Photoshop software dilemma

[d_ponce]

<p>I actually got in contact with a real live person at Adobe (and that was a minor miracle - they really do not want to be contacted, that is for sure) - and guess what that real-live person said? I have to use the chat option to make a license swap - seriously!? I explained to her that I had tried that and was not able to get that option every place that I tried, so she walked me through it. You have to wait quite some time, but eventually a message pops up - guess what it says - ready for a laugh: "the 24 hours/7 day a week chat is closed" LOL -- but it hurts to laugh. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>For me, Creative Cloud makes dollars and sense (sic).</p>

<p>I rent the full monte - every professional product Adobe makes for less than the cost up keeping the four or five applications I use daily up to date. Furthermore, they stay up to date on a timely basis. I even get to experiment with full, unrestricted versions to see if it's something I should be doing, and all the products talk to each other. Importing and exporting is a breeze.</p>

 

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>You have to wait quite some time, but eventually a message pops up - guess what it says - ready for a laugh: "the 24 hours/7 day a week chat is closed" LOL -- but it hurts to laugh.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's almost as if they'd rather you paid them at least $120 a year for the rest of your life rather than migrating the version you already have :-)</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Have you tried any of these methods?;Never mind, I saw you used the chat line. Curious. Maybe they're trying to seduce you to the latest versions? </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>$10 a month is $1200 over ten years. If you feel it's worth it, then get it. If you're not a pro like me and can live with Lightroom with it's current features (or PS), then save your money and use it for a good printer or another camera. </p>

<p>Adobe CC business plan is a brilliant concept as it increased their customer base and locked in people for life. It's not the same as cable TV, cell phone service, magazines, internet providers, gyms, etc because there are more-or-less equal competitors for these services. Operas and symphonie orchestras are another example that's dissimilar to the cloud as you can drop the subscription and buy individual shows. But it's hard to switch to another editing program if you drop CC as all past edits are not available and you have to relearn a whole new editing program. The guy who thought up the CC should have gotten a huge bonus. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> It's not the same as cable TV, cell phone service, magazines, internet providers, gyms, etc because there are more-or-less equal competitors for these services.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That's not necessarily true. I have a choice between 10Mbps and 100Mbps among two cable providers. That's no more choice than Adobe presents. For TV, I have a choice between 600 channels that includes the Golden State Warriors and five channels I might watch or 200 channels and no basketball. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>But it's hard to switch to another editing program if you drop CC</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe hard, maybe not, <strong>not</strong> impossible. Heck, for $49, you can today purchase a fine <em>editing program</em> that can even read all PDS layers, blend modes etc (Affinity Photo). <br>

You make the FUD sound like, the second you stop subscribing, all your edited files disappear (we heard the FUD about your files vaporizing from <em>'the cloud</em>'; nonsense). </p>

[d_ponce]

<p>ok -- I think the problem has been resolved (I hope :-) What an ordeal! Seriously, I have never spent so much time and effort trying to get help from any company like this before. I easily spent the better part of the day trying to find a solution (lucky it was my day off). The number of times that I kept looping in circles - only to find myself in the same place over and over again - was staggering - each link was called something different, but you will end up on the exact same page as 100 times before. The worst part -- and trust me, I have no idea how this happened -- I'm usually quite careful when I navigate sites to make sure I don't sign up for something I don't want -- well, afterwards, when I went into my email I got a message from Adobe thanking me for signing up for the trial version of CC! <br>

And getting the real-human was only by 'making up' something from the phone prompts, and even that was easier said than done - if you say you need CS6 help that is the end of the road - although it will tell you to go to adobe.com/get support (the start of the never-ending loop), however. <br>

Ok - for any others that have this issue - getting a chat session is the only way to get the swap of the OS version (choose "Other" - if selecting "Photoshop" gets you no where or the never ending loop) - any way that you can get a chat session going is the way to go. They are very nice and go out of their way to be helpful, but a ten minute process literally took almost 2 hours chatting! I can not imagine how that is cost effective for Adobe. In the end, they give you a new serial number and that's it. I did have to ask them to also send the procedure on how to do the new install -- so don't forget to ask for the instructions. I haven't tried it yet (I'm too exhausted to even look at another Adobe site tonight) but it looks like it will work -- again, I hope. Now, the thing about the 'no chat session available' - I do wonder if it had to do with Google Chrome. I have that installed on my new pc and was not able to get a chat session going. When I went to an old pc that uses IE, the chat session was available-- not sure if it was the browser or timing. So, if after I try their procedure I encounter any more issues, I'll keep you posted -- I'll be the miner's canary. :-) good luck and have fun!</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>$10 a month is $1200 over ten years</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photoshop CS2, released in May 2005. So pretty close to the 10 year metric. There have been nine major upgrades in that time. The original version cost about $600. More or less. Upgrades have historically about $149 each! The eight upgrades <strong>alone</strong> would cost $1192, add the original $600, you do the math. And during those eight years, we waited typically 18 months between major updates for major new features unlike the subscription which provide new features on a '<em>regular basis</em>'. And going back OT, a cross platform serial number! <br /> NO, you don't <strong>have</strong> to upgrade all eight versions over the 10 years! But your math provided is pointed to a certain mindset, customer, etc and for some of us (me for sure), I've going to always be working with the latest version with the latest features possible. But that's just me; Photoshop is a TOOL I need to make a living!<br>

A $1200 cost for a tool over ten years use? Something I write off? Not an issue. </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Glad you got what you needed. But you don't really need to be the "canary". You're not the first person that has crossed platforms before. </p>

[andrew_aungthwin1]

"So you bought your internet connection? How did you do that?"

 

Not to mention that when you buy a car you can't get forever registration, insurance nor roadside assistance.

 

$10 a month is less than what my daughter spends (and I pay) on her phone per week.

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>They are very nice and go out of their way to be helpful, but a ten minute process literally took almost 2 hours chatting! I can not imagine how that is cost effective for Adobe.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>They can probably set this against the number of people who will simply give up and more profitably opt for CC, especially as it's cheap to get chat support staffed by outsourced labour.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe hard, maybe not, not impossible. Heck, for $49, you can today purchase a fine editing program that can even read all PDS layers, blend modes etc (Affinity Photo).<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sadly, only on the Mac (or Serif would already have my money).</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>A $1200 cost for a tool over ten years use? Something I write off? Not an issue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I said in my post that for pros, it may make sense. But for the average photographer, who can't write stuff off, you don't have to upgrade every time. How many people upgrade every time Microsoft comes out with a Windows upgrade? The $1200 is way more than the average guy will spend on software upgrades in ten years. The fact is Adobe using CC got people to spend more on subscriptions than they would have purchasing upgrades alone and that reflects in the doubling of their bottom line.<br>

<br>

</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p> The $1200 is way more than the average guy will spend on software upgrades in ten years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What do you base that on?</p>

[digitaldog]

>>But for the average photographer, who can't write stuff off, you don't have to upgrade every time.<<

 

Now that silly line of a debate isn't going to wash!

 

I don't know what "the average" Photograher is or how much he or she is willing to spend and neither do you! You can

speak for yourself and should. As Barry asks, and you cannot answer, what is that based on other than your own opinions

and for yourself? They can't afford X lens, camera, printer, car, house, you get the point. It is very silly to lump a huge

group of different people into a very poor argument when you're only speaking for (and only speak for) yourself.

 

>>The $1200 is way more than the average guy will spend on software upgrades in ten years.<<

 

Unless you can back that up with facts and stats's, I'm going to suggest that is rubbish!

[AlanKlein]

<p>Well you don't know either what each person spent on photo programs. The point is that the people who have upgraded will know whether they spent more or less than $1200 in the last ten years. For those who spent less, or who don;t think they will spend that much going forward (including price increases), than they would be the ones who might want to re-think going on a subscription plan. What's good for you might not be good for them.</p>

[digitaldog]

I don't know and said so plus I don't speak for others and make assumptions! You've done the opposite. Enough said.

[alan_cox3]

<p>I can't imagine that any of us that used to skip every other upgrade are happy with the current marketing model. To attempt to convince us that we should be happy with it, since others like the idea, is rather pointless. (My one and ONLY comment on the subject.)</p>

[andrew_aungthwin1]

<p>Alan, the only constant in life is change.<br>

If you want an internet connection you pay per month. You can possibly change your carrier every two years or something like that but you pay $X per month.<br>

So now, if you WANT Photoshop AND Lightroom you have to pay $10 per month.<br>

This talk of "I skip every other upgrade" is in the past.<br>

It's very simple. You pay $10 per month and get Photoshop and LR CC or you don't.</p>

 

[Richard Williams]

I think everyone on this thread is perfectly aware of how the current rental model works. That doesn't mean they have to like it.

[digitaldog]

>>I can't imagine that any of us that used to skip every other upgrade are happy with the current marketing model.<<

 

Don't try imagining what other's may or may not be happy with, you can't! You can tell us specifically about your

preferences but not others. No one is trying to convince anyone or anything to purchase or subscribe to here in this

thread. Some are pointing out how silly it is to argue for or against anything by speaking for or assuming for others. It's a

really rather lame argument that just doesn't fly. Now that' pointless! Don't want to subscribe to CC? Don't. Fine with me.

[ted_marcus1]

<p>The rental model is really a necessity if Adobe is to remain a thriving company that satisfies its paramount obligation to shareholders. When you have a product that's as mature and feature-rich as Photoshop, it's probably impossible to keep adding truly compelling new features and improvements that make users <em>want</em> to spend $200 for upgrades every year and a half or so.<br /><br />Users who skip upgrades because they don't see enough reason to justify the expense and hassle-- or, God help us, users who remain satisfied with five year old versions-- are effectively worthless parasites who contribute nothing to Adobe's shareholders. And that parasitism was probably threatening an unacceptable increase due to the problem I noted above.<br /><br />The only recourse Adobe had was to adopt a business model that <em>forces</em> users to constantly contribute revenue to Adobe. Many users who depend on Adobe's (monopoly) products for their livelihood, who would buy every new version anyway, find the rental model advantageous. They'll even rise to defend Adobe when someone complains. <br /><br />A minority of users don't find Adobe's new business model advantageous. They tend to be amateurs who do not depend on Adobe's products for their livelihood. They also tend to be the ones who were not consistently buying each new version. Although those users are effectively useless parasites as far as Adobe is concerned, Adobe still wants whatever revenue they're willing to contribute. Thus, Adobe still offer perpetual licensing for Elements and Lightroom, which may adequately meet the needs of users whose livelihood does not require renting the latest version of Photoshop. (They have to offer perpetual licensing for those products because, unlike Photoshop, there <em>are</em> alternatives to them.)<br /><br />Adobe also generously provides the DNG converter as a viable no-cost option for users satisfied with old versions of Photoshop who get new cameras. That, of course, is not offered out of altruism. Adobe wants to encourage adoption of DNG as the standard for raw files. Each user who converts unsupported raw files to DNG helps Adobe toward that goal. As DNG has potential advantages for those users, it's possibly a win-win situation for everyone. <br /><br />While the foregoing explains why Adobe needs to offer their software by subscription, it does not excuse or justify the terrible customer service the original poster experienced.</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>I can't imagine that any of us that used to skip every other upgrade are happy with the current marketing model.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? And again I ask, based on what? I can certainly imagine that. I for one, am one of those, and I love the subscription model. But really, do you have anything beyond your own personal preference to support such a sweeping statement?</p>

[cegeiss]

<p>I'd say Ted summed it up quite nicely.</p>