscription vs owning the software. I have a really hard time getting my head around adding yet one more $10/month subscription. I currently own CS5 and Lightroom 5 and I'm fairly happy with the way things are right now.</p>

<p>However... When I look back at what I've been paying and what I'm getting for it, Adobe CC at $10/month isn't as bad as it sounds. I started with Lightroom 3 *($150), paid to upgrade to 4 ($80), then paid again $80 to upgrade to LR 5 - all in about a 3 year time frame. Then I have Photoshop CS5, that I paid for, but didn't upgrade due to the high cost. Now I'm two versions behind in PhotoShop, but happy. If there were no such thing as Creative Cloud I would be pulling the trigger ever three years or so for a PhotoShop upgrade (think every third version or so).</p>

<p>All of a sudden I'm realizing $120 a year is actually going to save me a little money. Even if it doesn't feel right. The only issue is I can't get of the train once I'm on board.</p>

<p>https://creative.adobe.com/plans/offer/photoshop+lightroom</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>However... When I look back at what I've been paying and what I'm getting for it, Adobe CC at $10/month isn't as bad as it sounds.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed once you 'do the math' and look at the benefits. Now before the pitch forks come out, there are some areas of the new plan that leave something to be desired as you are aware. But getting regular updates and better, new features instead of waiting every 18 months is a big plus. I know people who spend far more than $10 a week at Starbucks! </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Even if it doesn't feel right.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, you hit the nail on the hammer. Lots of people who complained about the subscription were spending more money and regularly updating the software anyway but it was their choice. Now it's not there choice and that feels weird. Even if the economics and the benefits are better with the new model. We'll get past that in time while those who are really upset will move off the Adobe train. It will be interesting to see how that works out for them considering all the proprietary Adobe edited files they hold. Will throwing out the baby and the bath water work out for them? </p>

<p>Its not a matter of throwing out the baby with the bath water, its keeping your baby while dumping the bath water. Corel Paint already supports PSD files, I am sure there are others. I would NOT give up my license to use the software as the agreed terms when I purchased it, even if it costs me a little more. And I too don't upgrade every year. CS5 is perfectly fine, but Adobe still taxes you by not allowing to update ACRaw, so you are either FORCEDE to upgrade, or get a Raw developer, and like you I too, and many others have LRoom for this. Another way Adobe will surely have you in a choke hold is if you let LR completely manage your catalog. If you havent setup your own folder structure, then you are locked in. There are many catalog apps that are DAM and browser built in and far superior to incorporate within a workflow. I will always manage my own files. I think LR does a decent job, no doubt. I can say a great job, BUT the DAM doesn't belong with the Developer. They are two different tasks that need to be apart to run more smoothly and more importantly, to be more flexible.</p>

<p>I use both CS2 with plugins and CS6 with plugins on a daily basis. I have to admit that CC is pretty enticing at $10/month although the best reason for considering an upgrade is the new motion blur correction capability. However, continuous upgrades scare me a little bit as I am worried about backward compatibility with some of my current plugins. I still use CS2 because there are several excellent plugins that simply don't work or have lost some functionality with CS6. I am concerned that this will get worse with CC. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Corel Paint already supports PSD files, I am sure there are others.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Supports HOW? Opening a PSD is easy and I have other app's that do that too. Now you have built a number of Adjustment layers, maybe you have a Smart Obejct and some Path's. You CAN open this AND edit all those layers in Corel? And FWIW, there's nothing in PSD that's useful. TIFF supports everything PSD does expect Duotone. So there's no reason to even save as PSD these days. PSD or TIFF with layers, what app's can access <strong>and edit those adjustment layers besides Adobe's? </strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>CS5 is perfectly fine, but Adobe still taxes you by not allowing to update ACRaw, so you are either FORCEDE to upgrade, or get a Raw developer, and like you I too, and many others have LRoom for this.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's like saying Adobe taxes you in CS5 by not having Shake Reduction. You expect them to update ACR but not the host? If so, get Lightroom. Otherwise, expecting Adobe to freely update ACR but not the rest of the package seems odd at best. IF ACR is important to you, then the answer is easy: pay for it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Another way Adobe will surely have you in a choke hold is if you let LR completely manage your catalog. If you havent setup your own folder structure, then you are locked in.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So your point is, if a user does something dumb (like completely rely on LR's DAM instead of also making a well structured folder system which I fully agree with), that is Adobe's fault? Nothing stops the LR user from creating a new and well structured folder system either. I wish some people would take responsibly for their own careless actions instead of always pointing the finger at Adobe. That IS fashionable these days even when it's not warranted.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>BUT the DAM doesn't belong with the Developer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why not? I should use two applications to get the job done when one does it to my satisfaction? IF we're agreeing that part of a good DAM is a well organized folder structure, naming structure, keyword structure, why should having the ability to edit images within all that be an issue?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I still use CS2 because there are several excellent plugins that simply don't work or have lost some functionality with CS6. I am concerned that this will get worse with CC.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It <strong>will</strong> get worse. Computer hardware and operating systems change all the time. I have a ton of rather expensive specialty color management products that have to run under Rosetta. That means I need a rather old Laptop for those tasks. I have one Photoshop plug-in that has to run on a non Intel machine. That means having a very old PowerMac Laptop for the few times a year I need to work with the product. But that issue is as much my fault, Apple's fault and the lack of the plug-in manufacturer to upgrade their products as it's a problem caused by Adobe. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Corel Paint already supports PSD files...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, kind of. Depends on what you consider 'support'! I downloaded a trial and loaded on my (ugh) Windows Laptop, all I have in that OS. The product opens a PSD with layers but there's a lot more to the story than that! What I did in Photoshop is make a PSD with two layers. Both had blending modes. As I implied, <strong>this is proprietary Adobe processing</strong>. The layered file opens in CP but for all practical (many) purposes, might as well be flattened. I can click on the individual layers but one should consider them '<em>baked</em>', you can't for example revert the blending mode (CP see's them as Normal which makes sense). Layered files with pixels that have some edits will migrate OK, you can continue to retouch them. But any blening modes are simply uneditiable as they were in Photoshop. Take a layer in Photoshop, set the blend to Overlay. Open that file a year later, reset it back to Normal or update that to any other blend mode. Back to square 1. Not the same in Corel! <br>

Path's in Photoshop? Forget about em in Corel, they don't show up. Not sure about Alpha channels, didn't try that. Because frankly, jumping ship is going to hurt big time assuming you are using Photoshop to even half it's capability, those capabilities are largely proprietary. They were the day you started using Photshop just like the Reports you can build in Quicken is proprietary to that product. <br>

In the end, unless you are really hurting money wise, jumping ships is going to be painful. Not impossible but something to consider depending on the status of your legacy PSD (Photoshop) documents. Just losing my adjustment layers (again, think of the layers now as pasted or baked separate from the bkgnd, big deal), I'd just and will just continue to deal with Adobe. </p>

<p>I've been a CS4 user for several years, but I just couldn't justify the cost of upgrading to CS5 or CS6. When I got the email from Adobe on Black Friday it was an easy decision. So far I'm quite satisfied. A lot of complainers on this and other sites seem to be more concerned with the philosophy rather than the photography.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A lot of complainers on this and other sites seem to be more concerned with the philosophy rather than the photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ain't that the truth. Are we sure they really are photographers?</p>

<p>I'd jump on the $9.99 Adobe CC offer if I qualified. I don't even own Photoshop. But if I already owned an eligible copy I'd jump on that puppy pronto.</p>

<p>I don't see any real reason to object. Many of us already pay comparable annual subscription fees for other stuff: Amazon Prime, etc.</p>

<p>We don't "own" software anyway, even if we do happen to possess a physical disc. We just pay for a license. By default it often becomes virtual "ownership" simply because the original programmer/publisher goes out of business, or transfers the software to another corporation and simply forgets about us. I'm still using ancient copies of Corel Photo Paint and Jasc Paintshop Pro. Corel hasn't forced me to give 'em up. But, technically and legally, they could. There just doesn't happen to be any way for them to enforce it. But that doesn't mean Corel gave up legal rights to Photo Paint or Paintshop Pro (which they bought from Jasc).</p>

<p>Same with most intellectual property: books, movies, music, paintings, photos. Millions of people make copies or otherwise reuse someone else's creative property in violation of the original license. Hardly anyone bothers or cares unless some commercial usage or significant revenue is involved. Doesn't mean we're technically or legally in the right when we make copies or otherwise reuse the IP in violation of the original license. We're just accustomed to getting a pass on this stuff.</p>

<p>If computers were more like other content delivery devices - TVs, radios - that lasted for decades without losing compatibility, there wouldn't be much argument. Unfortunately we're not at that point with computers and mobile devices, and may never be at that point. For better or worse we're going to see the end of the era when we could maintain old hardware indefinitely because we had physical possession of the installation version of the software. Fortunately my Windows 7 PCs seem to be compatible with all of my favorite software dating back to at least Windows ME.</p>

<p>Lex - I think the situation has changed. Initially, you had to be a CS3 or later owner but with the Black Friday announcement I think they lifted that requirement. </p>

<p>Yeah Lex, from the FAQ: "This offer is available to anyone until December 31, 2013. There are no previous product ownership requirements."</p>

<p>Of course, that means I'm no longer special even though Adobe insisted I was last spring. Now I'm just an old prom dress. Ah, well. I'm not bitter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If there were no such thing as Creative Cloud I would be pulling the trigger ever three years or so for a PhotoShop upgrade (think every third version or so)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First, that's two versions of photoshop at best. But more importantly, if you intend to upgrade almost always anyway, then the $9.99 per month is a good deal - except when you do no longer want to upgrade and stop the payment you lose the ability to use the software. </p>

<p>I only upgraded to CS6 from CS5 (and CS4 before that) because of the "scare" that the next version would only be available for owners of the previous version (wrongly, as it turned out). Now, I am not willing to invest in CC as CS6 is doing just fine by me. But most importantly for me, I do not want to tie myself to adobe in perpetuity and the prospect to not be able to use the software that I might have paid several years for and having to go back to CS6 then doesn't appeal to me at all. </p>

<p>Hey, thanks! I didn't realize they'd lifted the restrictions. Considering I was about to pony up for the LR5 upgrade anyway, the CC subscription is an appealing alternative. There's no other way I'd be able to afford Photoshop.</p>

<p>And just for further information Lex, the $9.99 "introductory" price <em>isn't </em>just a temporary loss-leader intended to get you in - it will remain the price indefinitely<strong>*</strong> as long as you get in before the offer ends.</p>

<p>(<strong>* </strong>"Indefinitely" doesn't mean "forever", but Adobe is very clear that they're not going to change the price any time soon).</p>

<p>Great conversation on this as I'm getting a lot out of it. Lightroom has been doing a great job on each new "major" version, so its been well worth my while to upgrade each time. Lets see if that continues, so I'm pretty sure I would buy 6 when it comes out.</p>

<p>Photoshop on the other hand is so sophisticated that I only scratch the surface of what it can be used for, so I'm generally good for a several versions before I need to upgrade. CS5 to CC is not compelling enough for me to normally upgrade to, but maybe CC2 or whatever they call it, will be. But for not a lot more than a lightroom upgrade I get to stay current. So thats my thinking.</p>

<p>""Indefinitely" doesn't mean "forever"" - thats a little scarey. But my CS5 and LR5 disks and license won't go away with CC, so I'm jumping on the bandwagon and can go back if I had to.</p>

<p>This is such a mental game. I'm having a hard time making the jump, but I'm going to power through it and hope the Adobe doesn't screw us later on. They could easily just spin off a Photoshop "Extra Pro CC" version that costs more and give all the $9.99 people a re-branded PhotoShop Elements.</p>

 

<p>Take the offer or don't take the offer. I haven't seen anything yet that will make me personally interested. I made the switch to PaintShop Pro and ACDSee Pro 6 (now 7) about a year ago. However, I DO think it is time we let go of this issue emotionally and move on. This is Adobe's business model, we need to deal with it, decide what we are going to do, and then DO it!<br>

<br /> By the way, questioning someone's qualifications to call themselves a photographer by the tools they use or choose to avoid, does nothing to enhance your position in the dialog.</p>

<p>I was reluctant to get CC as I did not qualify for the rebate. Having a student edition limited me to take another class and get the full suite at a very good discounted price of $29.99, but I would not use most of the applications on a regular basis. I only wanted PS and would have had to pay full price, so I thought I'd use CS5 for a little longer... When they announced they were lifting the restrictions, it was an easy decision to update right now to lock in that price!<br />Although it states it is not an introductory price, it also says in the terms and conditions:<br /><em>After the first 12 months, we will automatically renew your contract based on the current price of the offering...</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>After the first 12 months, we will automatically renew your contract based on the current price of the offering...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's right, Line - but if you came in at $9.99, you'll stay at $9.99.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's right, Line - but if you came in at $9.99, you'll stay at $9.99.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not a lawyer, but I don't read that into that statement. My reading is that they can charge you the current price after 12 months of what that price is currently-,meaning the price that will be current in 12 months not the discount amount. If that's $20 a month, then your second year contract will be $20 a month. That will be automatic. If it was the latter, why not just say that they will renew it at the $9.99 discount amount? I could be wrong, but there's too much wiggly room in their "conditions". <br>

Also, you can cancel, but you have to pay for 6 months. So if you want to cancel, you better cancel within the first 30 days. That seems to include any subsequent contract years because they are automatically renewed.<br>

<a href="http://www.adobe.com/store/en_us/popup/offer/ccm_photoshop_app_offer.html">http://www.adobe.com/store/en_us/popup/offer/ccm_photoshop_app_offer.html</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>After the first 12 months, we will automatically renew your contract based on the current price of the offering...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is a little vague and ambiguous in that the "current price" could be construed as the present price now, or it could mean the price at the time of renewal.<br>

However in either event,they will warn you at the end of your subscription that the year is up and of any price increases before you have to renew. </p>

<p>That is very ambiguous. It clearly states after the year you'll be charged the current price.</p>

<p>If you look elsewhere though and they say "its not an introductory price", but that doesn't mean it will stay.<br>

http://blogs.adobe.com/creativelayer/introducing-the-photoshop-photography-program/</p>

<p>So basically you have to trust they will do the right thing. Hummm... Well I'm in for now. We'll see what happens later in the year.</p>

 

<p>I subscribed as well a couple of months ago. I would say generally, the consumer shouldn't have to read all the ancillary text in marketing literature to try to interpret a statements meaning. Could be a tad clearer, yes? If they met current, as in today, they could have just said "today's price of the offering…"<br>

Ah well, I'll find out in a year or sooner.</p>

My main concern about signing up with CC would be giving Adobe my credit card number and personal information. That's in

light of the recent compromise that started with 2.9 million users information being breached and which then quickly grew to many

tens of millions.

 

I was one of Adobe's many customers who received a letter outlining the nature of the breach. Actually, I was a little surprised

they kept my credit card info on file to begin with. While they have stated the breach is being investigated, and they're

making available to their breached customers credit monitoring services membership with various credit reporting companies, they have

yet to to acknowledge the weakness in their security practices that lead to the problem, or how/if they are going to improve

their practices going forward with better encryption and better security practices. That's a big concern. Especially coupled

with them rolling out their new CC business model which requires periodic monthly charges against customer credit card

accounts.

 

I don't need CC for my processing as I use Lightroom and can edit from there into Photoshop and back when necessary (which

today is pretty rare). But if I did, I would need some kind of assurance from Adobe that they have significantly stepped up

their security practices. Until then, no credit card number for you...

<blockquote>

<p>My main concern about signing up with CC would be giving Adobe my credit card number and personal information. That's in light of the recent compromise that started with 2.9 million users information being breached and which then quickly grew to many tens of millions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Based on the hack, that "<em>seems</em>" reasonable but lots of companies have had the same issue. You don't give your credit card to <strong>any</strong> other companies? And one would expect a company that's been hacked to work harder on security and said hackers and others would move onto other companies to hack. IOW, not sure the fear is justified. <br>

Lastly, supposed your credit card is used this way. Are you not responsible for a mere $50 and no more? The security problems and money lost is the responsibility of the credit card company isn’t it? </p>