Bye Bye PhotoShop?

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>You don't need to be connected online all the time to use the CC software. The software attempts to validate the license every 30 days but you can continue to use the software up to 180 days since the last online connection was made.</p>

<p>The files are on your computer, unless you specifically want them to be in the cloud. </p>

<p><em>this is not cloud-computing.</em></p>

<p>I think some cloud computing is possible, to support computationally heavy operations. From the dpreview article: "It also says it will allow the addition of processor-intensive features, such as Camera Shake Reduction tool, where the work can be conducted in the cloud."</p>

[GBarrington]

<p>Well, I've already switched to ACDSee Photo Editor 6 for my Lightroom companion editor. It supports full 16 bit editing and directly opens dng files converted from orf. The quality is everybit as good as CS3. The more I use it, the more impressed I am with it. The way I use an editor any more, it just doesn't make sense to have a super expensive editor as long as I can have the image quality I want.<br>

As an amateur, I am unlikely to ever be comfortable with an open ended lease situation for software, and I feel that is an inevitable fate for Lightroom. I am looking at other options for my organizer/Raw conversion software. I'm in no hurry, my copy of Lr3 functions quite well but I am definitely looking.</p>

[AlanKlein]

That's $2400 over ten years! What do we amateurs do?

[David_Cavan]

<blockquote>

<p>That's $2400 over ten years! What do we amateurs do?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As several posters have recommended there are less expensive and even free software packages that do a large percentage of what Photoshop does. We use PaintShopPro from Corel, which is a fraction of the Photoshop software cost to start with, and it brings 90% of what Photoshop does to the amateur. I've tried GIMP, and it isn't too bad once you figure out the interface. There are choices.</p>

<p>On the other hand the software industry is transitioning to cloud, rental and subscription and over the next few years you can expect more solutions to go there. But for now we do have choices.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"That's $2400 over ten years! What do we amateurs do?"</i><br>Get a licence for a, or stick with your older, non-cloud version of PS.<br>CS 3 (to name just one of many older options) works just fine. And will keep working for ages, without having to pay license fees every month.

[AlanKlein]

I have LR3, teachers version. Would this be a good time to upgrade to the latest?

[robert_k1]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Michael, I'm with you. My primary image editor is Paint Shop Pro v9, the last version controlled by JASC before Corel took it over, bloated it and attempted to dumb it down and add useless "features". Works perfectly for 99% of my image editing needs. I do have an older version of Photoshop available for those very few times when it has some specific feature I need but I very rarely use it.<br>

My Office suite (Word, Excel etc) is 2000 vintage. All works just fine.<br>

Needless to say I'm still running XP version SP3 and I have no inclination at all to "upgrade" until I'm forced to when I eventually buy a new PC.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I hadn't invested so much time and effort learning PS, I would definitely switch to another editor. Here's how I, an amateur, have been handling it.</p>

<p>Years ago, I started with an used Win98 PC with Office 2000 and PS5 installed. With it, I learned film scanning, PS editing, and home printing.</p>

<p>Some five years later, I replaced it with an used XP PC with Office 2003 and CS2 installed. I used it to crank out ~30 or so well edited images for good quality prints, per year.</p>

<p>Another five or so years later, I bought yet another used XP PC with Office 2007 and CS5 installed. I'm still using it.</p>

<p>Now I'll keep an eye out for an used Win7 (maybe a Win8) PC with Office 2007 (or 2010) and CS6 installed. That should last for another five years. My only concern would be CS6 not able to update new cameras' raw conversions. But then, I only buy a new body every ten years or so.</p>

 

[J.W. Wall]

<p>Not good news. After spending a lot of time and effort learning Lightroom 4, and Photoshop CS6 (started with PS2 or 3), as an amateur, and now retired on a fixed income, I'd consider it a disaster to have to subscribe to new software. No doubt new operating systems and new cameras will eventually force me out of my current programs. Then, what do I do with my LR4 cataloging system?</p>

[phule]

<p>According to what I have read, Lightroom 5 will be available both as stand-alone and via CC. So, there is still time left. I would not be surprised if LR 6 were subscription only.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Buying PCs with PS installed may be a good way to go, though it's very likely illegal from Adobe's viewpoint. It violates their end user agreement. Unless there is some sort of official license transfer (requiring the original owner to relinquish all rights) Adobe regard that copy as being pirated. You might as well just use a cracked version downloaded from a pirate website.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...Prior to a transfer, Adobe may require that you and the receiving party confirm in writing your compliance with this agreement, provide Adobe with information about yourselves, and register as end-users of the Software. Allow 4-6 weeks to transfer..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually that's likely the case with any commercial software you find on a used PC. I suspect that Microsoft Office probably has some similar legalese in their User Agreement.</p>

<p>There are lots of good free or low cost software solutions to image editing, RAW conversion and image organizing. Most of them have a learning curve that's MUCH easier than Photoshop and switching shouldn't really be a big deal.</p>

[dan_south]

Is this news? I thought this had been going on for a year already.

[Mike D]

<p>Adobe has to do something to create perceived value. When PS was first introduced, each new version was a substantial upgrade and users waited anxiously to buy it. Now that CS6 is a mature product, there simply isn't the exuberant demand to buy a new and improved version. In principle, I rent or lease nothing so I suspect I won't be upgrading past CS6. Besides, I would rather be processing images on software that I am familiar with than learning how to use each minimal update to CC. </p>

[ted_marcus1]

<p>This is a brilliant and beautiful solution to what surely is an intractable problem for Adobe. I don't know about (or use) the other "creative cloud" applications, but I know that Photoshop is over 20 years old. It's a mature product that has long included more features than any one person could ever know about, let alone use. That means it's increasingly difficult to add features and improvements that give users enough value to justify spending $200 for each new version. The persistent recession has surely exacerbated this problem, as users likely questioned whether it was worth spending their tight money on a CS6 upgrade. All of those factors threatened Adobe's revenue stream.<br /><br />In addressing the problem, Adobe's Suits first recognized that they were in a position to force their customers to buy each and every upgrade. But then some brilliant Suit figured out that it would be even better to completely rework the business model from "ownership" to "rental." Rather than a cyclical revenue stream that at best floods every 18 months or so and threatens to dry up, the shareholders could be assured a perpetual continuous river of monthly revenue!<br /><br />Of course they recognized that some users would not be happy with renting software. The benefit to Adobe is obvious; but whatever benefit it gives users is less clear, especially for users who buy an upgrade only when it offers something compelling. There would be a lot of complaining and adverse publicity, and some customers would be lost. But the marketeers could spin away any negativity, and Adobe doesn't need those lost customers anyway. <br /><br />The beauty of the new approach is that it specifically exploits monopoly power over customers whose livelihood depends on Adobe's "industry-standard" products. At least some of those users may despise Adobe and resent being held hostage. (I know that's not how Adobe wants to spin it, but that's what the rental model really means. If you stop paying, you lose the tools your business depends on, along with all the money you "invested" in them.) But each and every month they'll nonetheless pay their rent. They have no other choice.<br /><br />Adobe now joins an elite group of privileged companies that control their market, to the point where they no longer need to care about what their customers want or give them value. Most customers have good reason to hate cable companies, wireless phone providers, and airlines. But the Suits know that even after a flight from hell, the disgruntled airline passenger will soon be booking his next one. Like it or not, if you're in a business that relies on Adobe products, Adobe now owns you. That's an achievement every young MBA aspires to emulate.<br>

(Airlines, cable companies, and cellphone companies aren't true monopolies the way Adobe is. But they can act like monopolies because their services are completely interchangeable; and individual companies often do enjoy a de facto monopoly over many of their customers. Even when there is ostensible competition, the choice is Hobson's. You'll pay the pretty much the same price for the same crappy service, whichever company you choose.)<br /><br />So where does that leave the majority of photo.net users? Adobe's answer would be "Lightroom and/or Elements." And that would be the right answer, for most of us. But it's not the only answer. Adobe doesn't have a monopoly on that market, so they can't get away with forcing users of Elements or Lightroom to rent them or to buy every version. If you don't like Adobe, there's Aperture, Paint Shop Pro, or The GIMP. Or even the bloody-awful software bundled with your camera (Canon DPP or, God help us, SilkyPix). For that matter, there are even various smartphone/tablet apps that allow "creative" manipulation of photos posted to Facebook and Instagram.<br /><br />For what it's worth, I started with Paint Shop Pro 5 in 1999. I didn't want to spend $600 for Photoshop, and I turned down a friend's offer of a pirated copy of Photoshop 5. I happily used Paint Shop Pro until I bought Corel's version 10. I was getting interested in color management, and PSP X claimed to support it. The frustration of unwittingly paying to become a beta tester for that unfinished heap of rubbish convinced me it was time for a switch to Photoshop CS2. A half-price coupon that came with a new printer made the switch even more appealing. I found CS3 compelling enough to be worth buying an upgrade, but not CS4. <br /><br />I upgraded to CS5 because it supported my new camera's raw files. I was reluctantly considering CS6, mainly to keep my options open after Adobe tightened their upgrade policy. But now that the monopoly fist has been fully clenched, CS5 will be my final version. If I get a new camera, I'll buy Lightroom for the initial raw conversion and continue to use CS5 for pixel editing and plug-ins. As I often use the ProPhoto color space, Elements won't work for me. I was thinking about Lightroom anyway, as I'm not happy with Bridge as a file viewer and organizer.<br /><br />Finally, Adobe's arrogance is a weakness that could be used against them. If someone had the wherewithal and the persistence to create viable alternatives to Adobe products that users can own rather than rent, exploiting the resentment of Adobe's hostages might be enough to successfully challenge Adobe's hegemony. There is precedent for such a thing: Google Chrome and LibreOffice, for example. But I wouldn't count on that happening soon.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>According to Adobe's Investor Relations Data sheet: http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/investor-relations/PDFs/Updated_ADBE_Q4_12_IR_Datasheet.pdf</p>

<p>Digital Media made up 70% of their total revenue for fiscal year 2012. Look carefully at what comprises the "Digital Media" segment of their business model because it indicates they service a huge corporate client ("Document Services") environment that possibly includes supporting management workflows within interoffice communications between creatives, engineering, marketing, etc. departments that employ huge banks of computers that use Adobe software to conduct business for both private and government operations that may involve but not limited to board meetings and video conferencing. </p>

<p>It's not clear to me what and how those types of businesses use Adobe software but I can only imagine trying to upgrade all those computers spread out and networked across the country, the Cloud subscription of easily downloading new features, updates and newer apps looks like a much more efficient way of doing business with these huge corporate environments than the old bundled licensing upgrades for a set amount of computers.</p>

<p>I'm having to assume a lot of this because I tried to find out what "Digital Media" covers which all I could find online indicates Photos/Video but I'ld also have to include "Document Services". Note the fourth black box on the left labeled "Supplementary Business Unit Data" in the millions. It lists Adobe Acrobat and Cloud Services.</p>

<p>Cloud subscription services is more about catering to large businesses than individual users like photographer hobbyists.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Cloud subscription services is more about catering to large businesses than individual users like photographer hobbyists."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, I would probably separate software delivery from its billing method. </p>

<p>If something as complex as Windows XP can be supported for over 10 years with regular updates to owner's local copies, so can Adobe with its software. They can even move a specific version to the cloud but still charge a one-time user free if they wanted to, and setting up new sites for newer versions. </p>

<p>Cloud computing and fixed fees are not mutually exclusive; I still suspect the switch is for the same reason that P.net got rid of its lifetime subscription fee of $200 which, by the way, was probably a mistake (to remove that option).</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Is .pdf next? There're a lot more users of pdf in the business world that PS in the photography world. What about their format (.dng?) that they have been pushing as a standard for archiving? Another way to lock you in. Who would use dng after seeing what they did with the cloud and PS?</p>

<p>I think for my personal and busniess records I'm going to save in jpeg rather than pdf so I don't have to pay fees down the road. You really can't trust any of these software manufacturers. They all look to Microsoft and the Windows monopoly model with awe and jealousy!</p>

[Mike D]

<p>I don't know if ".pdf" files are open source but there seem to be enough other software providers that write utility programs to create and read .pdf files so that we don't have to worry about this file type also becoming cloud-based, for-fee any time soon. I hope.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Michael, according to Wikipedia:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"While Adobe Systems made the PDF specification available free of charge in 1993, PDF remained a proprietary format, controlled by Adobe, until it was officially released as an open standard on July 1, 2008, and published by the International Organization for Standardization as ISO 32000-1:2008. In 2008, Adobe published a Public Patent License to ISO 32000-1 granting royalty-free rights for all patents owned by Adobe that are necessary to make, use, sell and distribute PDF compliant implementations."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I think for my personal and business records I'm going to save in jpeg rather than pdf so I don't have to pay fees down the road."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alan, the nice thing about PDF documents is the ability to edit/modify or manipulate it as with other e-documents by using Acrobat Professional versions, and like Photoshop, earlier versions are more than adequate for most business usage. I use Acrobat Professional version 6 from around 2002 and never felt the need to upgrade. <br>

</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Tim, I would probably separate software delivery from its billing method.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't. Did you check the tiny type that outlines to investors the way they calculate their earnings through both "Digital Media and Marketing" in the pdf I linked above?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Creative Annualized Recurring Revenue ("ARR") = [(# of Total Active Creative Cloud Subscriptions) x <strong>(Average Revenue Per User Per Month) x 12</strong>] + [Annual Creative ETLA Contract Value]</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>If something as complex as Windows XP can be supported for over 10 years with regular updates to owner's local copies, so can Adobe with its software. They can even move a specific version to the cloud but still charge a one-time user free if they wanted to, and setting up new sites for newer versions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Read my comment on this PN thread and the docs I found. This is bigger than you think but I get the feeling there's a lot of speculation involved if you read the wording they give the SEC pdf on what I posted here:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00bct7</p>

[peter_langfelder]

<p>A <a title="What The Duck" href="http://www.whattheduck.net/strip/1382">commentary by Aaron Johnson</a></p>

[jenkins]

<p>No internet connection no Adobe.</p>

[carashilaire]

<p>Hi everyone. Big news huh? We knew it was coming, but I sure thought we'd have CS7 first before the complete switch! I wanted to share the article just up today by Theano Nikitas, who is NDA and has been able to sit in on the briefings and such. http://www.photo.net/equipment/software/adobe-photoshop-all-cloud/ </p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>Simon - Adobe is available on your laptop the same as it is now on a daily basis. You will need to access the web occasionally to continue to use the apps. I think there is some confusion about this out there in the user community.</p>

<p>From the Adobe FAQs website:</p>

<p>How Creative Cloud works</p>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<a href="#"> Do I need ongoing Internet access to use my Creative Cloud desktop applications? </a>

 

<dl ><dt id="a3_1331094678488" ></dt><dd >

 

<p>No. Your Creative Cloud desktop applications (such as Photoshop and Illustrator) are installed directly on your computer, so you won't need an ongoing Internet connection to use them on a daily basis.<br>

You will need to be online when you install and license your software. If you have an annual membership, you'll be asked to connect to the web to validate your software licenses every 30 days. However, you'll be able to use products for 180 days even if you're offline.</p>

 

</dd></dl>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Actually, FWIW, the timing was convenient for me - I switched just before deciding to buy a Mac (and the subscription was one reason I felt comfortable switching). Adobe might have noticed that people like me were doing the minimum update - CS, CS4,... it was subscribe or buy CS6. For those fortunate enough not to know, Adobe's software is extortionately more expensive in the UK than in the US, and more than just by tax (with the hard media, it was at one point cheaper to fly to the US, buy it and fly back), so delaying as much as possible was well in my interests, but meant I was living without content aware fill for a long time. I'd prefer to have the choice of format, and I've nearly been caught out by taking a laptop on a plane when it hadn't been turned on for a month, but it's not catastrophic. Besides, I don't actually have a DVD drive that I can connect to my MacBook Pro.<br />

<br />

Besides, I've always assumed that Adobe were in my long list of "evil software companies". I just hate them slightly less than I hate doing all my image editing in 8-bit (GIMP) and producing a magazine without InDesign (Word). If I find their user interface designer, I hope I have a large haddock with me to slap them with. On this occasion, at least I'm not paying them a fortune up front. I'm not being screwed more than I am by T-Mobile (currently, it's actually less per month, though once my first year of subscription has gone then it'll balance up)...</p>

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p> ... the nice thing about PDF documents is the ability to edit/modify or manipulate it as with other e-documents by using Acrobat Professional versions, and like Photoshop, earlier versions are more than adequate for most business usage.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some (all?) pdf edit or modification can be done without an Acrobat Professional version.</p>

<p>Once in a blue moon, I would receive (application) forms in pdf to fill in (text). Why the senders would think this is a good idea is beyond me. This tool has served me well for that purpose, but I haven't tried anything more complex than entering text.</p>

<p>http://www.pdfescape.com/</p>