Moving towards Creative Cloud ??

[AlanKlein]

You won't lose your doctor either.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> I'll continue to accept the advice of Vince Hendrickson, Adobe's Photoshop VP; and John Nack, Adobe's Principal Product Manager, either of whom are going to know a damn' sight more about Adobe's pricing plans than the naysayers here know...</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I will read the fine print that tells you what they are going to do legally. Hendrickson and Nack can say whatever they want and it won't affect Adobe's legal statement, which says they can change pricing after twelve months.

[Nick D.]

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

What so difficult to interpret? It is typical contract, in twelve month they will automatically renew your contract with price current for that day, whatever it is gonna be $10, $25 or $250, if you missed your cancellation option and you want out, you on the hook for 50% cancellation fee.<br>

My insurance company does it for years, around 10% price increase every year.<br>

Welcome to the Cloud and Merry Xmas.</p>

 

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>What so difficult to interpret? It is typical contract, in twelve month they will automatically renew your contract with price current for that day, whatever it is gonna be $10, $25 or $250...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Also not being a lawyer or playing one TV, I think what you wrote sounds correct. I don't think Adobe or any company with such a model could or would promise a fixed price forever. The price <em>could</em> go up after the twelve month period. If it does, the increase has to be somewhat reasonable. It's not going to double from $9.95 any time soon. So let's say it goes to $10.95. Or $12.95. Is the price worthwhile? If so, we pay like any other price increase. If Adobe doesn't provide functionality we want, we'll pass. Speculating and arguing what <em>may</em> happen in a year, 2 years seems pointless. Stay with the PS version you have. Or go CC with an exit strategy such that should the price per benefit ratio is such you don't get your money's worth, jump ship. I don't see anything radically different here compared to a lot of other products and services we all currently purchase. </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>It's dealing with all the photos edited by the Cloud after you jump ship that's the problem. How do you access them? </p>

<p>Also, the PS single purchase non-special is currently $19.95 a month without Lightroom. Why are you figuring such a little price increase next year for renewal when the $9.99 package also includes Lightroom? Of course none of us know what will happen. Probably Adobe doesn't know what thyey're going to do either. A lot will depend on the market at that time.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>It's dealing with all the photos edited by the Cloud after you jump ship that's the problem. How do you access them?</p>

</blockquote>

You <strong>do not</strong> have to put <strong>anything</strong> up on the cloud. If you did, you could download them prior to cancelation. Again, there's nothing really new here. I subscribe yearly to CrashPlan as my cloud backup. They can up their fee when they desire. If I decide I no longer wish to subscribe, they will trash my 112gigs of data and use it for someone else. If I'm not interested in downloading that data prior to it being trashed, fine.

 

It's all about an exit strategy!<strong> This isn't new.</strong> Suppose you have Cable TV and decide you want Satellite instead. You don't want to go a day without service. PLAN to cancel subscription A after subscription B takes affect or on the same day. Simple.

[AlanKlein]

<p>I wasn't clear. The access I'm refering too is after you made changes in the Cloud, you won't have access to your own pictures with your purchased Adobe programs. Those will probably not be able to see any upgrades you used in the Cloud as changes are not backwards compatible. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>The access I'm refering too is after you made changes in the Cloud, you won't have access to your own pictures with your purchased Adobe programs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't understand the problem. Whatever change you make to your pictures are not locked up on their cloud. And you don't have to put anything up on their cloud. I've been using CC since day one, I don't have a single item up there. </p>

[AlanKlein]

You won't have access to your changes even if the

files are in your computer if the changes were made

with updated software on the cloud. You'll either

have to start editing each photo again from the

beginning or save all edited photos as tiffs before

you cancel service.

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>You won't have access to your changes even if the files are in your computer if the changes were made with updated software on the cloud. You'll either have to start editing each photo again from the beginning or save all edited photos as tiffs before you cancel service.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry Alan, I don't know what you're talking about. CC is no different than any other copy/version of Photoshop. You open an image and edit it, save it where ever you wish. There is nothing that requires you do anything at all via the cloud. <br /> If you are saying that CC is a new version with new and unique features you may use, and moving back a version <em>may</em> introduce a case where those few new proprietary edits are <strong>not</strong> accessible any longer that's true. That has nothing to do with a cloud. For example, if you make an edit that only CC can produce (Shake Reduction), then go back to CS5 you cannot continue to edit the Shake Reudction parameters because CS5 doesn’t have nor understand that new feature. However, the Shake Reduction layer <strong>is</strong> done being edited and <strong>will</strong> still be seen within the layer stack, even with an older version. You can't edit that further with Shake Reduction because by your own doing, you stopped using a newer version that has this functionally.</p>

[JRCrowe]

<p>I believe the plugin for dressing up your porcine photo subject is call "Pigture Perfect".</p>

[JRCrowe]

<p><a href="http://www.adobe.com/misc/terms.html">Here</a> is a link to the cloud storage License and terms. One thing to be very careful about is if you do not specify any security settings for the photos that you upload to Adobe's cloud they will be stored with the most liberal license which seems to mean anyone can use your photos for anything. Sections 9 and 10 cover the sharing of images. Adobe should have the default setting be the highest level of security rather than the lowest. Seems a tad dishonest to me. Has anyone tried cloud storage and do you have to set security for each upload? I use Skydrive and have to set permissions and recipients when I use it. Isn't that the idea of cloud storage that it is secure and private? I noticed while reading through some of Adobe's stuff that they still offer stand alone software for Government and Educational licenses.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Andrew: How can you be sure that Adobe will allow that kind of backward compatability? Could future CC versions of PS not allow it in the future?</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew: How can you be sure that Adobe will allow that kind of backward compatability? Could future CC versions of PS not allow it in the future?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, I'm not sure what your asking or the confusion. This works TODAY. I've gone from CC back to CS6 and the Shake Reduction layer is visible but again, I <strong>cant</strong> re-edit it for obvious reasons. One can always flatten the image and save as TIFF. <strong>Any</strong> TIFF reader would open that file and we'd see the same color appearance. The big difference is, <strong>we can't re-edit it from individual layers using Adobe proprietary processing. </strong><br>

Alan, this has been true for over 20 years of Photoshop history! Photoshop version 2 didn't have layers. Photoshop version 3 did. IF you created layers in version 3 and went back to version 2, there would be no layers, the image would appear to be flattened but look like what you saw in version 3. Every time a new proprietary feature of the Photoshop (or any other software) is updated, the previous version will not have the ability to edit the data the same way with those newer features. There is absolutely nothing different here with CC other than it's a subscription and you may decide you will go back a version. Save as a TIFF. If necessary, flatten all those proprietary Photoshop layers. You're done editing using this proprietary process by your own doing but you do not lose your image or data! </p>

[john_d17]

<p>I recently upgraded my CS5 to CS 6 and bought Lightroom 5 on sale at B&H Photo. If I was just starting out I guess I wouldn't have much od choice. CS6 will do everyting I will want with the processing my images for many years. The $10 a month will go up in time like everything else.<br>

http://johndoddato.blogspot.com</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Andrew: If you own CS6, which you would have if you're using it, you wouldn't go back to CS5 or any previous version. You wouldn't because you <em>own</em> the latest version. Not so with CC. That will be the latest version. The only way to <em>own</em> it is to pay monthly for the rest of your life. If you stop paying you'll be pretty much forced to create a tiff of all the changes you made to all your images before you cancel the subscription. You could hope that the CC edited version will be somewhat available for editing by earlier owned CS's, but you don't know for sure. This is not a simple upgrade like occured in the past. Adobe is playing a different game where they make the rules and may change them. It just pays to be aware of downstream issues before you throw your chips into the game.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>If you own CS6, which you would have if you're using it, you wouldn't go back to CS5 or any previous version.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not so with CC. That will be the latest version.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Correct. And to do so, you subscribe.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you stop paying you'll be pretty much forced to create a tiff of all the changes you made to all your images before you cancel the subscriptionS.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I create TIFFs anyway (there's nothing a PDF does a TIFF doesn't). And no, you don't necessary have to do anything as I explained, you CAN go back from CC to CS6, and open those CC files, you just can't edit them using newer CC functionality. I told you I have gone from CC specific edits (Shake Reduction) back to CS6. The edits are still there, but baked in. You want to keep editing the Shake Reduction, you have to do so in CC. Don't unsubscribe!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You could hope that the CC edited version will be somewhat available for editing by earlier owned CS's, but you don't know for sure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I do know for sure, you can't edit using the newer functionality. But that doesn't mean you can't take your existing edits, burned into a layer back into CS6. Understand? There's a vast difference between not having the ability to open a CC doc in an older version versus opening a CC doc in an older version and continuing to edit it. Does that make sense?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is not a simple upgrade like occured in the past.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is exactly like a simple upgrade that occurred in the past, as I explained with the using the layers analogy between version 2 and version 3 (NOT CC, the really old versions).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Adobe is playing a different game where they make the rules and may change them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only difference is once you stop paying, the current version stops being accessible but you can take those images back to older versions. I've done it. Heck, if you've finished editing all those legacy images anyway, what's the big deal about opening them in an older version to do (what?) print them or such. The difference in this game is you continue to pay to use the latest version which isn't all that different from the past in terms of accessibility of your data. <br /> I have images from CC I could open in a 10 year old copy of Photoshop! Continue to edit them with the same functionality as CC? <strong>No, that's not going to happen</strong>.<br /> You seem to confuse accessing your legacy images with editing your legacy images. IF you want to continue to use the latest proprietary Adobe technology to edit your images, you have to continue to pay Adobe. That's NOT the same as accessing that data. Understood?</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Andrew: For someone like yourself, who makes a living training people on Photoshop and Lightroom, of course it makes sense for you to be on CC and too support it 100%. For you and professionals, the monthly fee becomes just another cost of doing business like an office rental that you can write off on your taxes. So I understand your defence of the new situation.</p>

<p>But for amateurs like myself, getting locked-in to pay a fee every month for the rest of our lives is a little too much. But I understand your position and wish you much success.</p>

[LineMartel]

<p>After you subscribe you will receive a short survey. I strongly recommend everyone fill it out. One very important question is how often do people usually upgrade. I work in marketing research and can assure you that companies act upon results from those surveys. The cost of the subscription in the future will more than likely include a calculation to reflect what people currently spend on average yearly. The greater the average delay in upgrading is, the lesser amount of money monthly...</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew: For someone like yourself, who makes a living training people on Photoshop and Lightroom, of course it makes sense for you to be on CC and too <strong>support it 100%</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alan, let me be clear to you and others. The new subscription model isn't my first choice or preference by a long shot! There are some advantages and disadvantages to the new model. My posts have <em>attempted</em> to explain the facts about methods in which the new model does change our options & workflow without FUD. Hence the exit strategy concept. I hope I've made clear that moving to CC doesn't lock your files anywhere on the cloud. That you can go backwards to older versions of Photoshop or even another product but there will be limitations so plan accordingly. Much of the move to a subscription doesn't change any of these issues we've faced over the years. Some do. </p>

[Mike D]

<p>I don't know if I missed a similar comment above but saying "Photoshop" and "Creative Cloud" in the same sentence is not entirely true. Yes, you can store your images in the cloud but you can't use any computer device anywhere in the world and use CC. You have to download the software on that device first before CC is functional. Before being considered truly cloud based, Adobe will have to figure out how to chop CC up into smaller, web-sized applets that can be utilized by the subscriber on command on any device, anywhere. If adobe is able to do this, the functionality of CC would be just be too great for me not to subscribe. </p>

[EricM]

<p>Every thread I open here is an argument </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Argument: <em>a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.</em></p>

 

<strong>:</strong> a reason given in <strong>proof</strong> or rebuttal

 

 

 

 

<strong>:</strong> discourse intended to persuade (we do get plently that here)

<strong>:</strong> a <strong>coherent series of statements</strong> leading from a premise to a conclusion

 

</blockquote>

<p>In many casse Eric, there's no reasoning in the argument, <strong>proof</strong> or coherent premise. Instead, what we are witnessing are rants.</p>

[philfx]

<blockquote>

<p>Adobe CC at $10/month isn't as bad as it sounds</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it only ends there. This is the hook you swallow.<br /> I only read the first couple posts, so this doens't reply to the entire thread, BUT....<br /> There are no direct competitors for CC/Photoshop. Once you're on, with added features to get used to in one year...(I would be surprised if they go for a full 2 years), but some update will warrant them to up the price and soon enough they are like a cellphone provider, except this time there is no competition to help keep the price down. What will you save in the long run? to RENT. <br /><br />No thanks.<br />Having said this, I am certain folks that have a hard time paying the chunk for CS5 or CS6 Photoshop, will adopt this method, and sadly pave the way to making RENTAL of software from ADOBE the way to go. <br /> I advise those folks not wanting to fork over $500+ to go online and PURCHASE older versions of Photoshop and every year put some $ towards an upgrade. You will own the program, and you really can argue both ways of the features you gain or lose,(individual useage varies) as the core of it (at least 8bit, and some newer versions at 16bit) is really comparable(Hush, I said user dependent). For many updates, they have taken over what Plugins help do. Yes of course this is only partly true as there are a number of speed, and structural improvements..But I(me personally) don't find the gains of them to be great enough to RENT over PURCHASE. <br /> Furthermore, if I could make such an analogy...<br /> CAR/SOFTWARE PROGRAM<br /> bare with me a bit...<br>

I would rather buy a solid car free to do what I want with it and own it, than one that I would rent, and make sure I don't make any alterations or usage changes and then trade in every 2 years just for a new model WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT MAYBE LESS RELIABLE, AND MORE COSTLY.<br /> Newer cars all need to be up to snuff on the emissions and all new licensing laws and such that you have to agree on in order to drive. If you own a car that is older, you are free from such laws. Yes the cost of gas is more for these cars(cost of PC power), but the trade off point for computers to software performance is the USERS ADVANTAGE as of now, and likely pretty long time to come.(5 plus years at least).<br /> I actually own a newer car as the trade off to gas price doesn't make much sense. So even leasing one makes sense to some users...<br /> For computer technology its the reverse.I also find the fact that I never did upgrade on every update of Photoshop, as I rememeber each initial release had issues. And not a lot to offer. So I would do it every other year or so. This would not be an option, and nor does it mean the price would be reflecting features and updates any longer. But I think the monthly price of $9.99 is at best 1 or 2 years. That's already $240 for 2 years (more than the $199 upgrade price). Yes, sure the initial cost is not figured in. See above suggestions.<br /> The above is my take on it, and I'm sure there are plenty arguments to oppose this. But I think this is true for me and I think many other folks.<br>

If the analogy doesn't fit you, skip it :-)</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Phil, technically, the own/rent analogy doesn't apply. We purchase a license to use the software. That's all. Even if we possess a disc containing the program, we only own the physical disc, not the software on it. Adobe, like most software companies, can revoke the license at any time for violation of the agreement or any other stipulated reason.</p>

<p>And if your copy of the physical disc contains a program that must be registered online, the company that owns the intellectual property may be able to revoke the license and decline to allow users to continue using the software.</p>

<p>Yes, there are workarounds. Many folks continue to use programs they purchased even after the original license agreement has expired or been revoked. Technically this is a violation of the contract, although this is seldom enforced other than for commercial or institutional licenses. But it doesn't make private users technically "right", and they don't "own" the software.</p>

<p>There are open source and alternative programs available for folks who prefer to avoid the legal technicalities of these licenses for intellectual property. But if those alternative were as good as Adobe and offered the same high level of functionality, without imposing the same licensing contracts and efforts to prevent piracy, then Adobe wouldn't exist as a viable business.</p>

<p>And it's pretty clear from Adobe's recent aggressive pricing to encourage folks to try the cloud based option that they are trying to be competitive and responsive to the market. I have a few concerns about Adobe - primarily their customer support, and of course the security vulnerability exploited this year - but I have no complaint about their pricing, cloud service, licensing or functionality because I am free to choose any other software that suits my needs - if such a thing exists. And if it existed and was of equal or better value, I'd be using it. My complaints about functionality are primarily due to user error - my own lack of understanding about how some things work, mostly because I didn't bother to read the tutorials suggested by other experienced folks.</p>