Photoshop replacement for the future?

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>Adobe had to have some line in the sand in terms of version'ing their products. If in 2 years there is a major upgrade where a current OS or hardware we use today becomes incompatible, that version has to be defined. So even if there is a subscription that will update itself regularly and with new features, we will still see major version updates presumably every year (until told otherwise ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So Adobe will be releasing periodic versions which will presumably receive no further updates once the new version becomes current, but will otherwise work perfectly well? If only there were some way of, say, paying a fixed fee that covered only that version, but would keep it running indefinitely without an eternal subscription! A radical idea, I know, and I expect the technology to implement is is still decades away, but one which Adobe should seriously consider. I imagine it would be quite popular with some of their customers...</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>So Adobe will be releasing periodic versions which will presumably receive no further updates once the new version becomes current, but will otherwise work perfectly well?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seems that way if you look at CC vs. CC2014. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> If only there were some way of, say, paying a fixed fee that covered only that version, but would keep it running indefinitely without an eternal subscription!<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then it wouldn't be a subscription which is what Adobe wants. Not going to happen even if it's popular with customers. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"Not going to happen even if it's popular with customers."</i><br><br>There we are. The customer is always... uhm...<br>Here's another of these goldies: "he who laughs last, [etc.]"<br>;-)

[Richard Williams]

<p>Oh dear, I think I'll need to use the <sarcasm> tag in future :-)</p>

<p>I think the answer to the OP is that there's no great alternative. If there were, it would not be necessary to find one, since Adobe would never have dared to impose the subscription system in the face of serious competition from a product with a perpetual licence.</p>

[ted_marcus1]

<blockquote>

<p>Then it wouldn't be a subscription which is what Adobe wants. Not going to happen even if it's popular with customers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's exactly what makes Adobe's rental scheme so unpalatable, at least to some people. A normal business prospers by doing what's popular with customers and serving their needs. But Adobe, by virtue of its "industry standard" monopoly products, no longer needs to care about what its customers want. Adobe's customers now serve Adobe's need to maximize the wealth of its executives and investors. Adobe has attained a position that MBA students dream about, but almost never get to see.</p>

<p>That said, a $10 monthly subscription to Photoshop and Lightroom, which includes periodic incremental enhancements, is probably a very good deal for a successful professional photographer who relies on those products for his or her livelihood, and who would faithfully buy each new version under the legacy business model. Those are the sort of customers who best serve Adobe's needs. They're likely to defend Adobe against those who whine and moan about "rental." </p>

<p>It's the amateurs and enthusiasts who are, to put it bluntly, getting screwed with the new model. They're the ones who are complaining about "imposition." Many of those users have been less than faithful in meeting their obligation to give Adobe $200 every year and a half, so they resent having that obligation forced on them with the rental model. Although Adobe is certainly happy to rent Photoshop to non-professionals who want to rent it, those users aren't the people Adobe wants as Photoshop customers. Adobe would say to the whining amateurs, "It's too bad you don't like the subscription model, but Photoshop really isn't for you anyway. Elements is what you really want, and we sell it under the traditional perpetual license. And if you really think you need something more advanced than Elements, you can also perpetually license Lightroom."</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I have Photoshop CS5. I upgraded to it from CS3 because it had some compelling new features, but before that I didn't see any reason to get CS4. When CS6 came out, I looked carefully at it and concluded there was no compelling reason to upgrade. When Adobe finally recognized that they had made a serious mistake with their initial subscription plan by excluding photographers who didn't need the entire Creative Suite, I looked carefully at Photoshop CC. I saw nothing that made me say "I <em>must</em> rent this for $10 a month!" </p>

<p>So I will stick to CS5 for as long as I have a computer that can run it. I recently bought a new camera, which forced me to again consider my options. Spending $200 for the obsolete CS6 just to read my camera's raw files didn't make sense. Nor did committing to rent Photoshop. I may consider Lightroom in the future, but I'm not yet ready to ascend the learning curve of its asset management database workflow.</p>

<p>For now, DNG conversion is my best option. I'm finding the conversion step minimally inconvenient at most. The Adobe converter actually adds convenience if I'm uploading files from a multi-day trip, as it can traverse the directory structure on a memory card and put the DNG files in a single directory. I'd otherwise have to do that manually. After conversion, ACR 6 and CS5 work as they always have, and the DNG files are 18% smaller than the native CR2 files. If Adobe's claims are to be believed, I'm also guaranteeing that I will always be able to read my raw files. So there seems to be nothing to lose by going with DNG.</p>

<p>As always, YMMV.</p>

<p> </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>It's the amateurs and enthusiasts who are, to put it bluntly, getting screwed with the new model.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see how (by virture of simply what they do). I know some amateurs and enthusiasts who have much bigger budgets and much better equipment and can afford the fees easily so I don't see how they are being screwed. If the price to pay is too high, like any other item, they can pass. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>paying a fixed fee that covered only that version, but would keep it running indefinitely without an eternal subscription! </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

And how would you stop piracy of that version? Before CC, 60% of the Adobe users were running pirated copies of PS. Although it was initially cracked, CC now appears to have succeeded in stopping piracy. So unless you have a solution, it's not going to be a good situation for Adobe.</p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>So there seems to be nothing to lose by going with DNG.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yet. But I must say it seems a bit odd to me for you on the one hand have a problem with the way Adobe is heading with subscriptions, yet on the other hand further entrenching yourself into their ecosystem with dng?</p>

<p>Interesting discussion. I've set my calendar for five years from now to revisit it</p>

[ted_marcus1]

<blockquote>

<p>Yet. But I must say it seems a bit odd to me for you on the one hand have a problem with the way Adobe is heading with subscriptions, yet on the other hand further entrenching yourself into their ecosystem with dng?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the strange bargain I had to make with an evil monopolist. I can either pay to rent their current software, or I can use my legacy software with my new camera in exchange for helping Adobe achieve their vision of dominating the world's standard raw file format. Either way, Adobe benefits. There is no free lunch, but I chose what seemed the least distasteful route. And while I don't drink deeply of the DNG Kool-Aid, there indeed seems to be little to lose with DNG, even if ends up not offering all the advantages Adobe claims for it.</p>

<p>An alternative to the evil monopolist would be preferable, but it does not exist (vainly attempting to bring the thread back on topic). I actually started with Paint Shop Pro when I got my first film scanner in 1999. I was unwilling to either pay $600 for Photoshop or accept the pirated version that someone at work offered me. PSP seemed to have everything I needed, and it seemed to improve significantly with each new version....</p>

<p>.... Until Corel took it over in 2005. They came out with PSP 10 ("X"), which claimed to have advanced color management and a useful raw converter. It was only after I bought it that I discovered I had paid to be a volunteer beta tester of what even Corel admitted was an unfinished product. I decided that Corel had farkled what had been shaping up to become a viable alternative to Photoshop. So it was time to bite the bullet and plunk down my $600 for Photoshop CS2. Yes, it was Corel that sold me Photoshop. </p>

<p>Much as I'd like to see PSP become true competition for Photoshop, my experience completely destroyed any confidence I had in Corel. For all I know, Corel now has their act together and has made PSP a polished product that at least competes with Elements. But I don't trust Corel at all. </p>

 

[EricM]

<p>Ted, do you write as well?</p>

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>And how would you stop piracy of that version? Before CC, 60% of the Adobe users were running pirated copies of PS. Although it was initially cracked, CC now appears to have succeeded in stopping piracy. So unless you have a solution, it's not going to be a good situation for Adobe.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, I see it now A lifetime subscription for every user is the only conceivable way to combat piracy! Adobe really had no choice.</p>

<p>An appropriate Google search gives me this in the second hit:</p>

<p>"Here comes the next version of the awesome tool created by [deleted]. Last version 1.06 had the ability to crack almost all the products of CC & CS Suites, but unfortunately did not work for the latest CC 2014 release done by Adobe. But this new version 1.1 released by [deleted] works for the latest CC 2014 too."</p>

[leon strembitsky]

<p>You may want to have a look at Picture Window Pro. </p>

[LineMartel]

<p>Monopoly? The fact that they offer a better product than anyone else and therefore acquire the giant part of the market does not make them monopolist. They are not preventing anyone to create and sell a better product competitively... As mentioned previously, I use Adobe products extensively, especially Ps for photography as a hobby and at work as a graphic artist as part of the creative suite I do most of my initial work in Ps and then transfer seamlessly to other Adobe applications. The fact that no one else has developed a product that suits my needs is the reason I do not have any other options, not because Adobe has monopolized the market! 120$/year for the best application on the market is a very good option in my view... </p>

[ted_marcus1]

<blockquote>

<p>As mentioned previously, I use Adobe products extensively, especially Ps for photography as a hobby and at work as a graphic artist as part of the creative suite I do most of my initial work in Ps and then transfer seamlessly to other Adobe applications. The fact that no one else has developed a product that suits my needs is the reason I do not have any other options, not because Adobe has monopolized the market! 120$/year for the best application on the market is a very good option in my view...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You prove the point I made earlier. You are a professional user of Adobe's "industry-standard" products. As such, you are key to Adobe's profitability. Adobe thus offers you a subscription plan that is a good deal, which you eagerly (and appropriately) defend against those of us who complain about it.</p>

<p>It doesn't really matter to you whether there are other options, since Photoshop and Lightroom are the best products for you, at a price you consider a good deal. But those of us who complain do so because Adobe's executives have decided we are not key to their company's profitability. The rental scheme is not a good deal for us, and there are no other options. We have essentially been abandoned by Adobe, for reasons that make entirely good business sense for them and for their investors. Arguably, that's a problem because we're selfish and narrow-minded, and we place our petty interests ahead of what's best for Adobe's shareholders.</p>

<p>Whether or not Adobe attained its market dominance because it sells the best products, the fact is that Adobe is a monopoly. There are no alternatives to many if not most of its "industry-standard" products; and that same market dominance is an insurmountable disincentive for any competitor to even attempt to challenge Adobe. Adobe is a business after all, and its executives' first priority is maximizing their shareholders' return. So taking full advantage of their monopoly position by locking customers into a rental model that provides shareholders with a continuous revenue stream is exactly the right thing for Adobe to do, from a business perspective. They wisely recognized that it's no longer possible to add enough real, compelling value to new releases of Photoshop to make users <em>want</em> to buy every upgrade.</p>

<p>If that business decision angers amateurs and enthusiasts, who don't see a benefit from paying for the software up-front and getting continuous incremental improvements, that's not a problem. They aren't the customers Adobe wants anyway. Adobe offers them Elements, with the traditional perpetual license. Adobe can't get away with forcing users to rent Elements because they don't have a monopoly in that market segment. Those who hate Adobe can use Paint Shop Pro or one its other competitors. And for most amateurs, Elements or Paint Shop Pro really are a better choices than Photoshop anyway. Lightroom is similarly available with a perpetual license because it has competition from Apple's Aperture. But now that Apple is apparently abandoning Aperture, I expect that Adobe will soon have the monopoly power to force Lightroom users to "subscribe." If they don't use that monopoly power, they'll be breaching their obligation to the shareholders.</p>

<p>That said, it's possible that Adobe's new business model will finally provide incentive for someone to create a genuine competitor to Photoshop. I've even suggested that users who are upset about Adobe's decision, and who happen to have the appropriate coding skills, should channel their outrage productively into improving GIMP rather than pointless complaints.</p>

<p>I don't necessarily believe that GIMP is the solution. But I suspect that the competitor to Photoshop will come from the Open Source community rather than from a corporation. That's because Microsoft Office dominates its market in the same way as Adobe's Creative Suite, which makes commercial competition infeasible. (Novell nearly destroyed itself trying to make WordPerfect and a collection of defunct Borland office software compete with Microsoft. Corel acquired the detritus of that fiasco, and now holds onto a marginal niche in the "office suite" market.) Microsoft faces serious competition from the free open-source LibreOffice. If the competitor to Photoshop isn't a revamped GIMP, it will probably be a new effort similar to LibreOffice.</p>

[jeff_ford]

<p>In the UK I get charged over $65 a month for CC. After endless discussions with Adobe and promises of price reviews nothing has changed. At a recent meeting of like minded photographers 87 of the 120ish present have decided to cancel our subscriptions as our workload allows, I cancelled mine yesterday.<br>

My CC never allowed me to use LR due to some complication with an existing license on my hard drive which myself and Adobe spent hours trying to resolve, so it proved even poorer value for me. The $10 option for PS and LR is not available to me.<br>

So whilst I was happy to support Adobe in this new venture, it became clear that they were not prepared to support me, and many others so its cheerio Adobe.<br>

CS6 and LR5.5 that I own will serve me for many years, when they don't I'll look elsewhere as the competition is imminent, from Fuji and Sony especially</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>That said, it's possible that Adobe's new business model will finally provide incentive for someone to create a genuine competitor to Photoshop.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

There was always an incentive, which is called market share. Nobody bothered though. The only decent challenger I ever saw was a product Silverfast had years ago. The beta was way ahead of Adobe at the time but Silverfast a) priced it at twice Adobe's price (high enough for 10 years of CC), b) didn't really finish it, and c) was only available on the Apple platform, which meant a lot of web publishers couldn't use it.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>That said, it's possible that Adobe's new business model will finally provide incentive for someone to create a genuine competitor to Photoshop.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

There was always an incentive, which is called market share. Nobody bothered though. The only decent challenger I ever saw was a product Silverfast had years ago. The beta was way ahead of Adobe at the time but Silverfast a) priced it at twice Adobe's price (high enough for 10 years of CC), b) didn't really finish it, and c) was only available on the Apple platform, which meant a lot of web publishers couldn't use it.</p>

[LineMartel]

<p>Ted,<br /> Although I have access to the Creative Suite at work, I do subscribe independently to Ps for my personal use and consider that the monthly fee is well worth it. One thing you left out when saying that Adobe is disregarding amateurs is the fact that people do not have to dish out 1500$-2000$ up front anymore to start using it. I think that this new model makes the software available to a larger number of people, contrary to what you are saying... Just my pov...</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"There was always an incentive, which is called market share."</i><br><br>Indeed. That incentive is becoming stronger, now that it would appear that not every PS-user is going to play along with that new business model. There will be a change in market share.<br>So <i>"Adobe's new business model will finally provide incentive for someone to create a genuine competitor to Photoshop"</i> may well be true, with the insertion (implicit or explicit) of the word "enough" between "provide"and "incentive".<br>However it will turn out, it's an interesting development.

[EricM]

<p>Like it or not, it's an "Instagram" world out there now and Adobe sees the writing on the wall. Going CC while also offering a mobile "Photoshop Express" version is a wise move to slowly bring their desktop market to the mobile market</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

It's only "an Instagram world out there" when you don't look further than kids playing with toys.<br>Meanwhile there are people reporting things like <i>"After I photograph a show and during the edit phase I will be opening as many as 100 RAW files at a time from my D4 and running batch actions on them. This will go on for 8 to 10 hours a day for as many days as it takes for me to finish the show. That is typically 4 days. I have found my system to be rock solid under this kind of a load."</i> in a discussion where 36 GB of ram is deemed too little and a 500 GB SSD too small.

[ray .]

CS4 seems to run fine on my new iMac. That should do for now.

 

It is true that 'customers' have ripped Adobe off in the past by finding a way to use PS without having

to pay one dime for it.

[q.g._de_bakker]

It is indeed true, Ray. And though i'm dead against piracy, it must be noted that that wasn't only a bad thing for Adobe.<br>Many of those pirated copies were used by people who couldn't or wouldn't afford to buy PS. So not entirely a loss of revenue for Adobe. And it did help spread PS, did help make Photoshopping a verb.

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Many of those pirated copies were used by people who couldn't or wouldn't afford to buy PS. So not entirely a loss of revenue for Adobe.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's ridiculous! Are you a photographer? You are OK if some company uses your images without paying for them because they probably can't afford to pay the full price? That's OK? Theft is theft. It's never acceptable no matter what the thief <em>could</em> afford. </p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>Meanwhile there are people reporting things like "After I photograph a show and during the edit phase I will be opening as many as 100 RAW files at a time from my D4 and running batch actions on them. This will go on for 8 to 10 hours a day for as many days as it takes for me to finish the show. That is typically 4 days. I have found my system to be rock solid under this kind of a load." in a discussion where 36 GB of ram is deemed too little and a 500 GB SSD too small.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're still stuck in the "desktop" paradigm. Once again, he/we/me wont need all that horsepower in the future. Instead of downloading the contents of our cards to our powerful systems, we will upload the contents of our memory cards to the cloud and edit there.</p>

<p>Open a gmail account, download Picasa, and try the future today.</p>