Adobe Changing Course? Sort of....

Uhooru · September 13, 2013

Wow there some rather angry, bitter posts happening here, most of it inchoate when in comes to stating justifications for the anger towards Adobe. Usually, such bitterness has at the bottom of it, love in some form. What else could engender such emotional vehemence?

jwenting · September 13, 2013

I agree with many of the comments above. I don't want to pay a monthly fee for a product I may not use very often. I just want to purchase a software license when I choose and upgrade it when I choose

I might, but not when that payment is required for access to my data. IOW not when I lose my work if I stop paying, which is what CC is all about, your images go into Adobe's cloud and access to that is determined by you paying for that access (which is logical, storage costs money, but I have my own storage and I like it that way). Were it just the software, I'd take out a subscription for a month or so when I need that thing that I don't need more than once or twice a year and would otherwise cost me hundreds or thousands to buy, then before the subscription runs out export everything to a format I can use in software I do own outright (cloud based stuff like that tends to slowly but surely remove all such export options). Unless someone here that is complaining about CC has a better solution for Adobe to combat piracy, there's no point in complaining. So which of you complainers has the solution?

</blockquote>

software as a service (SAAS) (CC does that) combined with local storage. And ideally an option for a one-off charge that lets you use that software in perpetuity, rather than a recurring weekly or monthly charge. An option of "pay per use" might also be handy for the rarely used things (for example I am quite content with PS Elements and Lightroom combo, full PS CSx I rarely need so wouldn't want to pay premium for that). The currently offered bundles are too restrictive, IMO.

"Does this mean that if someone's CC subscription expires, they will no longer be able to open and further process their PSD files?"

</blockquote>

yes, if they're stored in the cloud those files are gone. You may hope Adobe keeps them for a few months in case you reactivate, but I doubt there's any guarantee given about that. If you store your data locally, the only thing you lose is the option to open those files as you now lack the software to do so (but you can resub or maybe someone, somewhere, will write a program that can read/convert them).

Doubtful and do you have any basis for this conjecture?. For instance, if my card expires on Netflix or any other service that is automatic monthly pay, I get an email stating there's a problem with my card. It's happened several times. That simply reminds me to update the card info for that vendor.

</blockquote>

Not sure about Adobe, but I've seen online services where the options to change payment details were such a massive PITA that it might as well have been impossible. Things like sending copies credit card statements from both the old and new card to them via snail mail, with copies of your passport, to verify that the new card is indeed owned by the same person as the old and both are you. And in one case the only option was to close the account, pay a service fee with the new card to reopen it, which got the new card added as the default payment method, and then pay another service fee to have the old card removed.

How are your photos not safe and available with CC?

</blockquote>

if stored in the cloud, they're only available while you pay for your cloud access. IOW your creations are held hostage to your payment for the service, a service that can be terminated at any time with no prior notification, a service that might be unavailable because of problems outside the control of either you or the service provider (say your internet goes down).

You agreed to that in setup. It's always done as an opt-in. And it doesn't delete them from your phone.

</blockquote>

They also opt you in for them changing their service on the fly as they see fit without notifying you (Apple, your insurance company, and many others do the same). When I created my Google/Android account there was no Google+ so I never agreed to them uploading my snapshots to there.

Can anyone explain what they're saying here?

</blockquote>

They're saying that after the first year they can do whatever they like with the price, and your contract will automatically be changed to that new price.

Renting tools is a long-standing model though, Stephen.

</blockquote>

yes, but when the rental period expires for that electric screwdriver, anything screwed together with it doesn't suddenly unscrew itself, leaving you screwed.

It's exactly the same as CC: stop paying and the website goes away.

</blockquote>

I have a local copy of that site I can upload to another hosting provider and it is back online. I stop paying Adobe, I've lost all the work I've put into making that content I worked on using their tools, not quite the same thing.

Despite their unquestioned genius, the MBAs somehow failed to anticipate the extent and volume of the tantrums those expendable photographers would throw all over the Internet. That was creating an embarrassing PR problem for Adobe. It was even more embarrassing to the MBA-geniuses, who cannot tolerate even the suggestion that they're capable of error.

</blockquote>

not MBAs, marketing gurus. And it's not Adobe specific, it happens all over the place. Years and years ago there was a company called Borland which made some of the world's finest and most competitively priced software development suites. It was extremely popular with small and independent developers, but not so much with large corporations (though they'd happily employ those small and independent shops to use Borland products for them). Someone at Borland decided they should "target the enterprise". The brand name of the company was changed to Inprise (INtegrating the enterPRISE), the price of the products more than tripled overnight, and suddenly the marketing team who'd previously had prowled small backroom events in jeans and T-shirts with sporty logos and slogans now wore pinstripe suits and organised product launches in the Hilton and other top venues, they'd even shaven off their beards. Suffice to say the scheme failed, they lost the independents who could no longer afford their products and made up 90% of their sales, while failing to gain the target market of enterprise customers who're firmly in bed with Microsoft, IBM, and Oracle. They tried to revert the damage by reverting the name and offering a "professional level" product suite to complement the "enterprise suite" but that version was so stripped it was next to useless for what the serious professional needed. A few years later the intellectual property was bought out by another company, integrated into their product suite, and now sold as part of that, to their enterprise customers as they still have never been able to gain back the independents who've since switched to Oracle's and Microsoft's cheap or even free offerings that they launched in the meantime. Adobe has a bit less to fear there as they're not increasing their prices at the moment, but they're on a slippery slope if they forget their main market (not saying we are their main market rather than the large graphics design shops, I don't have a breakdown in sales for Adobe).

And they may have succeeded at erasing their mistake, since the $10 monthly rental of Photoshop and Lightroom seems a very good deal indeed

</blockquote>

only if you're a frequent upgrader. If not it's not a good deal (I tend to upgrade once every 5-6 years on average, for example). And before you attack me, I work in IT and we're selling SAAS services as part of our portfolio. They can be a great deal if you're not a large enough user of the software (in our case number of seats as well as data volume) to justify the licensing cost of the full suite for on-site usage. It's for each potential customer to work out whether purchasing a site license or a SAAS solution is in their own best interest, having both options available to you gives flexibility.

ford_kristo · September 13, 2013

@ Jeff Spirer - not according to the pricing page I looked at.

http://www.adobe.com/au/products/creativecloud/buying-guide.html

Can you supply a link, please?

Thanks.

pbalko · September 13, 2013

That link is for the current program Ford. <a href="http://blogs.adobe.com/creativelayer/introducing-the-photoshop-photography-program/">http://blogs.adobe.com/creativelayer/introducing-the-photoshop-photography-program/</a>

ford_kristo · September 13, 2013

Thanks, Phil. I appreciate your information.

$10 sounds more reasonable and humane. It is worth weighing up for consideration. Strange that it wasn't on the Australian site.

JRCrowe · September 13, 2013

It seems that rather than continue the conventional retail seller/customer style relationship we are all used to, Adobe has decided the classic Drug Dealer/Junkie type relationship is more to their liking. Its a good plan for them.

keith reeder · September 13, 2013

yes, but when the rental period expires for that electric screwdriver, anything screwed together with it doesn't suddenly unscrew itself, leaving you screwed.

</blockquote>

I promised not to post again but for the love of God can somebody - Jeff? Andrew? - explain yet again just what meaningless, unfounded crap, statements like this are?

You're screwed only if you let Adobe screw you - nothing about this new pricing structure locks you, your images, or what you might subsequently want to do with them, into Adobe. It is either ignorant of the reality of CC, or downright dishonest, to suggest otherwise.

That being the case (and for the avoidance of any doubt, that is the case):

What on Earth is the problem?

Either suck up paying on an ongoing basis or move on. <a href="http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=5220&review=corel+paintshop+pro+x5+adobe+photoshop">There is life outside of Adobe</a>, even for your "proprietary" PSD files.

Tim_Lookingbill · September 13, 2013

I promised not to post again but for the love of God can somebody - Jeff? Andrew? - explain yet again just what meaningless, unfounded crap, statements like this are?

</blockquote>

For the love of God, Keith, just stop reading what you find as crap statements. Your browser has a scroll bar. Use it. It's the same advice Jeff and others give quite often here.

No one is going to respect what you have to say if you don't respect what others say. They have a legitimate POV and regardless of how you interpret it, you will respect it.

Now shall I draw you a bawth and fetch your slippers, smoking pipe and jacket for this evening, sir?

digitaldog · September 13, 2013

Andrew? - explain yet again just what meaningless, unfounded crap, statements like this are?

</blockquote>

I've tried but the facts fall on deaf ears. Or there is a reading comprehension issue with some. The screwdriver analogy (if we can be so kind to even call it an analogy) stinks and isn't remotely pertinent.

digitaldog · September 13, 2013

They have a legitimate POV and regardless of how you interpret it, you will respect it.

</blockquote>

Yes if you find FUD and falsehoods a legitimate POV. The idea that once you stop using CC, you can't access or edit your files is simply untrue. Suggesting that by your own doing, removing the ability to use CC is like a screw driver and anything screwed together with it doesn't suddenly unscrew itself, leaving you screwed is nonsense. It's untrue. It is a lie. It is like saying once you stop using CC, the 6000 year old flat earth will cease to exist. If that's a legitimate POV, dog help us all.

Uhooru · September 13, 2013

if stored in the cloud, they're only available while you pay for your cloud access.

</blockquote>

No one is required to utilize the "cloud"for their storage, especially for sole storage, and in fact doing so is dangerous. But in any event, any "cloud" service by any provider holding stored data can do the same. Stop subscribing to any cloud service and at some point they will dump your data. That's why relying on internet storage as a sole repository of one's data is not a recommended practice. But I thought everyone knew that. The CC "cloud" issue is simply a red-herring that really has no relation to the issue.

Tim_Lookingbill · September 13, 2013

Yes if you find FUD and falsehoods a legitimate POV. The idea that once you stop using CC, you can't access or edit your files is simply untrue.

</blockquote>

That's your opinion on the first part concerning FUD/falsehoods, and on the second part it is you, Andrew, that has reading comprehension issues considering nothing was written (at least I didn't write it) stating concern over not being able to access our files or not having the ability to edit them.

Read what I said, not what you want to distort to your own skewed POV. I have a legitimate case and concern and it has nothing to do with not being able to edit or access my files.

digitaldog · September 13, 2013

Read what I said, not what you want to distort to your own skewed POV. I have a legitimate case and concern and it has nothing to do with not being able to edit or access my files.

</blockquote>

Those comments were not directed at what you wrote (I directed my comments at what you wrote which you conveniently ignored). I've read what YOU wrote prior and had no difficulty dismissing most of it.

Tim_Lookingbill · September 13, 2013

Dismissed? Oh! IOW nothing for you to be concerned about so just move on.

I stand by what I say as a legitimate concern for mine and other's workflow situations.

digitaldog · September 13, 2013

Dismissed? Oh! IOW nothing for you to be concerned about so just move on.

</blockquote>

There are issues to be concerned with a subscription versus a perceptual license. What you wrote in defense of the issues with the differences have nothing to do with the actual issues. You wrote:

You're dismissing and diluting my point about losing non-destructive edits and the time invested by canceling a CC subscription as being no big issue since the previous non-CC version can be used.

</blockquote>

Again, I am dismissing this POV because all proprietary processing that is version based has always been an issue if you can't use the version that created those proprietary edits. Further:

To simplify it even more, the user is really paying a monthly fee in order to preserve their time invested producing non-destructive edits because once you cancel the subscription...

</blockquote>

No, they really are not. Or let's put it this way, that's only a tiny portion of what they are paying for. One pays a monthly fee to continue to edit images with proprietary processing and further, if you are so sure you'll give up the proprietary edits, be smart and save a rendered image whereby no further proprietary editing is necessary. Least you forget (again) that YOU pulled the plug on past, present and future processing by canceling your subscription.

This is really simple Tim. You either find the price you pay for these functions useful or you don't. If you don't, you better plan what your next move will be. ALL XMP and similar Adobe processing you are so in love with is proprietary. Wiping all evidence of an Adobe product, subscriptions or perceptually licensed, from your machine is your call. If you do so, only you are to blame if you can't use those proprietary processes to further edit your data. Noting stops you from flattening or rendering the data so any application that can open say a TIFF can do so and you can further edit that data.

Dieter Schaefer · September 13, 2013

The only new thing here is the sense of a lack of permanent ownership in the new pricing model. Everything else is just meaningless noise. That sums it up to perfection!

</blockquote>

It's not a sense of lack - it's a real lack of permanent ownership; stop paying the subscription and you lost access to the software. That to me is the biggest drawback with the subscription model and will likely be the reason why I won't be jumping on it. I only upgraded to CS6 because of the misinformation regarding future upgrade options - that's $199 I'm already in the hole for believing what adobe said. Then I purchased LR5 to have access to the same RAW conversion utility as with ACR from photoshop - and as it was stated at the time - outside the subscription model even for further upgrades. That's another $79. Currently, the only features in CC that interest me are the ability to use RAW as a filter from inside photoshop - but I can use the less convenient way that works in CS6. Then there's "upright" - more convenient than the older method. Not really what I am willing to spend $10 per month in perpetuity on.

I am not going to comment on the PSD/layered TIFF issues that might arise from stepping down from CC to an older version of photoshop since I don't use those options. If I did, then I would spend some time figuring out how to make certain I am not left with unreadable junk.

So, in essence it all boils down if one is willing or not to spend money on a monthly subscription in perpetuity. All the rest is meaningless noise.

digitaldog · September 13, 2013

So, in essence it all boils down if one is willing or not to spend money on a monthly subscription in perpetuity. All the rest is meaningless noise.

</blockquote>

Exactly! And for some, it's a non issue if you do the math with the new pricing. I've updated every version of Photoshop since 1990 (1.0.7). That usually cost about $199. A new version came up typically every 18 months or so. At $9.99 X 18, that's less than an upgrade just a little. The issue is, some people don't want to be forced to upgrade. Some of us do this for a living, we wouldn’t think of not upgrading. There are lots of people who happily moved to CS6 from CS3! And that cost Adobe money. Like all businesses, they want to make a profit. The new subscription model stops this every other, every 3rd version upgrade option. It makes a lot of business sense and I can see how people who are perfectly happy upgrading every 3 years instead of every 18 months would be unhappy with this new model. I'm not happy my cable bill goes up either. In the end, it's a cost versus benefit decision. I don't want to pay more for cable, or the same for my cell service but lose unlimited data (which I never needed anyway but that's a different story). All kinds of business do what Adobe has done. If the proposition isn't something you want to deal with, move on. But to say you are being held hostage, or that your files are in a jail in the cloud, or that you lose your proprietary editing because you will no longer pay for a tool is as you say, meaningless noise.

Currently, the only features in CC that interest me are the ability to use RAW as a filter from inside photoshop - but I can use the less convenient way that works in CS6. Then there's "upright" - more convenient than the older method. Not really what I am willing to spend $10 per month in perpetuity on.

</blockquote>

Keep in mind that new features will be rolled out on a regular basis. Just happened with version 14.1. The new Generator feature is useful (to me) but may not be useful to you. And there's another rub. There will be new features added probably monthly or so. You have no idea what they will be or if they are worth what was a one time upgrade fee. So think of this as paying to use an existing tool that will get better over time depending on the type of work you do. With Thomas Knoll working on ACR, we can be pretty sure ACR (and later Lightroom) will see those new improvements and features aimed at photographers.

Carl Stone · September 13, 2013

To expand a bit on what Andrew says, the capability gap between PS/CS 6 and PS/CC is only going to become wider as time goes by. My guess is that we will see a lot of photo folks regret not taking advantage of this new PS/LR offering, once it has bypassed them. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Dieter Schaefer · September 13, 2013

In the end, it's a cost versus benefit decision.

</blockquote>

Indeed - and for me it is one that will keep me from subscribing as long as possible and possibly forever. If adobe were to implement the option that - let's say after two or three years of subscription - one were to stop but could continue to use the software as it is at that point - without further upgrades and updates, of course - now that would sway me (and I don't see a reason why adobe shouldn't do this). Even though there's still the likelihood that the price will eventually go up - I doubt it's going to stay at $9.99 for more than three years. Those who stop the subscription and start again at a later date will have to pay more too - that much should be certain.

My guess is that we will see a lot of photo folks regret not taking advantage of this new PS/LR offering, once it has bypassed them.

</blockquote>

Most certainly - and I might well be one of them. But as it stands, adobe's offer is not good enough to persuade me.

ford_kristo · September 13, 2013

A few questions on the practical application of this CC subscription:

1) Does the CC subscription software download impact on the use of existing installations of PS (installed from "old fashioned" purchased discs)? Can I run both on the same machine without conflicts?

2) Can psd files created in CC PS be read and worked on in older versions of non-CC PS?

3) Are edits to RAW files done in CC PS maintained if the edited files are opened in older versions of non-CC PS?

4) Does the CC subscription software work with already installed disc versions of other Creative Suite modules (eg Illustrator, In Design, etc)? That is, if I want to do the $10 PS CC subscription, do I need to subscribe to all the CC Creative Suite modules that I use to maintain seamless operations between them?

Has anyone tried doing these things yet?

digitaldog · September 13, 2013

A few questions on the practical application of this CC subscription:

</blockquote>

1. No issues or conflicts. You can run CC and CS6, no problem. Probably earlier versions too.

2. Yes. Keep in mind however that some new or unique functionality in CC isn't backwards compatible.

3. Depends. Especially how far back you're talking about.

4. Yes. You can run say Photoshop CC and InDesign 5, no problem.

ford_kristo · September 13, 2013

Thanks Andrew. (My lawyer will be in touch if this doesn't work out.)

With regards 3) - it would be PS 5 & 6.

My concern would be future redundancy of PS6 with advances in the CC PS. (I am mindful of the lack of ACR support for older PS versions with Nikon D800 raw files.)

I still have the feeling in the pit of my gut that I get when I am just about to jump out of the door, using a chute packed by persons unknown. The decision to go potentially has a major bearing on the future.

digitaldog · September 13, 2013

My concern would be future redundancy of PS6 with advances in the CC PS. (I am mindful of the lack of ACR support for older PS versions with Nikon D800 raw files.)

</blockquote>

Not sure I understand. As ACR progresses, it natively supports more cameras as the raw files are proprietary. Adobe (and all other 3rd party converters) have to decode them to support processing. That's why Adobe has developed DNG. Let's say you have CS6 and Nikon comes out with new camera. Let's say a newer version of ACR supports that new format but CS6 doesn't (the camera file didn't exist when CS6 was developed). You could convert that newer Nikon file to DNG and use it in an older version of ACR, in this case, CS6.

ford_kristo · September 13, 2013

Thanks again Andrew. You have answered my question. This means that in the future, I may not be able to use just PS6 on a laptop in the bush to process newer iterations of camera propriety raw files.

I realise this is a fairly narrow burrow of interest for probably most people, but it is pivotal to the way I need to work.

digitaldog · September 13, 2013

This means that in the future, I may not be able to use just PS6 on a laptop in the bush to process newer iterations of camera propriety raw files.

</blockquote>

Yes unless you convert them to DNG. The DNG converter is updated regularly to support newer cameras. It's free. So you could stick with PS6 and when a new camera comes out you can convert the proprietary raw for processing in your older version of ACR in CS6. Unfortunately, you and everyone else has to wait on Adobe to update the DNG converter for that new system. Adobe has to update this converter thanks to the camera manufacturer's who just refuse to create an open raw format. But that's a different story that has been debated here for awhile.

There is a downside to staying with an older version of ACR in that it gets better at processing the raw data, and that's true for older or newer camera files. For example, we saw the introduction of PV (Process Version) 2012 last year in CS6 and Lightroom 4. It does a significantly better job than PV2010. IF the quality of processing your raw's is critical, updating Photoshop for ACR, or updating Lightroom is a useful investment.

Sign In

Adobe Changing Course? Sort of....

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in